Talk:Anarchism

This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.sim

A full list of talkpage archives can be found here:Talk:Anarchism/Archives

A proposed guideline to capitalism and an-cap in Anarchism article

Further information: Talk:Anarchism/Archive41 § A proposed guideline to capitalism and an-cap in Anarchism article

• Anarcho-capitalism being given its place in "Schools of Anarchist Thought". It will be given a mention on par with that of the American individualist anarchists - I think this is immensely generous but the an-cap community is well-represented here on WP and I think it's justified. However, the contentious nature of an-cap's place as "anarchist" school must be mentioned, as well as how it markedly stands distinct from the rest of the tradition, being only linked with the American individualists, who are removed from the individualists (Stirner, Proudhon, Godwin, etc, all fervent anti-capitalists). It is because these things are facts and any other representation is a misrepresentation and a distortion of POV.
• That mention being the only one of anarcho-capitalism in the article. That is where the individual particular schools are mentioned and the interested reader guided towards more fuller explanations of the theory. AnCap claims to be one of those schools, it obviously has some influence on WP so it must be humoured, but its influence on the majority trend in anarchism approaches zero - its marginal views will not be repeated. If all these differences must be crammed into their "Schools of Anarchist Thought" entry, making that section a bit larger than might be fair, so be it.
• Both "communism" and "capitalism" be addresses in "Issues in anarchism" - the anarcho-capitalists are not the only people in the broader anarchist tradition to distrust communism. However, because of the overwhelming view amongst anarchists, rejection of capitalism must clearly be shown as the more popular view in anarchism.

What is attempted through this scheme is to give anarcho-capitalism a fair representation in the Anarchism article, allowing those who might be interersted in it to view the extensive and well-written anarcho-capitalism article, but not to let an-cap hijack the article as it has continuously since the very beginning. I am not as naїve as to believe that Anarchism will suddenly become a stable article, but we need a more-or-less consensual agreement - a peace-treaty of sorts - to allow this article and this section of Wikipedia to function.

Sincerely yours, --GoodIntentions^talk 03:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Extra ward quotes on anarcho-capitalism

Id like to add a couple of points from Ward about anarcho-capitalism. The first's his point about their solution to social and political problems in US. There are none or they are regarded by most anarchist as a "pathetic evasion of the issues raised by the anarchist criticism of American society". Also id like the point about some writers and their books from this tradition: "Robert Paul Wolff's In Defence of Anarchism; Robbert Nozick's Anarchy, State and Utopia; David Friedman's The Machinery of Freedom; and Murray Rothbard's For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto. This Phalanx of authors have provided the 'ideological superstructure' of the swing to the Right in federal and local politics in the United States, and in British politics for the aim of 'rolling back the frontiers of the State', which was actually a cloak for increased subservience to central decision-making." Stating that its a "different form of libertarianism" isnt really saying anything about anarcho-capitalism in-it-self. I think theres a need to write statement from the sources rather then only references. In Ward's case also because his view about this topic seems to be very steady and to the point. --Fjulle 23:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the ancap section is fine at the moment and those suggestion, all of which sound good, would be better suited on the ancap article where more detail is likely warranted. Blockader 23:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Religion section (again)

They both reject organized religion so again, I took the 'on the other hand' out. Read the section. "most anarchists" and Christian anarchists all reject organized religion and hierachal structures. This is simple. Just read it! Whiskey Rebellion 05:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Suggested addition to article

Overview section, right after the introduction, before Origins, which describes how anarchists have broadly described themselves and their movements. All the major anarchists have set their thought out in this way, with a "What is Anarchy" pamphlet or the like, but this article doesn't, having instead given over to edit-creep where we have pages of minutae incrementally added and no collective vision. If we have a proper lead-in on what the various views of anarchism is we can:

1. Bemore informative
2. Avoid POV
3. Be more concise

Having described the broader vision of the literary, social and libertarian conceptions of anarchism we can then briefly set out a description of how these views has developed, allwijg the casual reader to see the different trends for what they are, allowing us to make the Anarchist Ideologies section both shorter and more informative. --GoodIntentions^talk 06:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems like a bad idea at the moment. Such section can only become another source of dispute and edit warring. -- Vision Thing -- 19:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree: we don't make broad statements such as "most anarchists" but instead have people partitioned according to their beliefs. Differences can be made clearer. But since the only comment has been a negative one I won't go through with this right now. --GoodIntentions^talk 00:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Slightly off topic, but could we avoid using the term "believe" or "beliefs", which are inappropriate for ideologues. Views, arguments, anything but beliefs (which are irrational). Donnacha 00:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Good point. I appreciate your recent edits to the article, Donnacha. --GoodIntentions^talk 04:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

If there's any anarchist ideologies that put weight on beliefs, and they might be all sorts of beliefs, then they are essential. Really its hard to imagine knowing anything without beleiving in it as well! That said, belief isnt everything, which is why whenever the belief of a ideology is put forward there should also be made room for the reason(s) or justification(s) thats appropriate. While the latest might seem more rational, a concept about knowledge without belief as a condition is not. --Fjulle 18:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

You should read some (more?) Robert Anton Wilson ;)Donnacha 19:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, I'm renaming Anarchist Ideologies to Schools of Anarchist Thought, which is more accurate and has a nicer ring to it. I can't stand the people trying to explain us to ourselves with platitudes like 'ideology'. --GoodIntentions^talk 06:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, anarchocapitalists

Through running through the sources in an attempt to find sources saying that the sun rises in the east, I have read some things I haven't since I was a dewy-eyed kid proud of being an anarchist. Communism and Anarchy by Peter Kropotkin - just look at that beauty! --GoodIntentions^talk 05:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

"Their true place (anarcho-capitalists) is in the group of right-wing libertarians described in chptr3"  : (using political ideas by barbara goodwin ISBN 0471935840). standard ist yr politics text book in uk universities maxrspct in the mud 20:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Archived talk page

At a piffly 352kb (aren't edit wars fun?) I thought it was necessary: Talk:Anarchism/Archive41 --GoodIntentions^talk 05:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Bogus sources

"Goodintentions" you're putting in bogus sources again. You're putting this in as a source saying that ancap is not a form of anarchism: "Although individualistic theories of anarchy are often identified with laissez-faire capitalism (anarcho-capitalism) the connection is not a logical one Barry, Norman. Modern Political Theory, 2000, Palgrave, p. 70" That does not say say that anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism. Let's look at the fuller quote: "Although individualistic theories of anarchy are often identified with laissez-faire capitalism (anarcho-capitalism) the connection is not a logical one. Rather, it is the case that capitalist relationships tend to emerge from the withdrawal of the monopoly state; there is, however, no necessity for this and, indeed, if property rules turn out to be communitarian this would be perfectly legitimate. The individualist anarchist (Rothbard, 1970) rejects the state on grounds of efficiency (the private market, it is claimed, can deliver public services effectively according to price) and morality (the state claims by its authority to do things that are not premitted to ordinary individuals)." Barry is saying that if you remove the state, capitalism will tend to emerge, but that's not necessary because it's always possible that people will be communists or "communitarians." He even refers to Rothbard as an "individualist anarchist." So that's not a source of someone saying that anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism. DTC 06:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Attack me personally again. Do it. I want you to. The quote is clear as day: go away and stop bothering me. --GoodIntentions^talk 06:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The author is saying that it is not logically necessary that capitalism will emerge if the state withdraws. He obviously is not saying anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism. You've been putting bogus sources in this article, and we're not going to stand for it. DTC 06:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The source says that the connection between individualist anarchism and anarcho-capitalism isn't logical - what could possibly be clearer? When I originally pointed out that this quote doesn't say what you claimed it to you removed it! --GoodIntentions^talk 06:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

You can't understand what he is saying from that one sentence. Read the following sentence. He is saying that it's not necessary that capitalism will result of the state is withdrawn. He's not saying that individualist anarchism is not a form of anarchism. You see, anarcho-capitalist individualist anarchists think that if you remove the state that capitalism will naturally emerge. He is disputing that and says that communitarianism could emerge. It's not logically necessary that capitalism will emerge. DTC 06:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Irrelevant! --GoodIntentions^talk 06:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Let me lay it out for you, nice and clear:

1. laissez-fair capitalism exists, and is often called anarcho-capitalism
2. individualist anarchism exists
3. a connection is sometimes identified between them
4. that connection is a bogus one

Then, it goes on to say:

1. capitalism tends to emerge as the state shrinks
2. this isn't a necessary event
3. communitarian property emerging from anarchy would also be plausible
4. Rothbard exists
5. Rothbard was an individualist anarchist (this doesn't say that the link between ancap and IA is logical)
6. Rothbard opposed the state because etc.

Only the first amount of claims are of interest to this article. You are saying that the claim that Rothbard was an individualist anarchist overrides him earlier saying that ancap and IA aren't logically connected. He's merely stating a claim, not judging it, where earlier he had judged explicitely that the two aren't a cogent claim. A bad claim is still a claim, and Rothbard certainly claimed to be an indiv anarchist - this is cited as a source saying this is a bad claim. Which is does! For the sake of all that is holy, stop bohering me! --GoodIntentions^talk 06:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

You've got it all wrong. He is saying that there is no logical necessity that the withdrawal of the state that individualists want will result in capitalism. He says though that would "tend" to happen, what MAY happen is that a communitarian system would result. You're dead wrong to claim that he is saying anarcho-capitalism is not a form of individualist anarchism. Notice the "Rather" after that sentence. That means the next sentence applies to the previous sentence. Don't take the sentence out of context. What you're doing is inexcusable and highly disruptive. DTC 06:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

What you are arguing is irrelevant - I've made my argument, which you have not addressed. What this author considers the logical outcome of statelessness does not matter for what he has been sourced for. --GoodIntentions^talk 07:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Look at the quote: "Although individualistic theories of anarchy are often identified with laissez-faire capitalism (anarcho-capitalism) the connection is not a logical one. Rather, it is the case that capitalist relationships tend to emerge from the withdrawal of the monopoly state; there is, however, no necessity for this and, indeed, if property rules turn out to be communitarian this would be perfectly legitimate." He is saying that it's not logically necessary that if the state withdraws that capitalism will emerge. "Rather" capitalism will "tend" to emerge. There is no logical necessity that it will. He even says straight out that anarcho-capitalism is an "individualistic theory of anarchy." DTC 07:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

No he fucking doesn't. Read it: Although individualistic theories of anarchy are often identified with laissez-faire capitalism (anarcho-capitalism) the connection is not a logical one. He says, straight out, that the link between ancap and IA isn't logical. He says the link is often made, but that it's wrong. Stop lying. --GoodIntentions^talk 07:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Stop taking the sentence out of context. You have to read the following sentence, which says "Rather, it is the case that capitalist relationships tend to emerge from the withdrawal of the monopoly state; there is, however, no necessity for this and, indeed, if property rules turn out to be communitarian this would be perfectly legitimate." When he says there is no logical connection between individualist anarchism and laissez-faire capitalism is not saying saying that anarcho-capitalism is not individualist anarchism AT ALL. He is talking about a logical connection between cause and effect. There is no logical necessity that capitalism will result if the state is withdrawn. Rather, that "tends" to be the effect. He's saying what individualists want (the withdrawal of the state) could result is something non-individualist...something "communitarian." That's what he's saying. That could be something to put in the article, and is a good point. DTC 08:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

What are you doing, DTC?

What is possibly, possibly lacking in the section you are striking? I nicely sourced it, I had explanatory footnotes, it was cogent, meaningful and informative, it wasn't POV, it explained the dispute, what is wrong with it? Perhaps you dislike the wording "offshoot of libertarianism" - but then you could have changed it to "closer linked to libertarianism than anarchism" - which is a claim, and plainly identified as one, and a sourced one! Explain it to me, please, because you are driving me up the walls. Not only are your versions misleading, but they read badly. --GoodIntentions^talk 07:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Ward is not saying what you're saying he's saying (no surprise there). He is not saying that anarcho-capitalism is libertarianism rather than anarcho-capitalism. He is saying that anarcho-capitalism is a "different form of libertarianism" than 19th century libertarianism. He says the 19th century individualist anarchists are libertarians too. He uses "libertarianism" interchangeably with "anarchism." They are often used a synonyms in anarchist literature. He also calls Kropotkin a libertarian: "The libertarians of the Right have, nevertheless, a function in the spectrum of anarchist discussion. Every anarchist propagandist finds that the audience or readership is perplexed by the very idea that it might be possible to organize human life without government. That is why Kropotkin, as a libertarian of the Left, as we saw in Chapter 3, insisted that anarchist propagandists should identify new forms of organization for those functions that the state noew fullfills through bureaucracy." DTC 07:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh come off it. He notes the difference between right-libertarians and left-libertarians - on wikipedia libertarianism refers almost exclusively to those on the right (libertarian socialism is self-explanatory as a left-wing term). We could change it to right-libertarian, but I thought I was being nice. In fact, I thought I was being awe-fucking-inspiring in my reasonableness, considering the POV pushing you lot have done here. --GoodIntentions^talk 07:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes he does note the difference between left and right libertarians. But he does not say that libertarians are not anarchists. "Libertarianism" is simply a synonym for anarchism. Yes anarcho-capitalists are libertarians. But so are 19th century individualist anarchists, and so are anarcho-communists. Don't make it look like he is using it in the sense as it's used in the Wikipedia article. He does not use it in that way. DTC 07:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

What else does he mean when he says ancaps appropriated the term libertarian? Because the term libertarian no longer is a straight synonym for anarchist. Anyway, I said that those who reject ancap's claim to anarchism make a distinction between "libertarianism" (right-libertarianism) and "anarchism" (left-libertarianism) but those who claim ancap's anarchist pedigree don't. This argument seems like an excellent example. I'm trying to explain things in the article, DTC, please try to play nice with others. --GoodIntentions^talk 07:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

No he is not saying that "libertarianism" is no longer a synonym for anarchism. Obviously he's still using it as a synonym and many other writers do as well. The article already said that Ward said that anarcho-capitalism was a "different style of libertarianism" from 19th century individualism. DTC 07:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Not obvious: show me where he says it. Outright. He makes a distinction between right- and left-libertarianism. It's that distinction that I was trying to represent. Reword it if you want, but don't strike it out. --GoodIntentions^talk 07:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

"In the 1970s, a series of books, from academics rather than activists, proclaimed a different style of American libertarianism." Chapter 7, page 66. He is saying that anarcho-capitalism is a different style of libertarianism that 19th century individualism. But, both are libertarians. DTC 07:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Right of left libertarianism? Libertarianism is neither left nor right by nature and definition. Whiskey Rebellion 07:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

You are not coherent. We are not talking essentialism, but the typical use of the term. And if Rothbard and Kropotkin mean the same thing by libertarianism and anarchism, then I will by Whiskey's date to his senior prom. --GoodIntentions^talk 10:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Strange, DTC, that you would do multiple edits to reach the same version as before, plus whatever we forced you to accept under pain of death. Trying to make it appear like you aren't reverting? I really wish your stable versions were legible and informative. --GoodIntentions^talk 10:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I know that I'm supposed to be a ghost, but I couldn't help but notice, while lurking, that DTC had inserted "anti-capitalist" into the sentence "than the kind held by 19th and 20th century anti-capitalist individualist anarchists." Unfortunately, Ward makes no mention of any such thing as a "capitalist individualist anarchist." He writes only of individualist anarchists, tout court. He refers to anarcho-capitalists, whom DTC views as capitalist individualist anarchists, once, pejoratively, in reference to "anarcho-capitalist apologists" -- the rest of the time he refers to them as "Right libertarians" or some other such thing, but only after noting that they had appropriated the term "libertarian" from anarchists. RJII should really stop bastardizing this source, even though its conclusions contradict the hard-wiring in his brain, which, after being marinated in anti-aging chemicals, probably misfires quite a bit.

I also suggest that some of the less biased people editing this article purchase a copy of this very reasonably-priced book (it's pretty easy to find) instead of relying on the substantial quotations that I provided in previous discussion. Although my quotations made all of these points obvious to anybody who did not already have the same prejudices as RJII/DTC, a full read of the book will make them all the more clearer. Also, it's pretty obvious that RJII/DTC is relying solely on a strange interpretation of the quotations that I have provided, and has not actually read the book. Ta ta, --AaronS 12:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't believe in ghosts. DTC 16:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Opposition to AC as anarchist a "minority view"

The view that Anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron with no place in anarchism is so widely accepted that it's difficult to find direct sources that state it. Opposition to capitalism is a fundamental part of anarchism for virtually all scholars, activists and writers around the world. Of course it's easy, in any disagreement, to find a key selection of pieces arguing the minority view, but the fact that many theorists have no reference to Ancaps does not mean that they would ever agree with the idea that it's part of anarchism. Any scholar, activist or writer who puts forward the principle that anarchism is, by definition, opposed to capitalism would logically reject anarcho-capitalism. Donnacha 08:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The article stated as much, before DTC and That'sHot came along. --GoodIntentions^talk 10:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

You're simply wrong. It's a minority fringe of scholars that say anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism. Mainstream academia regard ancap as anarchism. Also note that you will find almost no definitions of anarchism that has anything to do with rejecting capitalism. "Anarchism is the name of a political philosophy or to group of doctrines and attitudes that are centered on rejection of government, or the state, as harmful and unnecessary and support its elimination," according to the sourced definition in this article. Yes most types of anarchism oppose capitalism but that's not necessary to be an anarchist. DTC 16:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Real anarchism is opposed to coercion, hierarchy and wage slavery - it has been in all cases until a bunch of nutty Austrians tried to hi-jack the term and argued for a form of anarchism based on hierarchy and wage slavery with intrinsic coercion. Opposition to the state is actually secondary in most cases, the state is opposed because it its existence prevents a social revolution, not because it's the primary target. Anarchism is defined by anarchists, from Godwin and Proudhon, through their descendents of all shades. "Anarcho"-capitalists rape the bones of the individualists and claim it's a tribute. Donnacha 16:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

No, you're making up your own definition of anarchism. You can't say that because most anarchists oppose such and such that therefore that's what makes them anarchists. That just happens to be what most anarchists oppose. The only thing that makes someone an anarchists is that they oppose the existence of the state. And you're wrong about how anarcho-capitalists treat the 19th century individualist anarchists. They explicitly say they reject their economics. What they agree with is that the state should withdraw and that liberty and property should be protected by competing businesses. Opposition to the state is also secondary for anarcho-capitalists. They reject it because they reject coercion. DTC 16:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

And yet, they accept the more coercive power of industry. Bourgeois industrialists created the state to defend their new industrial power. Only persistent pressure from anarchists, among others, softened the state. The battle for reasonable work hours was won when anarchists, among others, succeeded in forcing the state to stop industrialists working them to death. Thus, the coercive power of industrialists is and has historically been, the big bad. Anyone who ridiculously believes that, if you remove the limited protections afforded by the state without dismantling big business and capitalism, is living in cloud-cuckoo-land. And that's not just my view, it's the view of the world's most renowned anarchist academic, Chomsky. Donnacha 17:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

So, your point is that use the state to coerce the coercers is what marks "true" anarchism? Use the machinery of the state to enforce hard limits on a business is anarchism?? —Memotype::T 19:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The purpose of anarchism is not simply some remote, meaningless future. It's about maximising freedom. If a state offers a National Health System, free to all-comers at the point of use, and a bunch of private companies push for privatisation so they can charge people - which maximises freedom? Ignoring the private companies and destroy the state? Or campaign against the companies and maintain the access to health services for all? As Chomsky points out in "Chomsky on anarchism", the state, at least, provides some element of democracy and should be pushed to provide ever more. Corporations provide no element of democracy at all and the idea that the state should be destroyed without dismantling corporate capitalism is insane. Donnacha 21:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Another point. Most anarchists oppose what individualists support, which is private police, militaries, and prisons. Does that mean individualist anarchists are not anarchists? No, because opposition to police, armies, and prisons is not how anarchism is defined. Albert Meltzer, who is cited in this article, says the Benjamin Tucker and his contemporaries are not real anarchists. But that is an extreme fringe POV. Those who say ancap is not a form of anarchism usually put the 19th century individualists in the category of non-anarchists too. Mainstream scholarship regards them both as anarchists. DTC 17:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. Most anarchists of all shades do accept the individualist tradition, though the non-individualists do criticise it as being unworkable (just as the individualists do to the communists). The very fact that leads to both shades being defined as anarchism is their opposition to the capitalism, because their views on what constitutes the state vary. This piece needs, as I pointed out elsewhere, a piece on the synthesis of both trends. Donnacha 17:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't dispute that most anarchists oppose anarcho-capitalism and would say that it's not a form of anarchism. But these are anarchists in general. Those anarchists can't define anarchism for an encyclopedia article, unless they're published anarchists. Definitions of anarchism and whether a philosophy is anarchist or not has to come from scholars. Most scholars, both non-anarchists and anarchist, say anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism. That is the mainstream view. The statement that "most anarchists don't think anarcho-capitalism is a legitimate form of anarchism" is probably true. But that is different from this statement: "Most scholars don't think anarcho-capitalism is a legitimate form of anarchism." The first statement is trivial. Of course most anarchists, if they're anti-capitalists, would reject anarcho-capitalism. But, they're not the ones who matter. What matters is what published scholars say (which may include anarchists). Just as there is a minority of scholars that say anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism, there are a minority of scholars that say Benjamin Tucker wasn't a real anarchism. Albert Meltzer says in his book Anarchism For and Against: "The second line of descent from Godwin is responsible for the 'Pacifist Anarchist' approach or the 'Individualist Anarchist' approach that differs from revolutionary anarchism. It is sometimes too readiy conceded that this is after all, anarchism. Pacifist movments, and the Ghandian in particular, are usually totalitarian and impose authority (even if only by moral means); the school of Benjamin Tucker - by virtue of their individualism - accepted the need for police to break up strikes so as to guarantee the employer's 'freedom'. All this school of so-called individaulists accept, at one time or another, the necessity of a police force, hence for government, and the definition of anarchism is no government." He also opposes anarcho-capitalism for the same reason and says it's not real anarchism. DTC 17:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The actual mainstream of academics tends to be full of Marxists, who have every interest in defaming anarchism. It's also full of capitalists, who have every interest in defaming anarchism. Also, I'm fairly confident that the majority of non-American and non-Austrian political academics have never said anything at all about "A"C because they recognise it as an oxy-moron. Anarchism is an historical tradition, "A"C doesn't fit. Any attempt to force it in is a wrecking attempt. However, I've not once tried to delete it from this article. I have, however, tried to undue the attempts of "A"Cs to imply that only a minority opposes it. Anarchism is defined by anarchists and the vast majority reject "A"C. Donnacha 18:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

But you're just saying this. The sources indicate otherwise. Look at the sources in this article. These are widely-distributed mainstream books and encyclopedias about anarchism. And there are not written by anarcho-capitalists. Many of them are written by anti-capitalists, but they still say ancap is one of the several forms of anarchism. Anyone who researches the sources can't come to any other conclusion than that it's a minority POV among scholars that ancap is not a form of anarchism. By the way Meltzer is not a Marxist but an anarcho-communist. DTC 19:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

So now you attempt to circumvent wp policy about sources by saying that all of the sources have some hidden agenda. Boogie-man logic does not apply here. —Memotype::T 19:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Again, have I tried to delete the section on "A"C? No. Do I want proper reflection of the fact that most anarchists do not accept it? Not even that. Do I want proper reflection of the reality that most anarchist activists and notable scholars do not regard it as part of anarchism and that that opposition is not a minority view? Yes. There is opposition here to using the infoshop Anarchist FAQ as a source because it's "biased", yet there's automatic acceptance of the judgement of scholars, many of whom have views opposed to anarchism. Donnacha 20:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you have evidence that most scholars do not regard it as a form of anarchism? No you don't. The evidence indicates otherwise. Very few scholars consider it non-anarchist. The FAQ is not unreliable because it's biased but because it's an internet FAQ. Anyone can write a FAQ and post it on the internet. There are all sorts of FAQs floating around the internet. But they're not published documents and few are written written by scholars. DTC 20:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I never said most scholars, I said most activists. The FAQ will be published by AK Press in a few months, will it magically become more reliable then? The infoshop FAQ is not any old FAQ, it's a core part of modern anarchist theory. It is a scholarly work, as I pointed out below, I know at least one of the contributors. Donnacha 21:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I have not accused you of trying to delete the section, perhaps you are confusing me with someone else. My point is merely that your argument attempts to refute the scholarly acceptance of anarcho-capitalism on the grounds that the scholars have some kind of agenda for "defaming" anarchism. Wikipedia has a policy on sources, and scholarly sources will be accepted above non-scholarly sources. —Memotype::T 20:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but when have I objected to the sources in the article? I disagree with them and do reckon many have something against anarchism, but I haven't attempted to change anything in the article based on that. It's my own view. The way I've put it in the article is that within the anarchist movement, it is not a minority view to reject "A"S. Which is accurate and the view of non-anarchist scholars has nothing to do with it. Donnacha 21:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

American individualist anarchism

Are there any experts on Goldman and de Cleyre's attempts to synthesize egoism/individualism with the more left-wing varieties of anarchism? It would be good to add this in if someone could put it together (I'd have to do some research and I don't really have the time to do it). Donnacha 10:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Goldman reject individualist anarchism. De Cleyre was an individualist anarchist for awhile and opposed Goldman's philosophy: "..Miss Goldman is a communist; I am an individualist. She wishes to destroy the right of property, I wish to assert it. I make my war upon privilege and authority, whereby the right of property, the true right in that which is proper to the individual, is annihilated. She believes that co-operation would entirely supplant competition; I hold that competition in one form or another will always exist, and that it is highly desirable it should." But, later De Cleyre rejected individualist anarchism saying "Socialism and Communism both demand a degree of joint effort and administration which would beget more regulation than is wholly consistent with ideal Anarchism; Individualism and Mutualism, resting upon property, involve a development of the private policeman not at all compatible with my notion of freedom." So, she turned to anarchism without adjectives. DTC 19:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, not completely accurate, as Goldman became more interested in individual liberty as she grew older. Her ideas brought the concept of personal liberty from the theoretical to the personal in very real sense, pioneering the now core concepts of true gender equality, sexual liberty and personal freedom - borrowing from Stirner, Nietzsche and Freud, among others. Donnacha 20:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

"most activists"...

The assertion in the Anarcho-capitalism section that "most activists" reject a/c is unsourced. Just because most of the activists you happen to hang out with reject a/c, does not mean you have a necessarily accurate cross-section of anarchists. If this has been varified with research, please cite a source, otherwise I will ensure that it is marked "dubious" until then. —Memotype::T 13:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales specifically says to clear unsourced statements aggressively, rather than just put a cite tag on them. And my sentiments exactly. Whiskey Rebellion 14:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Most anarchists are anti-capitalist, thus, by definition, they reject the oxymoronic "anarcho-capitalism". The world's largest anarchist organisations are anarcho-syndicalist, thus reject the oxymoronic "anarcho-capitalism". "Anarcho-capitalism" is "outside the mainstream" of anarchist theory, thus is not accepted by most anarchists. Most anarchists are so dismissive of the oxymoronic "anarcho-capitalism" that they don't even bother talking about it. Donnacha 14:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Uh yes, anarcho-capitalism is supposedly not in the mainstream of anarchists and most anarchists reject it. They don't like it. So what? That doesn't meant it's not a form of anarchism. All individualist anarchists reject anarcho-communism. Does that mean anarcho-communism it not a form of anarchism? DTC 16:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

"Most activists", by definition, means the mainstream. Those within the mainstream do not accept accept that "A"C is anarchism. Thus, what I put is correct. Accepting "A"C as anarchism is akin to accepting a uniformed cop as an anarchist if he waves a red and black flag while hitting you with his truncheon. Donnacha 16:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Um, Whiskey, I don't think Jimbo says that, or you've quoted him way out of context. The overwhelming majority of Wikipedia statements are unsourced, and that's mainly because they're obvious or otherwise non-controversial. Jimbo probably doesn't want 90% of Wikipedia to be aggressively deleted. Just a thought. That said, though, when it comes to what "most anarchists" believe, it's very important to pin down how this is determined and what the source is. MrVoluntarist 14:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't say "most anarchists", it says "most activists" and, other than web warriors, I'm not aware of major AC activist groups or individuals. Anarchist opposition to capitalism is plain to see on every anarchist news site, at every major anti-capitalist protest, etc - this is where you find the views of anarchist activists. The infoshop Anarchist FAQ puts forth the view of most anarchist activists:

"F.1 Are "anarcho"-capitalists really anarchists?

In a word, no. While "anarcho"-capitalists obviously try to associate themselves with the anarchist tradition by using the word "anarcho" or by calling themselves "anarchists", their ideas are distinctly at odds with those associated with anarchism. As a result, any claims that their ideas are anarchist or that they are part of the anarchist tradition or movement are false." Donnacha 15:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Most anarchists don't work for a group that works with the United Nations while protesting United Nations suborganizations at the same time. Most anarchists are also big time against arms control campaigns. You keep calling ancap "oxymoronic". Well, plenty of anarchists say the same for communist-anarchism. If there ever was an oxymoron there is an enormous one. And to MrVoluntarist, Jimbo Wales most definitely says to wipe out uncited sources. (Not well known obvious ones like Africa is a continent. Whiskey Rebellion 15:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Good stuff with the personal attacks, as you're not an anarchist your definition is meaningless. "A"C is oxy-moronic because anarchism is anti-capitalist, has been since the beginning and the hijacking of the term by a bunch of academics changes nothing. infoshop is a widely accepted guide to mainstream anarchism and what it says about the oxymoronic "A"C is what most anarchist activists think. As for whether anarcho-communism is oxymoronic, you'll find that most arguments on that level are strawman arguments. "A"Cs want unbriddled corporate capitalism and wage slavery to continue, while all shades of real anarchists want voluntary co-operation based on equality. The idea that Anarchist Communists want to force anyone to do anything is a contractiction in terms, thus claims that anarcho-communism will be oppressive is, quite frankly, wrong. It is a theory about the best way to organise an anarchist society, if the people in that society don't want it, then it won't happen. "A"C, on the other hand, by arguing against the dismantlement of hierarchical capitalism and, in fact, fighting on the side of corporations against any attempts to restrict their abuses, would lead to the most horrific society imaginable where nobody would be free. Donnacha 16:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you seriously using that FAQ as a source? That's laughable. It's a POV piece written by anarchy kids on the internet. DTC 16:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

"Squawk! Squawk!" goes the RJII parrot. --24.34.81.12 21:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

So you know them, do you? I know at least one of the contributors, and to call one of Ireland's most experienced and knowledgable anarchists, Andrew Flood an "anarchy kid" just shows how ignorant you are. Yes, it's a POV piece, it's a written from an anarchist point of view. Donnacha 16:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

His viewpoint is irrelevant. That's like you putting up a web page. Just because you put up a web page and write articles on post them on the internet it doesn't meant that your view counts for anything. DTC 17:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Nice shifting of the goalposts. He's also been published in books, and stuff. Isn't Andrew great? Donnacha 17:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

If a publisher has published his work then cite it. There is no way to know what words, if any, came from him in that FAQ anyway. That FAQ can't stand up as a reliable source here. DTC 17:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

For the record - Flood, Andrew: Dreaming of a Reality Where the Past and Future Meet the Present, in Chapter 2, "We are everywhere", Verso, 2003. Nothing relevant to this article in it, though (and strangely no articles for the Encounters).

If a publisher has published his work then cite it. There is no way to know what words, if any, came from him in that FAQ anyway. That FAQ is not a reliable source here. DTC 17:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

That is rather ridiculous. In the past the Anarchist FAQ was excluded from inclusion becuase it was only published online and i agree with that decision. Now, however, it is being published and must again be considered for inclusion as a source. I am for inclusion personally as it represents the majority beliefs of the majority of anarchists. No I don't have a poll confirming that most anarchists are anti-capitalist, it is simply a fact backed by the weight of historical and academic record and by contemporary observation. Donnacha is right in all that she says. Blockader 17:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Yup, because any project based on free co-operation among individuals is unreliable. Why exactly are you here, other than to cause trouble? Granted, that does seem to be the purpose of all "A"Cs, it doesn't make any sense. You take a broad historical tradition, with contradictions and disagreements because it's a lot of humans, and you decide, despite rejecting all but the simplest dictionary definition of anarchism, that you want to be part of it. It's irrational and the only reason I can see for it is to undermine and discredit anarchism by associating it with its opposite, capitalism. Donnacha 17:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't start attacking me and my motivations. Stick to the subject matter. But since you bring it up, let's get something straight. I'm not an anarcho-capitalist. I'm not an anarchist of any kind. This article needs more people like me, who aren't so entrenched in their anarchist POV ("my anarchism is real and yours is not, nya nya, and all that") and can have a more objective look at things. DTC 18:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Donnacha attacks on a regular basis. It's okay, you see, becuase he's Irish or so it says here. I am not an anarcho-capitalist either but am an actual anarchist. Whether I am or am not an anarcho-capitalist should have nothing to do with whether it gets included in this article in a factual manner as you realize, DTC. There is incredible POV and bias in almost this entire article. There is also WP:OWN. Anarchists do not work for arms control, Donnacha. Being able to obtain arms, so one can have them when necessary, is as rudimentary an anarchist concept as is imaginable. It's called self defense against an oppressive state. And you tell me I'm not an anarchist? You have been warned, Donnacha, by two admins for WP:NPA, WP:3RR, among others. You also keep saying that you'll stop doing these things but keep doing them anyway. Keep going. Whiskey Rebellion 18:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

No, my dear, I've attacked you before. I'm not going to bother again, because I don't care what you think or say. As for whether or not anarchists work for arms control, I've told you time and time again that the Control Arms campaign is about the arms trade, not personal ownership, and opposition to the arms trade is one of the most prominent anarchist campaigns worldwide. So you're showing that you know nothing about real anarchism. Donnacha 18:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

You just attacked me again. It's sorta obvious that if the trade is stopped it'll be a lot harder to own. You just said it all,"opposition to the arms trade is one of the most prominent anarchist campaigns worldwide". I am floored at this statement. Now we're getting to the bottom of all this contention. These are not anarchists. Whoever you're talking about here are just not anarchists. I can tell you right now the Black Bloc are not campaigning for arms control. If they are now campaigning for arms control they are not the Black Bloc anymore. But I find that real hard to believe. Now if you told me that the G8 and the U.N. are campaigning for arms control I would believe you because we already know that. The U.N. and it's corrupt monetary and military power is the G8. Something a little off here, folks? Whiskey Rebellion 19:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

No, honey, I criticised you. No wonder you've got such an obsession with guns if you regard every criticism as an attack. The arms trade is attacked by every right thinking anti-capitalist for profiting from human misery. The vast majority of anarchists no longer believe in armed violence. Self-defence is the obsession of the scared. I've already said I'm Irish, I grew up in a society where violence was rife only a hundred miles or so to the North. An armed population leads to an armed state, which leads to greater violence. An unarmed population with a less armed state is easier to control. But, hey, look at how much control people in the great armed USA have over the government, how much freedom they increasingly have, compared to us poor oppressed non-gun owners in Europe. Donnacha 20:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not your honey. And you are extremely confused about an awful lot of things. F the U.S. state, I'll agree on that. And f those European states that want to control the arms trade and are bunch of total hypocrites. Also. Look up the word anarchist. I think you may have it confused with totalitarianist. Too, for a northern Irishman you sound awful British. Whiskey Rebellion 20:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Look, dahlink, a hundred miles or so to the North would imply that I might be a Southern Irishman (which I am, Dublin born and bred). And Jaysus, are ye after sayin' dat I sound like one a' dem Brits, are ya? Fer fuck's sake, bud! I've said it before and I'll say it again, you don't know what real anarchism is and I don't care about your opinion. I'm happy to remain in the company of other real anarchists who don't think having guns all over the place is freedom, people like Noam Chomsky. Donnacha 21:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Settle down

Please, everyone settle down and absolutely no personal attacks. The discussion in the above thread has strayed beyond the civility line. Please keep further discussion within the appropriate limits of civil discourse. Thank you -- Samir धर्म 01:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, please return to the thinly-veiled threats and abuse of Wikipedia policy that satirize civil discussion. I love it. --LordTimothyDexter 02:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree with Samir. Any more straying from civility or NPA and I will be handing out blocks. Everyone involved in the discussion above really should be ashamed of themselves. It is not a requirement that one be an anarchist to edit this article. It is also not a requirement that one be a particular type of anarchist. It's all "argument for the sake of argument". Stick to making this a good Wikipedia article and keep the attacks out of the equation. --Woohookitty^(meow) 04:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

LOL! And there was me thinking my attempts at uber-campness would take the sting out of it! Donnacha 08:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I protected the page

Hopefully it'll be for just a short time. Time to enforce a cooling off period. I'd suggest that everyone take some time off from this article, simmer down and then come back. I'd say "work things out" but I'm not sure that's even a possibility. --Woohookitty^(meow) 04:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

When we come back DTC/RJII will make this article unmanagable again. Acting unilaterally and in dishonesty. What are we supposed to do? You can see the efforts of myself and others in an attempt to be constructive and all that. I've even (in the proposal at the top of the page) offered those advancing ancap something they've argued for years, and the school does not really deserve. Immidiately the goalposts get shifted - not only must we give a fringe-view equal representation to movements that attracted millions, but now we can't mention that it's a fringe view. This gamesmanship, misrepresentation and single-minded dishonesty is driving me up the walls - what am I supposed to do? Look at where he calls a source I added bonus - personal attack, lies and conscious misrepresentation. Ban DTC and this goes away. --GoodIntentions^talk 12:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Look at this and this - POV pushing, blatantly. WHat am I supposed to do with this monomaniacal liar? --GoodIntentions^talk 12:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)