Template talk:Anarchism sidebar/Archive 2

Archives

• Archive 1 (2005 to July 2006)

anarcho-capitalism

Anarcho-capitalism is viewed by nearly all anarchists as an outside movement that uses the term "anarchy" to denote a concept that is entirely different from "anarchy" as it has been used by all previous anarchists in the history of the movement. Anarcho-capitalism bears the same relationship to anarchism that Creation Science bears to science: it is an attempt to gain legitimacy by misusing a well-defined term. --Aelffin 17:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Why is it disputed? If individualist anarchism can be part of the template, then certainly anarcho-capitalism can too. Intangible 21:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The dispute is to whether anarcho-capitalism is anarchism at all, wheras there is little debate about individualist anarchism. Most anarachists (including myself) view capitalism as inherently authoritarian and hierarchical, thus necessitating it's rejection by anarchists (including individualist anarchists). An-caps are just (American) libertarians on steroids. The Ungovernable Force 21:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

But this is about anarchism as a generic term. One is not concerned here if any of the mentioned movements can present a coherent argument against the state. Intangible 18:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalism is part of the template. - FrancisTyers · 18:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but it says "disputed." What is disputed? It's inclusion? Intangible 22:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

You could say that. It is disputed because this is a template about Anarchism, as is shown from the (A), it is frequently and loudly disputed as to whether Anarcho-capitalism is "Anarchism" (as in the (A) kind). Therefore we present that. It is rarely and quietly disputed if any of the other schools are "Anarchism", so they aren't labelled as disputed. - FrancisTyers · 22:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

But this is about small cap anarchism, used as a generic term, not? Then the image seems out of place. I doubt the symbol has any relation to individualist anarchism for example. Intangible 00:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

What makes you say it's about "small cap anarchism"? If it were, we'd have links to "chaos", "destruction" and "lawlessness". And I'm pretty sure indiv anarchists would use the circle-a as well. The Ungovernable Force 01:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Small cap anarchism in the meaning of term. Namely that it should be about anarchism as generic term. Which individual anarchists? Spooner? Tucker? Intangible 17:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Just to mention, whether anarcho-communism is a form of anarchism is also disputed by a number of individualist anarchists. Maybe anarcho-communism should have a disputed tag too?-- Vision Thing -- 18:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Nope. - FrancisTyers · 18:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

By your rational, the inclusion of individualist anarchism should be disputed as well! Intangible 21:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

No. People who dispute Individualist anarchism (Some communists), People who dispute Communist anarchism (Some individualists), People who dispute Anarcho-capitalism (The overwhelming majority of Individualist anarchists, Communist anarchists, Anarcho-syndicalists, Post-left anarchists, etc.). - FrancisTyers · 21:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Who are those "some" and "overwhelming majority" people? How is one to decicide when "some" becomes the "overwhelming majority"? One cannot. One does not try to decide. Anarchism is used as a generic term here, one is not interested if any of these claims made by various anarchist movements are intellectually coherent, or not. Intangible 22:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

No it isn't used as a generic term here. As is evident from the template. - FrancisTyers · 23:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Then what is it about? Nowhere explained. Why include individualist anarchism in Anarchism, but not anarcho-capitalism? Intangible 23:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

We include them both in the template. - FrancisTyers · 23:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Then the template is about anarchism, not Anarchism. Intangible 00:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

No, you see thats the clever thing. We know that a minority of people think that anarcho-capitalism is "Anarchism", which is why we include it! - FrancisTyers · 00:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

But how would you defend the position that your template should be about Anarchism, and not anarchism? Intangible 01:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no position to defend, that is what the template is and has been agreed to be. - FrancisTyers · 01:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

But at the start [1] anarcho capitalism was not disputed. So by using your "logic", anarcho capitalism is not disputed, because "that is what the template is and has been agreed to be." Intangible 02:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

All the information had not come to light at that point in time. - FrancisTyers · 02:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Then I shall provide you with new information that the template should be about anarchism, not Anarchism. Always glad to help! Intangible 02:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

What makes you think it's about "anarchism" as opposed to "Anarchism"? First off, the template's title says "Anarchism". And is there really much of a difference, other than the semantical one you want to make to justify including a highly disputed (per)version of anarchism in the template without any disclaimer? And just because you can show a diff of the template that included an-cap w/o a disclaimer doesn't show much at all, because I can (but won't b/c I don't feel like spending the time) show you diffs of all the times people have removed it from the template all together. The Ungovernable Force 02:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

This is a false argument. I can easily show you the many times when those changes were, rightly so, reverted back. Intangible 02:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying that was the right way for it to be. Regardless, there were times where an-cap was not included for a while (like feb-april). The constant removal of it though shows that it is disputed. Were the other schools removed that often? No. The Ungovernable Force 02:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but I am having an argument with you, not with those who removed it from the template, and never presented a rational for doing so on the talk page. Intangible 02:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I thought of it as a debate, not an argument, but hey. And like I said, I'm not defending it's removal or the people who did it. I'm just explaining why it's labelled as disputed. And you never answered my question about why you seem to think this is about "anarchism" and not "anarchism", nor did you fully explain the difference. The Ungovernable Force 02:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The difference is that Anarchism will always be some instance of anarchism. The latter simply means "without rulers" (from the Greek αναρχία), nothing more, nothing less. The instance Anarchism can mean different things: like anarcho capitalism, anarcho syndicalism or individualist anarchism. Therefore the template should be about anarchism, not Anarchism, because one cannot in a NPOV way decide which Anarchism presents a valid argument, and should counter any other form of Anarchism. Intangible 03:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. The word "anarchy" means "without rulers," not "without heirarchy." There's no reason for anarcho-capitalism to be any more "disputed" than the other forms listed in this template. The popular opinions or relative positions of other self-designated anarchists regarding anarcho-capitalism are entirely irrelevant. The only relevant data are the meanings of the words involved. h3h 17:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't agree. - FrancisTyers · 17:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't agree? Intangible 20:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't make sense to strictly define anarchy/anarchism in terms of their root. It's a political tradition, not an etymological puzzle. Sarge Baldy 20:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Do agree. The Ungovernable Force 21:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and even if it is an etymological puzzle, bosses, landowners and other assorted capitalists are rulers. Furthermore, a hierarchy is a system in which people are ranked according to authority, or rulership. No rulers should inherently imply no social hierarchy. The Ungovernable Force 21:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Right, except anarcho-capitalists might not be so quick to use "ruler" to mean the ruling class, as clear as that might seem to others. Although if you do want to play the etymological puzzle, "hier-archy" is very clearly one form of rule. Sarge Baldy 21:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

"bosses, landowners and other assorted capitalists are rulers." I assume you mean people with property in general? That is an ethical question. Wikipedia editors cannot favor one ethics over the other. Intangible 21:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

That's not a question, it's a statement of fact. They have authority over others by their having those things when others do not. I'm not asking if that's right or wrong ethically (personally, I think it's wrong), I'm pointing out that an anarchist can't support those things while still calling themselves an anarchist based on H3h's definition. Anyways, like Sarge and I said, that's not really the important part here. What is important is that as a social movement anarchism has pretty much always rejected capitalism. Why don't you focus on the larger points of our arguments, rather than the small details that I even admit aren't as important? The Ungovernable Force 22:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying that people who support private property can't be considered anarchist? -- Vision Thing -- 18:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes and no. Most anarchists make a distinction between two different types of property: personal posessions and private capital. Different terms are used, but most anarchists would agree that personal posessions are fine up to a point but private capital is almost always used to maintain power relationships. In other words, it's fine to have your toothbrush, your house, your car, but if you acquire large amounts of wealth from, for example, making profit off others' labor, then you're effectively a ruler of those people. That's exploitation. You cannot rationally call yourself an anarchist if you support exploitative relationships because that is the very definition of rulership. Thus, anarcho-capitalists are not anarchists because they either don't recognize the difference between the two types of property, or they recognize it but don't have a problem with exploitation. Differences in power = rulership. --Aelffin 12:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Not all differences in power are rulership. -- Vision Thing -- 20:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Larger points

I am not even sure what your "larger points" are. Maybe you can enlighten me. The rejection of capitalism does not follow from the definition of anarchism ("without rulers"). Intangible 13:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Historical anarchists have always considered the power relationships that issue from capitalism to be a type of rule. The slogan "No Gods, No Masters!" is a reflection of this. Anarcho-capitalism did not originate from within the anarchist movement, and does not share the same understanding of rulership that constitutes perhaps the only uniting link between all anarchists. To call anarcho-capitalism a type of anarchism is to distort the notion of anarchism to the point of uselessness. --Aelffin 17:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

To give a quote from a 1889 article: "The Invididualistic Anarchists accordingly profess to have very little in common with the Internationalists. The latter are Communistic Anarchists." Shall one dispute the inclusion of individualist anarchism in the template as well??? Intangible 18:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Not at all...differences are fine, as long as they emerged from within the anarchist movement, i.e. as a result of divisions among existing anarchists (as individualist anarchism did). Let me ask you an hypothetical question. Let's say some guy decides he wants to be king of the world, and when he achieves this end, he will declare a state of chaos, and at that time, he personally will force everybody to be chaotic. Okay, bear with me. Now, let us assume that he decides to call his new system "anarcho-monarchism" because he thinks anarchism has something to do with chaos. Should, in your opinion, "anarcho-monarchism" now be included in the template? One more question: what if a microbrewery releases a new beer produced by a process they call "anarcho-brewing". Should this be considered a type of anarchism? In short, do you think that *every* wacko that misuses the label "anarchism" should be included on this page? --Aelffin 12:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

No, only the wackos that properly "misuse" the term anarchism, or capitalism for that matter. Intangible 21:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

So, you agree that there might be certain people who call themselves anarchists who aren't really anarchists, right? And that would mean we need some criteria for determining which "anarchists" use the term properly and which use it improperly. I suggest some criteria below, and I'm willing to entertain the notion that anarcho-capitalism might belong on the template if you can meet any of these criteria:

(1) demonstrate that it emerged from within the anarchist movement

(2) demonstrate that it shares some particular philosophy with other anarchists

(3) provide a convincing argument for why points (1) & (2) are not valid criteria

(4) provide better criteria for determining which "anarchists" are really anarchists

--Aelffin 11:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Let me quote Sanders instead: Some of those who argue against the state call themselves "capitalist anarchists." Others contend that this is a contradiction in terms, since capitalism institutionally requires the state. Curiously enough, the capitalist anarchists frequently say the same thing about the socialists...At least as regards the arguments that arise among anarchists, and to a considerable extent also as regards the more general argument, this conflict rests largely on terminological ambiguity...This terminological ambiguity can be resolved fairly easily. One way to do it is for capitalist anarchists simply to begin to refer to themselves as "market anarchists." This would at least avoid the nearly pointless arguments, endemic between the two groups, about whether capitalism really is driven by markets. If it isn't, then market anarchists are no happier with capitalism than socialist anarchists are. (from For and Against the State). Intangible 16:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Listen, anarchism is a type of socialism--it absolutely requires evening out wealth--there's no way around it. So, are you unable to address the points I made, or just unwilling? I'm not sure why I should treat your opinion with any more respect than you treat mine, but I will address the Sanders quote nonetheless: Sanders says that if capitalism is not driven by markets, then "market anarchists" are anticapitalists too--okay, so Sanders agrees that pro-capitalists aren't anarchists. However, Sanders does not say that "market anarchists" are anti-rulership or anti-heirarchy. Thus, by the definition of the word anarchism, they are not anarchists. If you support any kind of rulership, you are not an anarchist. End of story. Are you willing to claim that anarcho-capitalists oppose all rulership? Are you ever actually going to address any of the points I make here or above? --Aelffin 17:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Anarchism is not socialism (or collectivism) per se. Benjamin Tucker for example though that wealth should be distributed according to the mechanism of the free market.

Market anarchists are against the state. Voluntary contracts are not a form of rulership.

(1) This is pointless, since individualist anarchism died out before World War II. Although the work of Albert Jay Nock and Frank Chodorov provide for some continuity.

(2) See individualist anarchism. The only differnence is the notion of economic theory, namely subjectivism (marginalist revolution) versus the labour theory of value.

(3) and (4). See Sanders.

Intangible 17:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

You are free to believe that economic coersion into contractual servitude is "voluntary" but anarchists disagree, and always have, thus ancaps reject a core principle of anarchism.

(1) You admit then that ancap has, at best, a tenuous continuity with a dead form of anarchism.

(2) By that argument, capitalism is a form of communism because the only difference is the total core of the economic theory. Even most individualists agreed that profit, rent, and interest are forms of exploitation (e.g. rulership), something that ancaps do not agree with.

(3) & (4) The Sanders quote you supplied doesn't make the point you seem to think it does--in fact, it comes close to making the opposite point. Furthermore, Sanders apparently subscribes to the idea that anarchism = anti-statism. Anarchists have always argued against this mistake. Furthermore, if I'm not mistaken, most ancaps are pro-corporate, whereas all anarchists see corporations as a type rulership, if not outright states. Thus, anarchists aren't really anti-state either.

Rejecting anarchist notions of profit, rent, interest, heirarchy, rulership, exploitation, I have to wonder what you think ancaps actually have in common with anarchists. It seems to me that anarcho-capitalists reject anarchism altogether. --Aelffin 18:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying that the Labor theory of value is still taken seriously by economists? Intangible 18:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Nope, I didn't say that. But it wouldn't matter if I had, since anarchists recognize most capitalist economic theories as *contingent* on the existence of capitalism, rather than as absolute laws in the way ancaps and other American libertarians see them. Oh, and by the way, anarchism is socialism but not necessarily collectivism since the two are not the same thing. --Aelffin 18:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The majority of current economics is a cargo cult. - FrancisTyers · 20:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Please don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. - FrancisTyers · 19:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I was just being WP:BOLD, see the 1889 article's quote. Intangible 19:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Hardly conclusive. - FrancisTyers · 19:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are not the place for political/theoretical discussions

The fact of the matter is that the article on anarchism, as well as the anarchism template, part of the series on politics, deals with anarchism as a political philosophy and movement. Semantic discussion of the word 'anarchy' belongs in a dictionary. --AaronS 14:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what you are trying to say here. Clearly one must have some definition of anarchism before one can start an article about it... Intangible 14:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the "definition" found in history books, academic essays, textbooks, reviews, journals, and other reliable sources which allow for sufficient verifiability. --AaronS 14:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Except for a dictionary? Strange... Intangible 15:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

This is an encyclopaedia, not a dictionary. Etymology is the study of words' roots, not the study of their meaning. --AaronS 15:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Where do I say that the anarchism article should be solely about the etymology of the word anarchism? Intangible 15:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

You said: But this is about anarchism as a generic term. One is not concerned here if any of the mentioned movements can present a coherent argument against the state. Etc. --AaronS 15:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

A logical extension after an etymology of the word "anarchism" would be to talk about movements who see anarchism as a political end, which would be a discussion of the generic term anarchism, i.e. a discussion about the classes of movements who see anarchism as a political end. Intangible 15:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

But we have already established that etymology has nothing to do with meaning. 'Anarchism' is a term that describes a political philosophy and movement. Discussion of anarchism, in the anarchism article, as well as in the anarchism series, should be limited to that. If you want to start an article on anarchism (word), go ahead. --AaronS 16:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Then why do anarchists not call themselves communists or capitalists? If words dont have meaning at all. Where does "we have already established that etymology has nothing to do with meaning" refer to? Intangible 16:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Etymology is the study of the origins of words. You seem to be proposing that the meaning of anarchism lies in etymology. But, we already know that anarchism, the political and philosophical movement, has a meaning that lies in its political and philosophical theory. Edit the article on anarchy or create a new article, anarchism (word), if you want to talk of etymology. --AaronS 16:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

From anarchism: "Anarchism is the name for both a political philosophy and manner of organizing society, derived from the Greek αναρχία ("without archons" or "without rulers"). Thus "anarchism," in its most general semantic meaning, is the belief that all forms of rulership are undesirable and should be abolished." This corresponds 100% with what I am saying here on the talk page. It logically connects etymology with the generic term for movements that see anarchism as the political end. Intangible 16:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The meaning of the word, in the context of its political and philosophical implications, is not in its etymology. --AaronS 17:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course not. If that were to be the case one could just do with an etymology of the word anarchism in the anarchism article and call it a day. Intangible 17:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you are not familiar with this quote by Tucker:

"Anarchism is a word without meaning, unless it includes the liberty of the individual to control his product or whatever his product has brought him through exchange in a free market - that is, private property. Whoever denies private property is of necessity an Archist."

So, according to Tucker, anyone who opposes private property is an archist. Obviously there are various visions of that what anarchism is, and some of them exclude each other. It's not ours to decide which of those visions of anarchy is correct.-- Vision Thing -- 18:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Let's leave it up to the sources to decide. --AaronS 18:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

How can a source decicide upon the Template here? I've already showed a 1889 source that sees almost no common between individualist anarchism and communist anarchism. Intangible 19:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Sources. See my comments on your talk page. --AaronS 19:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Demanding the Impossible : History of Anarchism by Peter Marshall includes Individualist Anarchism, but excludes Anarcho-capitalism. - FrancisTyers · 19:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Thus? The 1889 source did not include anarcho capitalism either. Intangible 19:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalism didn't exist in 1889. Besides, just because the individualists weren't communists doesn't mean they weren't anarchists or anti-capitalists. There are plenty of people who are oppossed to both communism and capitalism. This template is about anarchism as a historical trend, similar to it's presentation in other encyclopedias. Since anarcho-capitalism's place in that trend is disputed by many anarchists and scholars, we should label it as disputed. Other schools/traditions (like anarcho-communism, indiv anarchism, post-left anarchism, etc) are rarely disputed, at least not as much and as passionately as anarcho-capitalism is. Therefore we have a note that it's disputed. The Ungovernable Force 20:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Can someone who believes in free competition and free trade be an anarchist? Intangible 20:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Depends in what other things they believe. - FrancisTyers · 20:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Well that was a really clear answer. What do you mean with depends? Intangible 20:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

It's important to note that economics isn't the only position anarcho-capitalists have a radically different stand on things. They support private police forces, private laws, private everything. Really you can sum anarcho-capitalism up as radical privatization, or an extreme form of social contract theory. To anarcho-capitalists, even slavery is acceptable, in principle. Not surprisingly, few people have even bothered trying to reconcile such a position with anarchism. Even anarcho-capitalists tend not to see themselves as representing a form of anarchism but as representing the form of anarchism, or the "purest" form. There's just too big a gap between anarcho-capitalist philosophy and traditional anarchism to include the former without some form of disclaimer. Sarge Baldy 21:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Not with individual anarchism though. Intangible 03:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Who cares. Great, you think it's a small step from indiv anarchism to an-cap. But do you still want to say it's not disputed? This is exactly the nature of the dispute: some people say it's a type of indiv anarchism, others say it's not even that. In other words, people dispute whether it's a type of anarchism. This talk page is proof of that. You're never going to convince us that an-cap is a form of anarchism, and we'll probably never convince you that it isn't. We can debate it for years on end and never come to a conclusion. Let's stop trying to convince each other that it is/n't a form of anarchism and agree to disagree. I think it's pretty clear that it's diputed, would you not say so? The Ungovernable Force 03:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

This is second time this week that I'm encountering this claim about slavery. It looks like a lot of antianarcho-capitalist doesn't know for what anarcho-capitalism really stands for. In his "The Ethics of Liberty" Rothbard said:

"The fundamental axiom of libertarian theory is that each person must be a self-owner, and that no one has the right to interfere with such self-ownership. From this there follows immediately the total impermissibility of property in another person. One prominent example of this sort of property is the institution of slavery. Before 1865, for example, slavery was a "private property" title to many persons in the United States. The fact of such private title did not make it legitimate; on the contrary, it constituted a continuing aggression, a continuing criminality, of the masters (and of those who helped enforce their titles) against their slaves." -- Vision Thing -- 20:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Let me quote Sanders instead: Some of those who argue against the state call themselves "capitalist anarchists." Others contend that this is a contradiction in terms, since capitalism institutionally requires the state. Curiously enough, the capitalist anarchists frequently say the same thing about the socialists...At least as regards the arguments that arise among anarchists, and to a considerable extent also as regards the more general argument, this conflict rests largely on terminological ambiguity...This terminological ambiguity can be resolved fairly easily. One way to do it is for capitalist anarchists simply to begin to refer to themselves as "market anarchists." This would at least avoid the nearly pointless arguments, endemic between the two groups, about whether capitalism really is driven by markets. If it isn't, then market anarchists are no happier with capitalism than socialist anarchists are. (from For and Against the State). Intangible 16:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, we'll hold down the fort, while you start the letter writing campaign :) - FrancisTyers · 16:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Right. As I've said before, there's no point trying to convince Wikipedia editors that anarchism and capitalism are compatible or not compatible. Our points of view on the topic are largely irrelevant. Changing editors' points of view doesn't change what is a neutral point of view. Our discussions need to center less around pleading the case for anarcho-capitalism as anarchism or as an oxymoron, and more around the broader opinion of self-described anarchists regarding anarcho-capitalism. Sarge Baldy 17:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks like self-described anarchist are disputing validity of this template. Shall we put a disputed note on it too? -- Vision Thing -- 20:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I cannot see how using the notions of "self-described" anarchists would help us here, since that would still constitute OR and POV. I provided a quote to Sanders, he only sees differences on terminological grounds. His chapter is online at [2]. Intangible 20:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)