Talk:Anarchism

Archives

A descriptive list of talkpage archives can be found at Talk:Anarchism/Archives. The archive of a mediation discussion concerning this article is available at The anarchy battlefield.

Current discussion

Outrageous: No Noam Chomsky & Howard Zinn Mention

Why is there no mention of Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn, two currentlyliving anarchists who are far more prominent in American circles than John Zerzan or Murray Rothbard, yet the primitivists and capitalists get to inject their own ideas here, but we don't get to have Chomsky or Zinn pictured here. I say this is really unfair, and rather ridiculous. there shoudl not even be a section for primitivism or "anarcho" capitalism. The proponents of those two ideas have violated pretty much every rule of Wikipedia to get their stuff put here, and mislead the public.--Radical_Mallard (talk) 2:05PM, 20 July 2008

Haven't checked the main entry lately for Chomsky references, but he is usually included on various Wikipedia pages on anarchism. Leaving Howard Zinn out makes sense, as he hasn't significantly contributed anything to anarchism or the anarchist movement. Zinn qualifies as an "outlier" anarchist, a person who is either in the closet about their anarchism or has one foot in anarchism and one foot somewhere else. I've heard Zinn in person call himself an anarchist, but that doesn't mean that he should be featured here. Chuck0 (talk) 05:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Zinn is one of the most prominent anarchist academics and has said quite a bit on the subject. His People's History of the United States has been very influential, and while it's usually not explicitly promoted as an anarchist book, it is--according to Zinn--guided by an anti-hierarchical view of history. It is surprising that we don't mention him. I agree with Mallard that this should be corrected. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 14:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

1999 WTO PRotest

Why is there no mention of the 1999 WTO riot/protest in Seattle, the bulk of which was organized and driven by anarchists, in this entire article? That's a recent milestone in anarchist organizing history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.174.11.24 (talk) 19:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that the protest where it was proven in the end that the police were using agent provocoteurs, and the anarchists were mostly peaceful until assaulted by police? Productplacer (talk) 07:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you are totally misinformed. The police did not using agent provocateurs during the 1999 anti-WTO protests in Seattle. Real life anarchists were involved in all facets of the protests, including the famous black bloc, the lockdowns on the streets, with Indymedia, with Food Not Bombs, the labor march and many other things. Chuck0 (talk) 05:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

I think The article about the First Red Scare contains important information which is worth to be mentioned. Furthermore, there were a lot of contraversial actions in the past which relate to Anarchism. (e.g. terrorist actions)

First_Red_Scare#Anarchist_actions —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zslevi (talk • contribs) 23:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I've just noticed that there's an article which targets this issue: Anarchism_and_violence

Although I think it should be addressed in the article text as well. --Zslevi (talk) 23:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I'ssa dead horse; gettit!

I've just made a small, but possibly quite controversial, edit to the article. During the time in which people kept adding things like "most anarchists are opposed to capitalism and hence anarcho-capitalism too", there was lots of controversy over the statement's accuracy; the citations were always partisan sources. I have found, in a source already cited, the Oxford's assertion that anarchists are indeed usually anti-capitalist. The source was first included to emphasise the variety of anarchism, and was opposed (by infinity0, I think) on the basis that it suggested that capitalism was not a controversial issue normally and historically opposed by anarchists. This was included, of course, by an RJII sock, now banned. I believe RJII's socks have all left and the ancap editors currently here are all reasonable people, a much better arrangement.
I have included the edit, but in the interest of cooperation and collaboration, I am raising it here for discussion. For the sake of completeness, I support the inclusion of a single sentence, and maybe greater detail in an appropriate section. ~ Switch (✉✍☺☒) 12:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it needs to be recognised and stated that much of the disparity between each side regarding the legitimacy of Anarcho-Capitalism in the eyes of more classical Anarchists is the difference between terminological use, definition and connotation. --121.220.149.129 (talk) 01:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I must disagree that RJII socks have left. The whole article is postmodernly skewed and ignorant of the fact that historically anarchism as an active movement/phenomena (not just as a philosphophy) has been overwelmingly non-capitalistic. The membership figures of the FAI and CNT and revolutionary events in civil war Spain speak for themselves. Although the article did need more info on anarchism in USA this has only been put in as attempted support of right-wing libertarian evangelists of the Rothbard sort. This has often backfired e.g with Ben Tucker. --maxrspct ping me 19:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The RJII sock-puppet is back. for all we know he is that guy from Silicon Valley, James Donald, who has helped turn USENET into a joke and now he's up to his old tricks here. His account he's using now is: Operation_Spooner -Radical Mallard, July 20, 2008, 2:11 PM

Well, almost all anarchists are anti-capitalist. If you want to be precise. If you look at the tendencies closest to anarcho-capitalism, like mutualism, you'll find that pro-market anarchists are also anti-capitalists. The number of pro-capitalist anarcho-capitalists in the world probably number less than a 100 people. They tend to be noisy on the Internet, so it looks like there are a bunch of them out there. But if you look at surveys or what is covered in anarchist literature, anarcho-capitalism is off the radar. Chuck0 (talk) 07:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

this article is probably the most prominent position they've had. maxrspct ping me 19:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, don't we love the argument from numbers fallacy, as well as the "just making up crap" method? - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 04:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Too right Knight of BAAWA. --124.189.244.79 (talk) 05:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

max rspct: The so-called anarcho-capitalists have a long history of using Wikipedia and other forums to make it appear like they are a bigger influence than they really are. If you want to talk about numbers, Infoshop has done surveys that have found that anarcho-capitalist are a small portion of the international anarchist movement. And here I'm differentiating pro-capitalist anarcho-capitalists from market anarchists and mutualists. Even the latter camp is small in number compared to other schools of anarchism. You can also measure these numbers by looking at the popuarity of anarchist websites, the amount of dead trees publishing these schools do, and attendance at protests and conferences. The market anarchists had a conference in 2007 in Salt Lake City. I don't know the attendance figures or how many of the people who attended this conference identified as anarcho-capitalists. Whichever way you slice it, anarcho-capitalists are few in number. Chuck0 (talk) 17:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to respond to the above by Chucko. It is strange that you think that most market anarchists are not anarcho-capitalists. Are you trying to say that most most anarchists still go for the labor theory of value? Benajmin Tucker style market anarchism is a throwback because the labor theory of value is pretty much extinct today. Virtually all market anarchists are anarcho-capitalists. I don't call myself an anarcho-capitalist but a market anarchist simply because "anarcho-capitalist" confuses people who don't understand that by "capitalism" we just mean a free market. You might find a few throwbacks out there but rest assured 99% of "market anarchists" are indistinguishable from anyone that calls themselves "anarcho-capitalist." You can rest assured that nearly everyone at that market anarchist conference you're talking about has the same philosophy as me. We simply want a society based in free markets. Call me an anarcho-capitalist if you want and say that I'm different from a market anarchist but it's nonsense.

I was a market anarchist and certainly no anarcho-capitalist, most market anarchists I've met in real life have been non-ancaps and even online it's about even. So your not being correct in your comments above. Plus marginalism is way over rated. Utility is subjective yet it is supposed to determine prices, so this can't even be proved.

IOW: Chuck0 wants to marginalize anarchocapitalists simply because he doesn't like them. Further, he will appeal to popularity as if it means something (which, of course, it doesn't). - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 21:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

He is completely correct in stating that anarcho-capitalism is a tiny doctrine which is largely an internet only thing. This says little about its merits on its own. And you are being hypocritical, you made comments yourself designed to marginalise anyone who believe in a labour theory of value rather than marginalist silliness.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and at the end of the day, changes to the a reference tool like Wikipedia is governed by stylistic conventions, scope, and other policies. If the links section is going to link to a website on anarcho-capitalism, why not link it to a useful website on the subject, like all-left.net? Chuck0 (talk) 03:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I was under the impression that all-left.net was an Agorist website, as opposed to a Anarcho-Capitalist site. They are not the same thing.--124.189.244.79 (talk) 12:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that All-left.net covers market anarchism, agorism, left-libertarianism and some stuff of interest to anarcho-capitalists. If the anarcho-capitalists feel that this site doesn't represent them, then they should choose between a link to the Caplan FAQ or a link to something else. It would be unfair to more important anarchist websites if a minor tendency got to have several links when tendencies that are more important and influential and restricted to a few links. Chuck0 (talk) 00:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

All-left.net is a sight for the Alliance of the Libertarian Left, which is supposed to be a alliance between factions such as Agorists, Mutualists, voluntaryists, market Anarchists, Anarcho-Capitalists and other left factions based on their opposition to statism. For it to be a source on Anarcho-Capitalism, a site would need to be explicitly Anarcho-Capitalist and crediting it as such would be misleading. I agree that all-left is an excellent source, and is a movement that should be replicated as it is constructive and avoids the whole "ANCAP v ANSOC" crap Anarchists seem susceptible to. --124.189.244.79 (talk) 12:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, this shouldn't even be an issue. Anarcho-capitalism is notable only in that its adherents are loud and few. Hazillow (talk) 07:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Lucky your opinion doesn't count for much then. --124.177.185.105 (talk) 10:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with the trend here. There is a form of 'anarcho capitalism' that doesn't believe in the financial system. As a free individual you have no option but to use the markets if you can use nothing else. Thats completely different from some interpretations that egoist capitalism can be defined as a form of anarchism. This is the reason for the debate, money is a thoroughly authoritarical tool, (anti-capitalist) anarchists perceive 'capitalist-anarchism' as a fraude and degrading abuse of the political ideal of freedom. Thats in my experience and also opinion. The result is that 'free-market' "anarchism" and "capitalist " anarchism are (sometimes un,-)acceptable as a strategy but appear not to warrant a seperate theoretical header. Also they can just be considered capitalist propagandist oxymorons.(un-anarchist because money is hierarchical and authoritarical as a organisational tool in society.)you might eg. call anti-authoritarical, financially active anarchists, "the pragmatists". The whole association between the integer history of freedom in anarchism and the repressive capitalism is unneccesary and wrong, money is authorative, 'a ruler'.. a dead horse.so unlike eg. anarcho-feminism it is not an emancipatory human theory, just a rebel tactic. although anarchists have used toilets, toilet-anarchism also deserves no mention in wiki, just like capitalism it would be merely a psychological disturbance.77.251.34.32 (talk) 13:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Zaxlebax problem

I oppose inclusion in the lede per the Zaxlebax problem - the term "capitalism" is simply far too ambiguous to be used in the lede, which is intended to be an uncontroversial summary of the body of the article. As Chuck indicated, pro-market anarchists oppose "capitalism" in the sense of big business, wage slavery, commodity fetishism etc.; but you would be hard pressed to find a major anarcho-capitalist thinker that meant anything more by "capitalism" than voluntary association and sticky property rights - see Rothbard, Molinari, Friedman. So it is highly deceptive to throw this factoid at the casual or uninformed reader at the start of the article without context.

However, the source is inarguably reliable, and as Switch noted, this article and especially this subtopic of capitalism need as much relaibaly sourced content as possible. As such, I support including this assertion in the Issues in anarchism subsection, right after the link to Anarchism and capitalism. That way, the reader will be familiar with the nuances of the various approaches to property rights and markets of the mutualists, individualist anarchists, anarcho-communists and especially the anarcho-capitalists and will be able to read the assertion in context. If the reader feels that the assertion jarrs, or feels like investigating the matter further, the article they will be directed to will be Anarchism and capitalism, not the ambiguous capitalism. Skomorokh ^incite 15:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Yep, that sounds good to me. ~ Switch (✉✍☺☒) 20:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Right. At this point, changes to this entry should try and capture the nuances. I removed the link to the Brian Caplan link, but I'm wondering if it should be included in a section or subpage on "criticisms of anarchism." Chuck0 (talk) 17:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

.77.251.34.32 (talk) 13:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Anarcha-feminism section

I'm a bit concerned that the anarcha-feminism section is too much a section about famous woman anarchists. Many male anarchists have been anarcha-feminists, so some research needs to be done to flesh out this subsection. Also, the section needs to name more contemporary anarcha-feminists. On another note, this section includes the following text: "Anarcha-feminists also often criticize the views of some of the traditional anarchists such as Mikhail Bakunin who have believed that patriarchy is only a minor problem and is dependent only on the existence of the state and capitalism and will disappear soon after such institutions are abolished." There needs to be a citation backing up this sentence. A recent biography of Bakunin made a very compelling case that Bakunin was an early feminist, even more so given that his sisters were active revolutionaries and thinkers. Chuck0 (talk) 06:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The anarcha-feminism section was only recently added to Anarchist schools of thought out of a concern that omitting such a prominent tradition was a serious failure for an article purporting to be a comprehensive overview of its subject. The anarcha-feminism article was not much help given its state, so this is a rough first draft. I'd encourage you or anyone familiar with anarcha-feminism to revise the anarcha-feminism article with cited material, an then we can alter the overview at Anarchist schools of thought and the summary here. From previous experience with the Green anarchism and National-Anarchism sections of the schools of thought page, the author Fang23 is not touchy about editors revising his work

The broader question is what to do with sections of this article that are of comparably poor quality - such as the green anarchism and anarcho-syndicalism sections in the recent past. Do we leave in the full length low-quality section, stub it, or remove altogether pending improvement? Skomorokh ^incite 14:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Deserves some mention of Joseph Dejacque... 72.83.176.33 (talk) 04:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Done i mentioned Joseph Dejacque.--Fang 23 (talk) 00:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Anarchism vs Liberalism - move Schools of Thought out.

This article is far too American, and leans far too far into Liberalist thinking as opposed to Anarchist thinking. The rest of the world sees Anarchism quite differently to Liberalism, see Noam Chomsky's writings on the subject in essays such as "Future of Government".

In the end, this article no longer captures what Anarchism is for new readers, the 'different schools of thought' section is the real culprit here, basically dividing Anarchists into Socialists or Free Traders with nothing much in between. You have to consider the over all effect of listing these factions for a new reader, without properly defining Anarchism itself, as an overhead banner first. (There is at least twice as much written for each faction, as opposed to Anarchism itself which gets half a paragraph)

Since Anarchist Schools of Thought is already an article on it's own ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_schools_of_thought ), should it really be repeated here where it distracts from the question what is Anarchism, which actually is a genuine question. You wouldn't answer someone's question "What is socialism" by first citing 5 sub types of socialism. You'd first tackle the question head on, what is Socialism, as opposed to Capitalism, Anarchism and other non-compatible schools of thought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lou777 (talk • contribs) 19:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the Schools of thought section is largely redundant here and should be radically truncated, but editors have opposed such suggestions in the past. The major difficulty with attempting to define anarchism before defining the different genres thereof is that self-described anarchists and scholarly sources disagree fundamentally on what anarchism is. For example, is anarchism opposed to hierarchy, authority, all government, just compulsory government or something else? There is no agreement, so there is very little we can write about it other than report the controversy or give dictionary definitions like in the lead paragraph. Regards, Skomorokh ^incite 19:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

It may be a good idea to point out that there is not agreement on what anarchism is. A source for such a statement is probably not too hard to find. Operation Spooner (talk) 05:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I was rather bold and took the scalpel to the Schools of thought section, perLou777 's suggestion. I agree an expanded introductory section would be useful. скоморохъ ^ѧ 12:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I noticed you inserted the term "sticky property." Looking on Google, there are extremely few references to the term. It appears to be a neologism invented by the author of Anarcho-capitalist FAQ. I don't think hardly anyone would know what it means. Operation Spooner (talk) 17:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, it's standard terminology in certain strands of econ, I was trying to avoid the zaxlebaxian "property", but you were rightto alter it, it's neologistic and probably confusing to the reader. Thanks for catching that. скоморохъ 08:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the late addition to this conversation, but it gets right to the heart of the problem with this article... it's not that there is no agreement on what anarchism is, it's that there are two or three well-defined meanings (or at least two or three strong clusters of related meanings). Each of these meanings is used very consistently by the factions that prefers it. Basically "anarchism = anti-government" is the definition used by, a few political scholars, anarcho-capitalists, and the entire non-anarchist public. On the other hand, "anarchism = anti-authority" (phrased in a hundred different ways) is the definition used by all other factions of anarchists (with the possible exception of certain anarcho-primitivists). Both definitions go way, way back and have wide agreement within their spheres of use. That's why it's such a difficult problem--each definition has traction, but only in a certain group of people. That's also why anarcho-capitalists have such a hard time getting acceptance within the movement--they are on the far side of a definitional chasm which groups ancaps and lay people on one side with all other factions of anarchism on the other. Aelffin (talk) 18:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

220.86.141.204

I want to thank the editors who quickly addressed the edits this anonymous user made. They added a bunch of links and then removed links to Infoshop three times, which violates the 3 revert rule. This IP maps to an ISP in South Korea, so it's possible that somebody is using an anonymous proxy to make edits and attack legitimate links to Infoshop.org. I really don't understand why people waste their time doing this. Chuck0 (talk) 03:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem, the intentions of anonymous IP's are difficult to fathom sometimes. скоморохъ 12:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Left-wing (collectivist,anarcho-coomunist/syndicalist) anarchist POV

Please do not remove the link to the "greenanarchy.org" site, on the external links section. This website is mentioned in mainstream channels, both since the wto riots and occasionally associated with the unabomber case, making it relatively well known. It is a website of a magazine with worldwide circulation and it is probably the most well known associated with the green anarchist branch. But most of all, there is a reason of balance while protecting this section from spam. There are websites in that section that are not that all notable, with fairly recent history, and seem to be there for the sake of a POV ideological judgment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maziotis (talk • contribs) 14:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Ex links associated with sub-branches belong on the sub branch pages only. Check out WP:EL: "a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked from an article about a general subject". I'm not necessarily defending the other links, but it's blatantly obvious this one concerns green anarchism first and foremost. Regards, скоморохъ 15:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

"archism.net - an anarchism without adjectives resource" Why have you not deleted this link, for example? It is referenced as a resource for "anarchism without adjectives".

Most of these websites, if not all, represent a particular view of anarchism. Either we delete them all, or we choose a list of general resources sites that stems from the different anarchist branches.Maziotis (talk) 16:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

"Anarchism without adjectives" implies it welcomes all forms of anarchism. It itself does not refer to itself as anarchism without adjectives. That's just wikipedia's designation. Zazaban (talk) 18:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

No, that's not what anarchism without adjectives implies. I consider myself to be an anarchist without adjectives, so I'm familiar with the history of this tendency within anarchism. Voltairine de Cleyre was one of the first anarchists to use this term. It doesn't mean that "anything goes", rather that the person who identifies as such doesn't like ideological labels as such and/or doesn't feel the need to adopt a more sectarian label to describe their anarchism. Chuck0 (talk) 05:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying what it is, I'm saying what that being used to describe the site is trying to imply. Notwithstanding, the site doesn't use that label on itself. Zazaban (talk) 06:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

That description (welcome of all forms of anarchism) itself represents an ideological approach to this issue. Just because it seems to rely on a more "broden" view of anarchist ideals dosen't make it more acceptable to anarchists who see themselves in every branch of a political doctrine. Why should the article "anarchism" represent the, let's say, 70% of anarchists who consider the colectivist/individualist dichotomy to be the essential question of anarchism, for example. Also, there is another example on the news section of the external links, where you find the website that expresses cleraly on there "editorial statement", "We identify ourselves as anarchists and with the "platformist", anarchist-communist or especifista tradition of anarchism." Now, why, on light of those principles concerning only having general anarchist sites, should we have a link to a forum of anarcho-communists?

There isn't a consensus of what "anarchism" is, let alone of what "general anarchism" might be. If you take this particular issue and apply to all of these websites, you will find the same problem. This criterion of "democratic representation" that leads you to speak about general anarchism is not even accepted by wikipedia standards, which clearly states not to be democratic, but always a plataform to seek consensus.

Clearly, that wikipedian principle that states that "a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked from an article about a general subject" is difficult to apply on a political doctrine. It's hard to find a resource that is clearly, for any common sense, to accept as universal for everyone concerned.Maziotis (talk) 22:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

After reading the discussion and the about pages of Anarchism.net and Anarkismo.net, I have changed the description of the former from anarchism without adjectives as any link with the historical school is OR on our part, and I have moved the explicitly platformist Anarkismo.net to the relevant subarticle.

While I agree that it is difficult to apply policy to some of these links, Greenanarchy.org and Anarkismo.net clearly tie their colors to one mast.

Our ex link policy for this article does need further discussion I think.скоморохъ 12:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

This entire article is bad

Can someone else please back me up that this article needs to be laid out a little better. I can't make head or tail past what the definition is. This history is suspect and the content is just plain rubbish. I agree that some of the content is well written but the article itself is missing cohesion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.218.53 (talk) 12:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, I agree that this article needs work and I'd like to help but I'm not sure how to address your concerns - could you be a little more specific? Regards, скоморохъ 12:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The biggest problem with the article, IMHO, is that it totally fails to address the current resurgence of anarchism as a movement. There's not a single mention of Seattle, black blocs, WTO, the web presence of anarchism, or anything that's happened in the last ten years. This is a significant oversight since this article wouldn't even exist if it weren't for this resurgence. There's plenty of scholarly material on the subject, some of which I've listed in the two "resources" threads I placed below. Considering that anarchism was nearly dead in 1990 and has become one of the hottest issues on the left today, I think us Wikipedians have really missed the boat on this one. Of course, I'm too busy to do the writing, but my suggestion to anybody who is actively participating in developing the content for this article is to leave well enough alone on the historical stuff that fills this article and move on to some of the more interesting aspects of the current movement. Aelffin (talk) 20:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

If there is a current resurgence, it deserves mention in several sentences, maybe even a subsection. But more than that would be recentism. Which of the sources says there was a resurgence? If you think the article would not exist if there had been a resurgence, you have not seen many articles on Wikipedia. There are articles on a very wide variety of topics, and anarchism would have made it even if it was a historical curiosity. -Pgan002 (talk) 02:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, not that this comment matters, but not knowing nor wishing to explore further I can say that as an anarchist of 72 years, this article is a lot of scholastic gobble which really misses a lot of very basic ideas in its overall discussion type format. Hope someone gets the plain definition out there. Regionalized government seems to be as lost as some of the historical information on anarchism from long before the modern gurus decided what it is that we have practised in small circles for a thousand years. Perhaps in the opening I am the only one who sees the following statement as an oxymoron, "the view that society can and should be organized without a coercive state," but I would like to hope others may see the total contradiction in that rather verbose line.[[[Special:Contributions/208.181.252.184|208.181.252.184]] (talk) 12:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, what contradiction do you see? More importantly, as a long-time anarchist, how specifically would you improve the article? -Pgan002 (talk) 02:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Hakim Bey picture, but no content?

Did there used to be content in the article referring to Bey that was removed maybe? It's a bit confusing that his picture is prominently displayed, but he isn't mentioned in any of the article at all... 71.65.254.179 (talk) 19:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

No, it was just the best picture I could find to depict post-WW2 anarchist thought. If you've got a better one, feel free to suggest it, as the Bey picture is of poor quality anyway. Regards, скоморохъ 21:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

An Excellent Resource

Here's a very good scholarly article entitled Making the News - Anarchist Counter Public Relations on the World Wide Web http://www.unc.edu/~lynnn/makingthenews.pdf As I've argued in the past, I think the current article is extremely weak on modern anarchism. This article would be a good resource to start writing a section on the post-Seattle resurgence. Aelffin (talk) 18:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

This article contains an interesting datum that's pertinent to the anarcho-capitalist/traditional anarchist debate. Based on their 1998 analysis of anarchist websites, "...81% of all links made by anarchists are to explicitly left-political sites." Aelffin (talk) 20:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Another good quote... "There is an old joke that if you put three anarchists in a room, you will get four different definitions of anarchism." Aelffin (talk) 21:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Scholarly Resources

Glancing over the list of sources in this article, it seems like the vast majority are primary sources and general encyclopediae. There are very few scholarly secondary sources. In order to combat some of the well-deserved criticism of this article, I suggest we start shifting our focus to scholarly literature. There is plenty of scholarly material available online and in print. The list below is the result of the first 10 pages of results from a Google search for the term "anarchists" in PDF files, after weeding out all the non-scholarly articles. This is about as close as I think we could get to an unbiassed sampling of scholarly literature, and I suggest this list as a basis for future rewrites of this article and as a starting point for finding further scholarly resources. I ignored the actual subject matter of the articles, and only focused on whether they were associated with a university and had plenty of citations. As such, you'll find many opinions and stances as well as a range of depth from methodic analysis to mere mention. Aelffin (talk) 20:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC) Image

• Anarchists and Labor Unions
• Sociology of the Anarchists
• Anarchist Direct Actions: A Challenge for Law Enforcement
• Rebels with many causes: Anarchists in Belle Epoque Buenos Aires.
• CHAOS FROM ORDER: ANARCHY AND ANARCHISM IN MODERN JAPANESE FICTION, 1900-1930
• Roberto Arlt and Anarchist Modernism
• When Our Silence Will Be More Powerful: Haymarket's Ephemeral Memorials
• Creating unity or division? The origins of the Federación Anarquista Ibèrica
• Forty Years in the Struggle
• Sovversivismo: The Radical Political Culture of Otherness in Liberal Italy
• Capitalism and Intellectuals
• Free Labor for Costly Journals?
• Spain Betrayed: The Soviet Union in the Spanish Civil War
• do make think: anarchy and culture.
• Too concerned with culture: Emma Goldman and the Cultural Politics of Discourse
• LIBERATION NOW: PRESENT-TENSE DIMENSIONS OF CONTEMPORARY ANARCHISM
• HAYMARKET AFFAIR 1886 AND ITS EFFECT ON RADICAL, REFORM AND REACTIONARY POLITICS
• Revolution in the Stacks: A Bibliography of Selected Multimedia Anarchist Resources in English
• Research Papers in Russian and East European Studies
• Anarchy and Source Code – What does the Free Software Movement have to do with Anarchism?
• Lessons from Seattle: Resistance to Globalization, the Media, and the State’s Response
• Anarchism, Alternative Publishers and Copyright
• The United States, International Policing and the War against Anarchist Terrorism, 1900–1914
• Nietzsche: Socialist, Anarchist, Feminist
• Anarchism and the Movement Against Globalization in the United States
• Nowhere At Home 1: Not Even In Theory
• Christian Anarchism: A Forgotten Alternative for the Peaceful Ordering of Society
• Clueless in Seattle. (WTO protesters)
• Before Communism: Rethinking the Early Socialist Movement in South Africa
• Anarchism, Representation, and Culture
• The Theory and Practice of the Welfare State
• Revisiting Anarchism and Government
• Postrevolutionary Pioneer: Anarchist María Luisa Marín and the Veracruz Renters’s Movement
• Types of Terrorism by World System Location
• Exhibition on the Case of Sacco and Vanzetti Will Be Unveiled for the Fall Semester of 2007
• Accounting and the Virtues of Anarchy
• Is Government Inevitable?
• Mothers, Mistresses and Militants: A History of Women in Modern Japan
• THE SCHISM BETWEEN INDIVIDUALIST AND COMMUNIST ANARCHISM IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY
• Building Democratic Partnerships: The G8-Civil Society Link
• Something is Coming
• Empowering anarchy: Power, hegemony, and anarchist strategy
• AL-QAEDA AND ANARCHISM: A HISTORIAN’S REPLY TO TERROROLOGY
• From Public Sphere to Public Screen: Democracy, Activism, and the “Violence” of Seattle

I think this is an excellent idea and we should all pitch in and try to extract as much useful info as possible. скоморохъ 01:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC) To this end, I have vetted the articles for their reliability:

• denotes a reliable source, published by a third party, peer reviewed etc.
• denotes an article written by a reputable scholar but which does not meet publishing standards i.e. a paper presented at a conference
• denotes a source that is unreliable i.e. theses, dissertations, unpublished essays.
• denotes my ignorance. скоморохъ 13:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

You can explain your reasoning for each resource above if you like, but I'm taking off your icons because they give the impression that the sources were actually "vetted" by more than just you. Aelffin (talk) 19:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! I was going to remove these icons, but you beat me to it. The presence of those icons gave the impression that they were part of an official Wikipedia process for classifying sources. The sourcing scoring system can only represent the subjective opinions of one individual. Hey, thanks to the person who posted these links. I've added most of these files to the Infoshop Library. Chuck0 (talk) 03:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry chaps, it was poor judgement on my part; I have struck my comment above. I did not mean to sound at all authoritative, just trying to help Aefflin's idea along by indicating which sources would be best to concentrate on. Have we any ideas about how to procede with them? Apologies again, скоморохъ 03:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

No worries. I figure if somebody wants to use one of these, they should just make a note here as to why they think it's reliable and we'll all hash it out like we always do. Aelffin (talk) 04:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, once a source is vetted by consensus, I think we should put the icon on it for future reference. I'd like to see the same done for the references that are already cited in the article. Aelffin (talk) 16:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Definitions of anarchism

Here's a decent scholarly article that deals extensively with various definitionss of the word "anarchism". To combat some of the criticism of the opening paragraphs of the current article, I think this is a good place to start for a rewrite. There is an extensive reference list at the end that will provide more sources. Aelffin (talk) 19:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• Australian Anarcha-punk Zines - Poststructuralism in contemporary anarchist and gender politics http://www4.gu.edu.au:8080/adt-root/uploads/approved/adt-QGU20070104.115215/public/02Whole.pdf

The master's thesis that you've linked to really doesn't deal particularly well with the definitions of "anarchism." The lit review covers "zine literature" and a bit of "punk literature." While it would be nice to get some more recent material in here, rewriting the definition section on the basis of this kind of thing would be a real disaster. Libertatia (talk) 23:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The reason scholarly sources are preferabble to general reference books is that scholarly articles deal more directly with the primary sources. Zines are one of the most important primary source materials for documenting social movements such as anarchism. While I agree that using this article alone would be a bad move, my argument is that our definitions should be based on this and other scholarly, comparatively up-to-date, secondary sources (rather than, say, century old primary sources). Aelffin (talk) 15:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The defining idea, "the rejection of a coercive state", is stated three times in the first four sentences. A better use of these sentences would be to state other defining ideas, such as rejection of illegitemate authority ("seek out authority and challenge it"), rejection of power hierarchies, the aim "to create a society within which individuals freely co-operate together as equals. As such anarchism opposes all forms of hierarchical control ..."[1] What's more, perhaps one of these more general or positive definitions should be in the first sentence instead of the "rejection of the state". Certainly there is no need to put our own definition that just rephrases one of the quoted definitions. -Pgan002 (talk) 02:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

AAFAQ

Off-topic discussion of AAFAQ and Infoshop.org

"The most prominent site is the Anarchist FAQ, which receives links from over 20% of anarchist sites in the population." [2] There you have it, AAFAQ is the most prominent Anarchist website, or at least it was at the time of this study. So, feel free to use it as a reference. Aelffin (talk) 21:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

That definitely clashes with the claim at Anarchism.net that IT is the most popular anarchist website. This claim SEEMS to be based on doing a google search for anarchism, and anarchism.net being the second listing (after THIS article). Murderbike (talk) 23:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

You might want to be more specific when you talk about popularity or citations. Infoshop.org has been the most popular website for many years. Doing a quick check of stats shows that Anarchism.net doesn't even come close to Infoshop, or for that matter, most anarchist websites. Infoshop is well cited too, including citations in scholarly literature. But this section is about An Anarchist FAQ which is seen be many anarchists to be a reputable source on the subject of anarchism. Chuck0 (talk) 02:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

From that same source "gathered data on the structure and content of the anarchist Web media by searching for 'anarchism' on Yahoo.com in the fall of 1998", so this data is nearly a decade old were as google search results are quite current. Again from that same source "we did not collect systematic data on the number of non-anarchist sites linking into the network", so this data only accounts for anarchists sites not the web in general as google search does. JoshHeitzman (talk) 05:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

That's correct--the question of what counts as the most prominent anarchist website is really two different questions. First, what is the most linked-to anarchist website within the online anarchist community. Second, what is the most linked-to anarchist website in general. The paper actually does deal with both questions as I recall, but the only one I quoted was the first one. It's also correct that Google is more up to date, but Google is not a citable source. Either way, I don't think there's any doubt that (as some have argued here in the past) AAFAQ is fair game for citations. Aelffin (talk) 15:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Irrelevant, popularity has no bearing on what constitutes a reliable source; its reputation for fact-checking and accuracy and its thorough vetting by the scholarly community are what counts. AAFAQ appears to be completely unacceptable on these grounds and should only be included as an "opinion" source (as it is popular and representative of a certain POV) rather than a "fact" source. скоморохъ 15:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it should be used as a representation of popular points of view within anarchism. What I mean is that I should be able to write "According to one of the most prominent anarchist websites[scholarly citation], anarchism is defined as...[AAFAQ citation]." Or, "According to one of the most prominent anarchist websites[scholarly citation], anarchists do not recognize anarcho-capitalism as being within the anarchist milieu [AFAQ itation]." I've seen such statements challenged in the past on the basis that AAFAQ isn't a reliable resource. I just want it to be on record that, according to scholarly research, AAFAQ does in fact represent popular anarchist opinion. Aelffin (talk) 16:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

No, AAFAQ should only be included for its own opinions i.e. "AAFAQ does not consider an-caps to be anarchists". It is not a reliable source for facts. Consider a parallel case "According to one of the most prominent talk radio shows[scholarly citation], liberals are...[[[Rush Limbaugh]] citation]." AAFAQ is a partisan hackjob, popular and respected in its partisan circles, whose factual claims should not be given credence in an encyclopedia article. скоморохъ 16:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Bad analogy. The proper analogy is "According to a prominent conservative [scholarly citation], conservatives are...[Rush Limbaugh citation]." That's fair, because it's the source (important conservative) talking about his own area of expertise (conservatism). Same holds if Jesse Jackson is talking about the democratic party or Murray Rothbard is talking about anarcho-capitalism. Whether you agree with them or not, they are all independantly acknowledged as respected experts, and they are speaking on topics in their field of expertise. Likewise with AAFAQ. If it was Rush talking about liberals or Jesse talking about republicans, or Murray talking about socialists, then your analogy would hold true. But the reverse does not hold. Aelffin (talk) 17:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Clarification The proper analogy is "According to a prominent conservative organization [scholarly citation], conservatives don't consider democrats to be conservative...[Heritage Foundation citation]." Aelffin (talk) 17:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The editors of AAFAQ are not independently acknowledged as experts in their fields. Furthermore, the "anarchism" AAFAQ refers to is explicitly limited to social anarchism (see refs of AFAQ), and is therefore a very different kettle of fish than the "anarchism" this article is discussing. So not only are they not experts in their field, this isn't even their field. We have a long-standing consensus that sectarianism should not be treated as fact; including partisan sources of questionable reliability is tendentious. скоморохъ 18:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

It's ridiculous to say that the editor of the AAFAQ is not acknowledged to be an expert in the field of anarchism. Who are you? The editor of the AAFAQ is well known in the international anarchist movement and the FAQ is generally seen, even by critics, to be a fairly good overview of anarchism. Chuck0 (talk) 03:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

First, it's not an issue of fact. It's an issue of opinion, so the factual reliability is irrelevant. Second, the study did not isolate socialist anarchism from anarcho-capitalism. It was a study of all known anarchist websites at the time. And it found that AAFAQ was the single most prominent website out of all known anarchist websites at the time. So, while the AAFAQ editors may or may not be "experts" per se, they can at least be considered representative of the opinions of online anarchists circa 1998. Aelffin (talk) 18:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. There is no proof that they represent the opinions of any more than the handful, or less, of online anarchists that wrote it. Operation Spooner (talk) 18:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by the AAFAQ website? What is that? Operation Spooner (talk) 18:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The AAFAQ even comes and out admits that it's biased. It doesn't even pretend to be objective. To use it as a source of fact seems to be out of the question based on that alone. Operation Spooner (talk) 18:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

AAFAQ makes an argument, and it cites sources with a thoroughness that puts most academic work on anarchism absolutely to shame. It has the same sort of "bias" that any scholarly work which advances an interpretation will necessarily have. If that sort of "bias" is fatal, then every general history of anarchism that I am aware of would stand a good chot at being disqualified. But the presentation and documentation of arguments, and their subsequent testing, is merely part of scholarly process. And, by Wikpedia's standards, we are not the folks who get to make the calls. So far, the responses to AAFAQ seem to have been equally partisan, and the author's responses to substantive criticism generally within scholarly bounds. Libertatia (talk) 19:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

No. Not as a source of fact, as a source of opinion. But it is independantly verified as being representative of the opinions of online anarchism. The study's other finding I mentioned above was that "...81% of all links made by anarchists are to explicitly left-political sites." So, we can safely say that online anarchism as of 1998 was predominately leftist, and that the leftist-oriented AAFAQ was the center of online anarchism. That would seem to make their opinions quite representative of online anarchism. Aelffin (talk) 18:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you're confused. I think you're talking about Infoshop.com. They're not the author of the AAFAQ. They just post in on their website. That's not the AAFAQ website. The actual AAFAQ website is here: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/ Operation Spooner (talk) 18:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I visit Infoshop, which posts the AAFAQ. Does that mean the AAFAQ represents my opinions? I don't see how you can draw that conclusion. Operation Spooner (talk) 18:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Infoshop.org is the primary website for AAFAQ. I can say that as the coordinator of Infoshop. Chuck0 (talk) 03:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not my conclusion. It is the conclusion of independant scholarly research based on empircal data (though it also happens to verify the anecdotal evidence). The paper says -

Anarchists are very self-conscious about their public image. Most sites include their own disclaimer about what anarchism is and is not. Many sites, however, rather than dedicate a large share of their web space to explaining and justifying anarchism, choose instead to refer the reader to the core, thereby creating a centralized public face of anarchism online...The most prominent site is the Anarchist FAQ, which receives links from over 20% of anarchist sites in the population. Offering an introductory statement on anarchism to the uninitiated, the FAQ’s stated goal is "to present what anarchism really stands for and indicate why you should become an anarchist," and it includes over 1000 pages of original text covering most aspects of anarchist thought and practice.

This very clearly states that 20% of all anarchist websites in 1998 were using AAFAQ as a substitute for their own FAQ. It also identifies two or three other websites that constitute the "core". Aelffin (talk) 18:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

From that, how are you drawing the conclusion that everyone, most, or even some people, that links to the AAFAQ or posts the AAFAQ on their website considers everything in it to be representative of their own opinions? This is a non sequitur. Operation Spooner (talk) 19:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

As quoted above, the study draws the conclusion that "Most sites include their own disclaimer about what anarchism is and is not. Many sites, however, rather than dedicate a large share of their web space to explaining and justifying anarchism, choose instead to refer the reader to the core". The core is identified as the following, with AAFAQ as the most important of these...

• Infoshop www.infoshop.org
• Anarchist FAQ www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931
• Spunk Press www.spunk.org
• Liberty for the People flag.blackened.net/liberty
• Anarchy Archives anarchyarchives.org
• Noam Chomsky Archive http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/index.cfm
• Independent Media Center www.indymedia.org

Aelffin (talk) 19:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

But, I visit some of those sites too. That doesn't mean that everything in the AAFAQ is representative of my opinions. The most you could say, and even then it would not be reasonable to say, is that the owners of those website agree that everything in the AAFAQ is representative of their own opinions. The AAFAQ is linked to on Wikipedia. What does it mean? Nothing, other than that someone posted it here. Operation Spooner (talk) 19:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

This is the problem with Wikipedia's "Verifiability, not Truth" policy. Murderbike (talk) 19:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Spooner--Visiting is not the same as linking to. Murderbike--The study is verifiable and provides evidence that AAFAQ was the most prominent anarchist website. The most prominent website may be quoted to demonstrate its own point of view. I don't see what the problem is. Spooner--Now, you may contend that study was flawed in its conclusion that anarchist websites linked to AAFAQ to substitute for their own FAQs, but that contention is original research on your part. Aelffin (talk) 19:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is the most prominent encyclopedia site is it not? Does that mean that most people who visit it agree with everything that's in it? It doesn't make any sense what you're saying. I view the AAFAQ. Some of it I agree with and some I don't. And why are you referencing someone's term paper? Has this paper even been published? Operation Spooner (talk) 19:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

It isn't my conclusion. It is the study's conclusion. If you don't think the study makes sense, then affiliate yourself with a university and publish your own scholarly study that we can quote as a criticism. It is published by the Department of Sociology, on the website of the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Aelffin (talk) 19:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

So what if anarchists websites link to the AAFAQ? You can't, and the study, doesn't draw any conclusion than that other than it's a popularly-linked to website. Just the act of linking to something doesnt meant that you agree with everything in it. Moreover, there is no evidence that the owners of those sites that do link to it have opinions identical to the opinions of all online anarchists. The study says no such thing. Operation Spooner (talk) 19:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Once more, the study concludes that the websites link to AAFAQ "rather than dedicate a large share of their web space to explaining and justifying anarchism". You can dispute this conclusion, but that statement is pretty clear. Also, where did you find that this study was a term paper? Aelffin (talk) 19:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

It says rather than explaining and justifying anarchism the websites point people to other websites including the AAFAQ for information. That still doesn't mean that all online anarchists agree with everything in the AAFAQ, or even that some of them agree with everything in the AAFAQ. How are you coming to that conclusion? (The study just looked like a term paper. If it's published nevermind that.) Operation Spooner (talk) 19:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I never said that online anarchists agreee with everything in the AAFAQ. I just said it was the most prominent website out of a handful of ideologically similar "core" sites. Just read the study. Here are some quotes...

• "A form of ideological gatekeeping emerges, which encourages readers to pass through core introductory sites first before moving to sites dedicated to anarchist activism on the periphery."
• "The core-periphery structure funneled readers towards the core, which displays ideological agreement, while a densely connected community facilitated movement through the network and situated anarchism within a broader political context."

Aelffin (talk) 20:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

You said "While the AAFAQ editors may or may not be "experts" per se, they can at least be considered representative of the opinions of online anarchists circa 1998." The study doesn't indicate that. One of the quotes you gave said something about "ideological agreement" among a few websites. So what? That still doesn't lead to your conclusion, that I can see. Operation Spooner (talk) 20:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I said AAFAQ (and a few other ideologically similar core sites) are representative of the larger anarchist website population. I never said that they all agree. Agreement and representation are two different things. The study says the core sites are being used as a substitute for FAQs on the periphery sites. That's representation. Aelffin (talk) 21:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

That's not what it said. It said that they displayed ideological agreement. I take that as meaning the operators of those websites are all social anarchists. But that still doesn't mean that everything in the AAFAQ is representative of the opinions of all the social anarchists than run those websites. And it certainly doesnt mean that everything in the AAFAQ is representative of "online anarchist" except for those few people that wrote the AAFAQ. There may even be disagreement among two or more authors of the AAFAQ. That AAFAQ cannot speak for all anarchists or even all social anarchists. Operation Spooner (talk) 21:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The AAFAQ was written by anarchists, not social anarchists. The fact that you make this distinction about social anarchists indicates that you are one of those anarcho-capitalists who come here to pick fights. Chuck0 (talk) 04:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Spooner--you're the only one who's using the word "everything". Ultimately, each person speaks only for him, her, or itself. However, Wikipedia cannot display every single opinion. Our job as Wikipedians is to use scholarly secondary sources to summarize the most significant aspects of the subject matter. The data show a significant majority of anarchist websites linked to other politically left websites outside the anarchist community and that the most linked-to websites inside the community were a small number of left-oriented websites. The data are here, for the record. I think the significance is obvious, but other people may use them as they see fit. I'm bowing out of the conversation for now. Aelffin (talk) 22:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

If you agree that there is not agreement on "everything" in the FAQ among anarchists, then you have to concede that quoting anything from the fact is going to be a gamble on whether that particular statement is going to represent the opinion of all, most, or some anarchists. Just the fact that a lot of people link to the AAFAQ doesn't mean anything other than it's a popular thing to which to link. It's linked to on Wikipedia but that doesn't mean that the opinions presented by the FAQ represent the opinions of all of us here who use and operate Wikipedia. Operation Spooner (talk) 22:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

"Irrelevant, popularity has no bearing on what constitutes a reliable source; its reputation for fact-checking and accuracy and its thorough vetting by the scholarly community are what counts. AAFAQ appears to be completely unacceptable on these grounds and should only be included as an "opinion" source (as it is popular and representative of a certain POV) rather than a "fact" source" Popularity does have a bearing on what is considered to be a reliable source. Popularity is a factor that is considered in the construction of traditional reference tools. Google and other search engine rely on search algorithms that factor in the popularity of a site based on links to that site (see Alexa pagerank). It's interesting that you come here with some certainty about what a reliable source constitutes, when Wikipedia policy itself admits that thisis a contested idea. I'm also bothered by this idea that the "scholarly community" is being put on a pedestal. There are lots of people not involved in academia who are capable of vetting and fact-checking sources. Anarchists are traditionally not situated in academia. And the primary editor of AAFAQ has been responsive over the past 10 years to corrections and rewrites. Chuck0 (talk) 03:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Chuck, you surely know by know that I'm referring to Wikipedia policy, not some commonsense definition of reliable. Anarchism.net is one of the first results of a Google search for "anarchism", making it an extremely popular resource - I don't think this qualifies it as a reliable source either. Using 10-year old research on internet usage to gauge reliability is even more ridiculous. Scholarly community need not be limited to academia, nor should a reputation for vetting and fact-checking. The AAFAQ has been, with some merit, criticized by respected scholars such as Caplan and Friedman for being uninterested in the truth. I'm not going to get in to this much further, as the ridiculous length of this discussion compared to the dearth of constuctve editing to the actual article is so indicative of what's wrong with this page, and anarchist activism generally.скоморохъ 09:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't like to toot our own horn, but Infoshop is probably the most prominent anarchist website. That is based on our traffic, which has made Infoshop consistently the most popular website on the nets. There are plenty of links out there to Infoshop and citations in scholarly resources. But this thread is about the AAFAQ, so let me point out that many anarchists, including critics, see the FAQ as being a pretty reliable source on what anarchism is about. People should do some research to see what critics say about the FAQ. The FAQ was also updated recently (tho I haven't uploaded the updates to Infoshop) to reflect some input from a prominent anarcho-individualist. I've expressed some criticism of the AAFAQ too, but I would consider it to be one of the best contemporary overviews on anarchism. Chuck0 (talk) 03:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Infoshop is a has been. But yes this is about the AAFAQ, and you may have your standard of what constitutes reliability, but I don't think they meet the higher standards of reliability for Wikipedia. Operation Spooner (talk) 04:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

In other words, the comment you just made makes no sense. You make an attack on Infoshop.org as being a "has been", which is pretty funny given the scope of our website and its popularity. Your comment about the AAFAQ not meeting Wikipedia's standards of reliability demonstrates that you don't know anything about Wikipedia's standards. I don't know if anybody has pointed this out yet, but the AAFAQ is being printed in book form by AK Press this month or next. That's a pretty good indication of the FAQ's notability and importance in the international anarchist movement. I will also note that parts of the FAQ have been translated into other languages, which is another indicator of importance and reliability. Chuck0 (talk) 04:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh come on. You know good and well that when most people want info on anarchism, they look on Wikipedia, not Infoshop. Infoshop is a dinosaur, and it's going to remain that way as long as it's focused on socialist anarchism and biased against market anarchism. About AAFAQ being published, we heard that last year too. Until that happens, and it probably will never happen, it's irrelevant. If it does happen, it will be by a second party publisher so it will still not be percieved as very reliable. The fact that someone translated it it in no way indicative of importance or reliability. Operation Spooner (talk) 06:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Zazaban (talk) 07:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Your comments are pretty silly. Lots of people come to Infoshop for information on anarchism. If Infoshop is such a dinosaur, why are we adding two news servers to deal with our increasing traffic? Infoshop is not focused on socialist anarchism, in fact, its long been our mission to promote and educate about anarchism, as it is broadly defined. That is part of the reason why Infoshop has become one of the go to websites on the subject of anarchism. We have some materials on market anarchism and will be adding more in the future. Adding more stuff always depends on volunteers.

The AAFAQ is being published this year by AK Press. I don't understand why you dismiss this. Printing schedules always slip a bit at independent publishers. The fact that the FAQ is being published by a major independent publishers shows that the FAQ is reliable and noteworthy. The fact that the FAQ has been translated into multiple languages also demonstrates its importance to anarchists. That's how you measure these things. If you just don't like the FAQ, say so. Otherwise, you've just lost this argument. Chuck0 (talk) 01:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Where on your site is info on market anarchism? Do you have info about the most famous market anarchist Murray Rothbard? Last I heard Infoshop banned any discussion of anarcho-capitalism. Operation Spooner (talk) 05:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Infoshop has some articles and information about mutualism and market anarchism. We were going to add more stuff to the library, but much of the recent material I found are bloggish postings unsuitable for a library. Infoshop News has featured and linked to stories by mutualists and market anarchists. You are quite right about us not allowing any "anarcho-capitalism" on the website. That isn't the same thing as market anarchism. Almost all anarchists see "anarcho-capitalism" as being an oxymoron. Market anarchists and mutualists are quite clear that they are anti-capitalist. By the way, we may be including something by Rothbard in a book I'm publishing. Chuck0 (talk) 17:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

And that's why Infoshop is a dinosaur, trying to hold on to dying philosophy. Very few people are mutualists today. Nearly everyone today who calls himself a market anarchist is an anarcho-capitalist. There is no basic difference between almost everyone who calls themself a market anarchist and the philosophy and Rothbard or Friedman. Operation Spooner (talk) 23:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

You aren't making much sense here. You complained that Infoshop didn't have anything on mutualism and when I pointed out that we d have some content on mutualism you accuse us of being a dinosaur. Do you understand the concept of a library? A library is going to have content that doesn't reflect the views of the librarians who collect that information. Infoshop is a resource and library. Our mission is to collect and make available various resources on anarchism and other topics. The fact that we have some content on mutualism doesn't mean that any of the collective members are mutualists! Chuck0 (talk) 17:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I said you didn't have anything on market anarchism. When most people talk about "market anarchism" they're not talking about mutualism. They're talking about what you would call "anarcho-capitalism." Most anarcho-capitalists don't call themselves anarcho-capitalists, but simply market anarchists and they're not mutualists. Operation Spooner (talk) 17:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I hate to put a damper on this party, but can we please stick to discussing the article titled Anarchism instead of spouting our POVs about the FAQ and Infoshop.org? Murderbike (talk) 02:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed; off-topic discussion concealed. скоморохъ 17:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Social insertion

Is there anybody here who'd be interested in helping me improve the Social insertion article? A lot of the material isn't available in English, and my Spanish isn't very good. Aelffin (talk) 20:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Way to technical...

A good deal of the explinations in the article get way to technical. They should either have their own page with more detail about each bit, or maybe someone could just remove the list of types, and replace them with words that users don't have to click the link leading to the link to the link to figure out what you mean. Some of this is like it was copied from an Advanced Sociology Text book.

Recently-developed schools of thought Is just one example. 69.207.42.15 (talk) 05:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

"Contradict" tag

This tag was added to the article with the following edit summary: "Contradiction: List of forms of government includes anarchism; this article says anarchism precludes government." I can see how readers might confuse this. However, the definition of anarchism in this article is: "a political philosophy encompassing theories and attitudes which reject compulsory government (the state) and support its elimination." That seems clear to me. Anarchism is a political perspective that rejects state authority. It is, nevertheless, a form of government. I think that the distinction is both subtle and appropriate. I don't see a problem with it. Sunray (talk) 19:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Although, I've not look into it very deeply, I tend to agree with Sunray.

There has been more discussion on this and related issues on the Template:Forms of Government [[3]] discussion page. I believe it was that discussion that prompted the editor to tag this, that and perhaps other pages with "Contradict." Here's the link to that discussion [[4]]. Doright (talk) 00:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that discussion is interesting. I was rather surprised that someone tried to argue that the OED definition should somehow take precedence over Proudhon's. However, even if one were to conclude with the OED editors that anarchism is the absence of government, surely that would not preclude it from a list of forms of government. "No government" would logically be a choice with respect to government. Personally, though, I prefer Proudhon's (and this article's) definition. Sunray (talk) 10:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

This kind of thing is going to happen as long as we treat anarchism as though it has a single definition. When a reader comes to this page, they may be looking up a topic they read about in a book, heard from a friend, heard on the news, learned in school, etc, etc, etc... There's no reason to assume that they're coming here to learn about the particular version defined above by Sunray (i.e. a political philosophy encompassing theories and attitudes which reject compulsory government--the state--and support its elimination). The fact is, different reliable sources use the word in different ways, and we should do our best to treat all of them. If we pick one definition above the others, we are violating WP:NPOV. A related issue is the distinction between the different forms of the word (anarchy, anarchism, anarchic, anarchistic and anarchist), which is also not dealt with properly in the article as it stands. Aelffin (talk) 17:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, indeed!. Sunray (talk) 07:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I always thought we should split the article into Anarchism (philosophy) and Anarchism (movement). The former would treat all the various theories, philosophies, and meanings of the word while the latter would treat the history of the particular anarchist movement that evolved out of 19th century labor struggles. Aelffin (talk) 12:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Since the editor that applied the contradict tag has not responded to the above discussion (and has subsequently edited other sections of this talk page), I'll assume that they will not object to the removal of the tag. Doright (talk) 00:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

It would probably save you more trouble to assume good faith. скоморохъ 00:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, Skomorokh aka скоморохъ, I have not a clue what I’m to infer from the apparent non-sequitur regarding good faith except that you are miffed about something. Doright (talk) 02:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

It would be assuming good faith to think that I placed the tag out of a genuine concern rather than to make a point. I am less than miffed, I am in fact, rather piqued. Springtime is here and birds are chirping merrily. скоморохъ 02:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes it would. However, it’s not particularly helpful to follow a tautology with yet another non sequitur. I did not question your good faith. Nor did I even remotely imply any question about it whatsoever. Furthermore, I never suggested you were trying to make a point. So, I’m really at a loss to explain what you are now carrying on about? Doright (talk) 04:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, please continues this discussion at the talk page the tag and Doright linked to: Template_talk:Forms_of_government#Anarchism. I will now respond to some of the specific points raised here.

• OED vs. Proudhon: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which is a tertiary source. Wikipedia only permits primary sources such as Proudhon's writings to be used with care, as they are easy to misuse. Any interpretation of primary source material, such as that by Doright on the linked talk page, requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation, which has not been forthcoming. Primary sources may only be used to make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, not to make any analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source. To claim that anarchism is a form of government because of claims you attribute to Proudhon is, unfortunately a case of the latter, and constitutes original research. As you may have gleaned by now, it is absolutely proper practice to rely on a reliable tertiary source such as the OED ahead of a primary one. If you are still confused about this, I invite you to familiarise yourself with the policy on the matter.

The claim of WP:OR is a straw-man. I made no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source. I merely brought to our attention the text from the article. I wrote: "I don't think it is quite so obvious that anarchism should be excluded. And, I have not seen anyone redefining it to suit their purposes. Since an appeal has been made to the anarchism article, please note the following text that I have cut and pasted from it." It says that Proudhon saw anarchy as a form of government. Specifically, I wrote: The anarchism article says the "founder of modern anarchist theory" ... "saw anarchy as a form of government," and cites Selected Writings, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon as a reliable source.[[ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Forms_of_government&diff=190226573&oldid=177675914]] This is purely descriptive; no WP:OR here. Apparently, the so called father of Anarchism saw anarchy as a form of government. When Wikipedia users make use of the Template:Forms of government perhaps they will be interested in discovering Proudhon’s point of view. Cheers, Doright (talk) 20:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• "No government" is a form of government: It's difficult to take this claim seriously; is atheism also a form of religion? Is "no cheese" a form of cheese? No, this statement is analytically false.

It is the analysis that the argument reduces to not A is A that is false. For example, are you prepared to argue that Black should be removed from the WP List of colors? If so, I look forward to your discussion on that talk page. Cheers, Doright (talk) 20:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• There are many definitions so we can't rule out this interpretation: This shows a lack of understanding of our policies on verifiability and weight; just because there are many different definitions of anarchism, it does not mean that any definition of anarchism is acceptable. Given disagreement between sources (or in this case between sources and editor's points of view), we present the perspectives advanced in the most reliable sources in our content. An editors opinion that anarchism is a form of government is pure original research which carries absolutely no weight in contested cases. The sources clearly define anarchism in opposition to, as opposed to a form of, government.

Indeed, Merriam-Webster Online defines Anarchism as, "1 : a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable . . . ." Please note that the lexicographers do not write a political theory holding all forms of government to be unnecessary and undesirable, as at least one editor seems to emphatically suggest. That would certainly be more concise, but apparently incorrect. Instead the lexicographers seem to have constrained the scope of the meaning (making the definition more precise) and limit the focus to authority. [[5]]. Broadening this particular and WP:Reliable definition of Anarchism to the negation of all forms of government would seem to be WP:OR. Cheers, Doright (talk) 21:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

If you would like to respond, please do so on the linked discussion page. Thanks, скоморохъ 01:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the above. Skomorokh knows his stuff when it comes to sourcing and what consitutes original research. Operation Spooner (talk) 02:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

You may be right, but it entirely misses the point. Perhaps this will help. If Anarchism should be removed from the template Forms of government, then it certainly must follow that Black should be removed from the List of colors. After all, black is even more clearly precisely the lack of all colors, just as some will argue that Anarchism is the lack of all government. However, just as I don't think that it is helpful to the user of Wikipedia to delete black from the list of colors, I don't think it is helpful to remove Anarchy from the list or template or category Forms of government. It's probably worth noting that it appears that black has been included on the Wikipedia list of colors since its inception over 4 years ago. Cheers, Doright (talk) 07:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, clearly "no government" is one In the range of choices about government. However, more tellingly, Anarchism is not the absence of government but rather the absence of "state" government. Anarchist groups that I am aware of certainly have governance, rules, leadership, etc. Not capital "G" government, but government, nevertheless. Aelffin's point that "different reliable sources use the word in different ways, and we should do our best to treat all of them..." needs to be addressed, IMO. Sunray (talk) 15:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

And of course, the definition of "government" is also somewhat slushy even in reliable sources. When it gets into anarchist interpretations of government, the definition becomes even more slushy. I have a slight disagreement with Sunray in that anarchism does not--according to most anarchists--mean simply absence of state government, but opposition to *any* form of governance which involves a power relationship between parties. So, anarchism includes self-governance of individuals with equal power but does not include hierarchical governence of individuals without equal power, as in an employer-employee relationship. Aelffin (talk) 15:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Anarchism does not forbid individuals contracting as employer and employee. You seem to be assuming all anarchism is communistic. Neither do employers and employees have unequal power. Employers to not require that employees obey them. Employees are free to disobey and leave the contract. Operation Spooner (talk) 17:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I said "most". Aelffin (talk) 19:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see that. But, even anarcho-communism is a form of governmenance over the individual. The community is the government over the individual. That's why individualist anarchists don't like anarcho-communism. If you're looking for anarchism that allows absolutely no "power relationship" over the individual, the only one's I can think of are maybe Stirner's form of individualist anarchism, possibly Godwin's where all cooperation is shunned, and Thoreau's where the individual goes off to live alone and is s self-sufficient. Operation Spooner (talk) 23:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Depends on how you define government. Most anarchists--and by that I mean left anarchists--define government in terms of power relationships such that any power relationship is a de facto government. A community with unequal distribution of power necessarily has government of some kind. Power comes in many forms, and each has associated forms of government... Unequal political power (state government), unequal gender power (patriarchy/matriarchy), unequal economic power (aristocracy/exploitation), unequal racial power (racism/slavery), unequal religious power (theocracy), etc. Don't get me wrong, I don't think that most anarchists articulate this very clearly in their own minds--but listen to anarchists speak and nine times out of ten, you can tell this is what they mean. To most anarchists, it's the equal distribution of all forms of power that characterizes an anarchic society (as opposed to state communism which only opposes economic inequality and anarcho-capitalism which only opposes political inequality). So, the difference between your view and mine is that you see a community as a system of rules and social order, which to you is a form of government, whereas I see an anarchic community as a group of cooperating individuals of equal power, and therefore government-free.

I think that is how we should look at the definition in this article because as it is, we're using a slur as our definition. Using "anarchism", as we do in this article, to mean "anti-state" is a slur, was originally intended as a slur, and when used that way is almost always intended as a slur still. It is precisely equivalent to defining the word "liberalism" as "anti-american", and that's not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Aelffin (talk) 13:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Recently-developed schools of thought

What constitutes recently developed? Anarcho-capitalism is pretty old, as is anarchism without adjectives. So why are they there? Operation Spooner (talk) 20:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I am largely responsible for the division. The previous version included an arbitrary selection of schools of thought, each of roughly the same length (undue weight)) and at the same hierarchy (difficult for readers to understand relative importance), as well as an "Anarchism today" section that had especifismo, post-anarchism, post-left anarchy etc. When anarchist schools of thought was created, a structure for grouping schools of thought was needed. It is obvious and verifiable that the Green, Feminist and Pacifist schools all took off post-WWII, and even moreso for Post-Left, Insurrectionary, Postanarchism. Per sources, Rothbard coined the term "anarcho-capitalism", and it emerged out of the libertarian movement, a term itself coined by Russell in 1955. So I think there is a very neat and appropriate separation of anarchist schools of thought into pre- and post-WWII developments. I'm open to constructive suggestions for renaming the section or reforming the structure, but I think it is on the whole the best approach we have at present, if sticking to a quasi-historical arrangement.

Anarchism without adjectives is not now, nor has it been in the Recently-developed section. Regards, скоморохъ 21:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, that seems like a fine division to me. Maybe what the division is should be reflected in the title of the section. Do you have a source for Russell coining the term? This is the first I've heard that. But, anyway, some historians such as Ralph Raico trace anarcho-capitalism back to the mid 19th century, as does Rothbard himself, regardless of what name it has come under. I guess I can add that in. About anarchism without adjectives, ok, I was mistaken. It looked like it was falling under that section. I wonder why it's down there though instead of up with the rest of the schools. Operation Spooner (talk) 21:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I think I originally titled the section "Contemporary developments" but someone changed it. I'm not especially happy with either name. Primary source on Russell is here. I can appreciate the contested accounts of an-cap, but it seems like it really took off as a distinct, self-identifying and notable school of thought with Rothbard and the second/third waves of the Austrian School. While I appreciate your wanting to make the entry strictly accurate, the schools of thought sections here are just supposed to be brief, non-comprehensive summaries of the most important things to know about that particular school. Please feel free to clarify and develop the anarchist schools of thought ancap section though - that way if a reader is unsatisfied with the glib summary here, they can go into more detail there.

Anarchism without adjectives is ghettoized to the bottom as it is neither one of the main strands of classical anarchism - currently Philosophical (we need to figure the status of that out), Mutualism, Individualist and Social - or a recently developed school of thought. I put it at the bottom because it seems like an ahistorical anti-school of thought, and a nice way to end the section when the reader must be incredulous at the diversity of disagreement and identification among the schools. Again, open to ideas. скоморохъ 21:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I thought you were saying Russell coined the term "anarcho-capitalism." Operation Spooner (talk) 21:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Mea culpa, sloppy grammar. скоморохъ 21:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Russell didn't coin the term "libertarian" (although, reading the Russell quote in the article on Libertarianism, it's easy to see how one could get that impression). The term actually dates to 1789 [6] and, like liberal, its meaning in popular use has shifted but it still retains the classical meaning when used in scholarly literature. The term had fallen out of use, probably by through association with the notion of Libertine licentiousness. What Russell did was to suggest a revival of the term since, by 1955, the term "libertine" had itself become an archaism. Aelffin (talk) 18:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say he coined "libertarian", but "libertarian movement" as regards the private propertarian American phenomenon. Interesting info you posted, but not really relevant to improving the Anarchism article. Could be of use in the ongoing Talk:Libertarianism discussion, though. Regards, скоморохъ 18:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Section title

Does anyone have a suggestion for a concise yet accurate title for this section? "Modern schools of thought" has unfortunate connotations, "Contemporary" seems plainly false - 1960's anarchists are hardly contemporaneous with the present day - and "Recently-developed" sounds, well, too recent. Is there any scholarly consensus on how to refer to the period after the "golden age" of anarchism? скоморохъ 21:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe separate the article in centuries? Operation Spooner (talk) 22:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the other sections are fine; we could call this one "20th century developments" but I'm not sure if that's an accurate point of departure; was there much intellectual development in the traditional schools from 1900-1914? We could call it "Developments from the late 20th century onwards", which would be accurate I suppose... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skomorokh (talk • contribs) 22:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I think I might have a decent idea for a name. How about "Anarchism since 1960?" Then we don't have to worry about when they were developed. We just summarize the ideas of the market anarchists in the schools since the 1960's. We can rename "Anarcho-capitalism" to "Market anarchism" or "individualists anarchism" because not all market anarchists since 1960 call themselves anarcho-capitalists. How about Wendy McElroy who just calls hereself an individualist anarchist? Walter Block call himself a free-market anarchist, and so on. It seems strange to confine the section just to people who call themselves anarcho-capitalists and exclude everyone else just based on what they call themselves. There is no place for people who are not "agorists" but are market anarchists. A "social anarchism" section could be there to include the newer ideas, etc. Operation Spooner (talk) 06:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

1999 WTO riot/protest

Why is there no mention of the 1999 WTO riot/protest in Seattle, the bulk of which was organized and driven by anarchists, in this entire article? That's a recent milestone in anarchist organizing history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

I agree, the article is almost entirely totally devoid of recent developments in anarchism. This is an issue I've touched on many times here. Anarchism is in an unprecedented renaissance right now, but reading this article, you'd think the whole movement was stuffed and mounted in a museum. The long list of sources I've provided above have a lot of good info about recent stuff, so have at it and do some writing! I wish I had time to do it myself. Aelffin (talk) 19:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I just had Deja vu. We had this same discussion a few months ago and nothing came of it. Let's not do that again. Zazaban (talk) 02:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

True, I'll probably eventually have to do it all myself. Aelffin (talk) 20:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

This article is a summary article - if someone is willing to write about this topic, the best place to do so is at History of anarchism - if there's then enough material of high quality to make a decent paragraph, we can include it here. The current article, WTO Ministerial Conference of 1999 protest activity, does not focus on anarchism per se. Skomorokh 14:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not so sure how trendy anarchism is nowadays, and whether it is any trendier than back when it became quite a successful marketing tool in the pop music world with the sex pistols etc. Clearly there were a wholerange of narachists involved alongside all sorts of other people in Seattle. As regards there being some sort of renaissance of anarchism now, I think there is little evidence of that, even if certain skills have been applied to profiling anarchism as the leading element within the alter-globalisation movement, albeit with only brief success.Harrypotter (talk) 00:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It's fairly easy to establish the resurgence of anarchism in the United States since 1999. There are numerous books that document this and even more articles. Chuck0 (talk) 02:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there was an increase shortly following 1999, but what I am questioning is whether this has continued to date, or whether it was a temporary blip which peaked 2004-2006?Harrypotter (talk) 09:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's hard to be certain, but the feeling among many of us who have been watching anarchism for a while is that there was a huge spike in interest around 1999, which petered off while anarchists started trying to figure out what to do with their newfound influence. If you look at GoogleTrends data (which only goes back as far as 2004), here, you can see that interest was very spotty until late 2006, but has been fairly steady since. Notice that the data for prominent anarchists follows closely, so we're talking about an increase in interest in anarchist theory, not just interest in anarchist "antics" or some other irrelevance. For a while after 9/11 there was fear that anarchist revival was going to be drown by the surge in patriotism, but as the Bush administration's power grab gave fuel to the left, just the opposite happened. Anarchism definitely established itself as a small but persistent faction in today's politics, at least for the last two years. Aelffin (talk) 13:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

And of course you're talking specifically about the US. The other day I saw an article about the rise in interest in anarchism in Indonesia. Murderbike (talk) 17:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

No, it's a global phenomenon, though the moribund state of North American anarchism in the late 20th century makes its revival particularly noticable. The Google stats I gave weren't limited to the US. Obviously, there's a bias built-in to Google stats, but the high internet use in China, Turkey, India, etc means it's not necessarily an American bias. Aelffin (talk) 19:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Ouch. Look at the slumping interest in anarchism portrayed by this query. Maybe its time to just give it up, eh?  :) - N1h1l (talk) 17:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, you've got to be careful about what you're looking at. Compare these and ask yourself "What's a person who searches for 'anarchists' looking for compared to somebody who searches for 'anarchism' or 'anarchy'?" If you include several closely related variables--as I did above by including prominent anarchists--you can pin down fairly closely what the trend is telling you. Aelffin (talk) 19:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

This exchange has gone in some bizarre directions. If you are going to measure the size and importance of the U.S. anarchist movement, you have to go do some actual research. Measuring the scope and influence of the movement by looking at some arbitrary Google search is just silly. It's pretty easy to establish that the U.S. anarchist movement continues to grow in terms of numbers and influence. You can look at the number of books published by anarchist and non-anarchist presses--the number of new titles continues to grow, especially by non-anarchist publishers. You could look at how much academics are talking about anarchism--this would take some researching of the various abstracting and citation services. You could also measure the size of the movement by looking at the number of anarchist events and attendance at those events. Anarchist bookfairs are always well-attended and new one continue to pop up in the most unusual places. Or you could count the number of anarchist infoshops, which contine to open up in small cities and towns across the U.S. There is no easy source that documents the movement's size and influence, but I think that all indicators point to a growing movement in the U.S. (and around the world). Chuck0 (talk) 19:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Chuck0 on some of this, even though I disagree on other matters. The Googlesearch don't work: (anarchism, fascism and Communism, Bakunin Marx for example) Clearly anarchism is still a very marginal phenomenon, and while a handful of extra individuals attending an anarchist event here or there may seem like a significant event, as regards indicating a genuine trend within society, it clearllry falls short of something of genuine significance. However, Chuck0 talks a great a deal about what people might do if they wanted to research, this, rather than dealing with any actual research. We can all reflect upon our own experience, but our contributions to the article should be guided by wikipedia guidelines. As I have already remarked, while i believe there has been an anarcho blip a few years ago, I do not think any real evidence that this surge has continued since 2004 is quitethin on the ground.Harrypotter (talk) 00:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

It appears to me that the only sector of the anarchist movement that appears to continue to grow is the anarcho-capitalist movement. It appears to pretty much overwhelm others, if the internet is any indication. It has has the greatest level of revival than social/communitarian anarchism according to Morris, Christopher. 1992. An Essay on the Modern State. Cambridge University Press. pp. 61 & 74. But, even taking in account that, I have to agree with Harrypotter that anarchism altogether is pretty much irrelevant and just a passing curiosity. I don't think anyone expects the slighest risk of anarchists ever accomplishing their objectives in the foreseeable future. There may be some people writing books and attending sporadic conferences, maybe a few social clubs around, and occasional get-togethers by left-wing anarchists to carry signs and break a few shop windows, some sleeping in abandoned buildings, but that's the extent of it. Operation Spooner (talk) 01:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I really didn't say anything about how influential anarchism has been on the rest of society, just how anarchism is growing in terms of numbers, projects, and influence. Yes, anarchism is quite marginal compared to mainstream politics. That's not at issue here. But if you research contemporary anarchism, you'll find that it is steadily growing. Now, if you want to talk about anarchism's influence outside of the movement, that is growing too. Anarchism is becoming more prominent and popular in academic circles. Anarchism is more prominent and influential in the library community. Anarchist culture is reaching more and more people. Anarchists and anarchist ideas have been very influential in the free software movement and the growing movement against intellectual property. Again, people need to do their research. You'll find supporting information for everything I've said here. Chuck0 (talk) 01:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Is this discussion concerned with improving the article? There are plenty of great forums to discuss this kind of thing, but Wikipedia is not one of them. Skomorokh 04:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I take Skomorokh's point. talk has repeatedly suggested that were someone to engage in original research, that he believes that they would confirm his beliefs. As he cannot quote any actual research that does this, then I feel that the article should not include any unsubstantiated claims of a resurgence, and there is little point in discssing our imaginings.Harrypotter (talk) 12:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

This thread appears to consist almost entirely of people stating their wishes as though they were facts. My Google results provide some evidence to support my statement that anarchism is growing (and my conclusion that this should be addressed). For more information on the recent increase in (left) anarchist activity, I point editors to widely available works by Cindy Milstein and the Institute for Anarchist Studies, and to the articles on the Common Ground Collective, IndyMedia, and other recent anarchist phenomena. This information already exists in Wikipedia. The only question germane to this discussion is the question of why it is excluded from this article. Aelffin (talk) 04:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that your reasoning shows precisely the sort of flawed reasoning which makes much of modern anarchism as unpleasant as old style bolshevism. The google results prove nothing. Having tried out various variations, I reached the conclusion that the noise overwhelmed the message (see here, here and here). Your conclusion drawn is based on anarchist sources and the pretence that Common Ground Collective and IndyMedia are anarchist, just because they welcome anarchists amongst others to participate. The answer to your question is that anarchist wishful thinking coupled with the misrepresentation of broad based groups which include anarchists does not constitute any serious evidence.Harrypotter (talk) 19:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Look, I'm arguing that the size of the anarchist movement is greater now than in the recent past. Your Google links show that anarchism is small compared to Marxism and a couple other movements. That's a blatant red herring, so please don't point the faulty reasoning finger at me. An illustration of your error can be seen here.

Whether Common Ground and IndyMedia count as "anarchist" according to some unspecified meausre of purism is also a red herring. Again, the assertion is simply that anarchist activism has increased. The fact that there are today many organizations in which anarchists are active compared to almost none ten years ago is evidence even if those organizations aren't themselves anarchist.

Granted, it is possible that the Google data are too noisy to be useful, but to demonstrate that assertion, you'd have to find a way to measure the noise. Aelffin (talk) 20:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

A better illustration... I say "Barack Obama has become more popular, see." You reply, "No he hasn't, that's just noise, see. Aelffin (talk) 20:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Your example perfectly illustrates my point, even if your reasoning falls short. The graph you quote might suggest that puppies have been becoming more popular, but only to those who choose not to reflect upon it. In order for that suggestion, or the parallel suggestion that anarchism has been becoming more popular would require a deeper analysis, probably even a statistical analysis which no one has yet completed. You and i may argue the toss about how we might think that analysis might turn out, but short of such an analysis being conducted we each have the privilege of nuturing own opinions - as long as we don't expect to see those opinions reproduced on wikipedia. Check this! By your reckoning this is evidence for a big increase in the libertarian movement. Leaving aside the discussion about abortion, the second reference is to an anarcho-capitalist following in the wake of Murray Rothbard. No doubt if someone had the time to waste it would be possible to show that the National-Anarchists were growing in size: witness this. Certainly to my knowledge these racists would not get away with this a few years ago, yet here they are. According to your flawed reasoning we could argue that not only is the anarchist movement growing, but that the far right aspects of it are growing. As regards your response concerning Common Ground Collective and IndyMedia, it is not a matter of purism, but of whether these groups are anarchist. As you correctly point out, these constitute a red herring, which you introduced into the argument. Certainly there were many anarchists active in all sorts of organisations ten years ago, and indeed I agreed that there might well have been an anarcho-blip following 1999, but that I felt it had already peaked. Having little in the way of concrete evidence for this however, I did not edit the article. I would recommend you spend a little more time getting your head around what is the nature of reasoned argument before your next response. I have not been editing the wikipedia page concerning google trends, which would require me to demonstrate what I said. All I have been doing is putting forward reasoned arguments about why your contentions are not supported by the facts. I am confident that allowing yourself adequate time to think these issues through will help you grasp the points I am making rather reducing my contribution to that of a pointing finger.Harrypotter (talk) 21:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. Continuing to state that my reasoning is flawed in no way demonstrates that my reasoning is flawed. Oh well. I admit the data is far from proof, but it is evidence. The libertarian movement has almost certainly grown, and the GoogleTrends data you point out may be indicative of that. Just as this may be indicative of my point. Your "anarcho-blip" certainly occurred, and as you can see in the data, there are several blips prior to late 2006. But it appears that the blips have levelled out to a low, but steady interest level. It is certainly possible that this is a short term situation similar to an economic bubble. After all, the trend I pointed out in the Google data has only been going on for about two years. However, my point is further strenghtened by pointing out that two years is about an order of magnitute longer than the duration of the late 2004 "blip" (even if it hasn't reached the same height). Aelffin (talk) 11:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

If you want a good argument against my point, look at this. Here we see two apparently unrelated movements following the same trend. This is a great exercise in logic. Possibility #1: There is a variable external to both movements causing the trends to run parallel. (Perhaps this is evidence of your signal-to-noise argument.) Possibility #2: There is a causal relationship between the interest levels in the two movements. (Perhaps this is evidence of my pet theory--that conservatism causes a "reactionary" anarchist movement.) Aelffin (talk) 12:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I was glad to read your most recent comments as I feel that we are approaching the point when we can agree to draw this discussion to a conclusion. These, I think, are some salient points:

1)Google trends may give an indication of public interest in certain things, but does not really offer hard evidence.

2)Various people may have formed various opinions about whether anarchism is growing phenomenon, but most of this would (at best) be classified as original research and inappropriate for wikipedia.

3)Should someone publish some reliable information on this,which was considered free of bias (I think we are al aware of how political groups tend to present themselves as steadily increasing) this could provide a source to include some information on this to improve the article.

Does that sound like a reasonable summary?Harrypotter (talk) 06:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

We're partially in agreement. I took the liberty of numbering your statements so I can reply...

1) GoogleTrends does give reliable data, but interpreting that data is original research, so it isn't appropriate to use this for article content. However, it is fine to use trends to make a case on discussion pages.

2) The opinions of Wikipedia editors do count as original research. However, the published opinions of various knowledgable commentators on the subject are fair game.

3) Statistical studies would be great, but the majority of information on Wikipedia is taken from the published opinions of varioius knowledgable commentators, both inside and outside the topic of the respective articles. There is enough published information to support the contention that at the very least, anarchism is widely percieved as having a resurgence.

Aelffin (talk) 13:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Please! GoogleTrends, or anything else operated by Google, is not a reliable source on these issues. For all of the "source needed" tags inflicted on poor Wikipedia article, it's not that hard to figure out that there are fairly standard ways to determine approximate answers to these questions. Citing some blind tool at some search engine? How about citing some articles written by scholars, or by people familiar with the subject, in this case anarchists? Chuck0 (talk) 06:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Chuck, I didn't say that Google is a reliable source, I said that the information is reliable enough that it can be used to back up arguments on discussion pages. Aelffin (talk) 19:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Good, I'm happy with that. Referenced opinion then allows the querent to evaluate the opinion.Harrypotter (talk) 19:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Definition of state in regards to anarchism.

The Anarchy#Anarchism section of the Anarchy article mentions that Anarchism isn't technically "anomie" or lack of laws, but rather simply lack of rulers. There is no mention of a division from anomie where anarchism is concerned within this anarchism article itself. Seeing as it defines itself as such anyway this isn't the problem I have with the article exactly...

Rather, it is how it makes the jump to immediately making itself incompatible with the abstractly approached "state" by these conditions. It begins by defining it's topic as opposed to archons and thus representing the "elimination" of compulsory government which the article putatively defines as "the state".

However the state article defines itself as "a political association with effective sovereignty over a geographic area" or "the set of governing institutions that has sovereignty over a definite territory", therefore a set of laws, not a set of rulers (as sovereignty is similarly defined as something which might not be invested in a singular individual but something more abstract). By these definitions a "state" and "anarchism" are not mutually exclusive (allowing for, in concept, an 'anarchistic state' or 'state anarchism'; a reciprocal governing apparatus with a voluntary bureaucratic professional branch that organizes a federative will for those freely associated under it. For example government entirely formed from the German Eingetragener Verein, where a recognition and incorporation is "compulsory" but there is still no "archon" over oneself or jurisdiction existing that is not voluntary). Even if the bulk of media & literature claim anarchism is always opposed to "the state", the article should claim that as the case, as otherwise there is a logical gap here where the definitions do not align as perfectly against one another. A set of governing institutions and registered voluntary associations can by the definition of the word state, form such a state, and not transgress anarchism's tenets. It may be a very narrow definition, but it allows for such a definition nonetheless and doesn't completely exclude it (the condition where "state" and "anarchism" can come together), I think that is important. 67.5.156.237 (talk) 07:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me your argument fails due to the definition of sovereignty. The sovereignty article says, "Sovereignty is the exclusive right to have control over an area of governance, people, or oneself." Key words are "exclusive right," i.e. a monopoly over the right to make laws. Thus, the state is not "a set of laws" as you claim, but a monopoly organization (with a set of rulers.) I'm not familiar with Eingetragener Vereins, but they sound to me like they exist by permission from a state, are subservient to that state, and are not states themselves. BTW many, maybe most, anarchists would define "state" in the Weberian manner - that organization that has a 'monopoly on legitimate violence' over a specific territory. This is covered in the state article. So "compulsory government" means the same as "state," and there's no good reason not to say this for the benefit of readers who use the word "state" for this sort of entity, especially since anarchist literature generally uses the term. PhilLiberty (talk) 03:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

"What does 'legitimate violence' mean? Richard Blatant (talk) 04:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

In Wikipedia, the article is monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force. Legitimate in this context means legally or morally acceptable. E.g. the violence of a murderer or thief or rapist is not legitimate, whereas the violence used in self-defense or to recover stolen property is (when proportionate, etc.). PhilLiberty (talk) 04:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

That would make everyone's home a state. Everyone has a monopoly on that in their own home. That definition is not adequate. Richard Blatant (talk) 04:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

No, your coercive government claims the right to prevent you from doing many violent things, and most people support that coercive government's monopoly. The compulsory government may allow households to do certain things - with its permission. Some compulsory governments don't allow people to have certain tools for self-defense in their homes (firearms), some forbid corporal punishment on children, etc. But I think I see what you're driving at. Weberian "monopoly" should be understood to mean ultimate jurisdiction rather than sole provider, and to mean regardless of property rights. I.e. The state's monopoly sovereignty supercedes property rights. PhilLiberty (talk) 05:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

"Anarcho-Capitalism" again

I never thought it ever existed. I thought that Anarcho-Capitalism was a derrogatory (at least by intent) label sticked by opponents against extreme liberalism, a liberalism that claims everything (including military) can be privatized. Now consider me being wrong, then there is a movement, an organization, most probably derived from some earlier anarchist movement, but maybe instead more like intellectual debating individuals claiming themselves to be "anarcho-capitalists". The political heritage to these hypothetical "anarcho-capitalists" must then be verified. I claim there is no such thing as Anarcho-Capitalism, in the same way as there is no Crypto-Calvinist faith. Said: Rursus ☻ 09:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The primary influence of anarcho-capitalism is in fact classical liberalism, not anarchism. Zazaban (talk) 09:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Then, are there individuals claiming themselves to be "anarcho-capitalists", by your knowledge? Said: Rursus ☻ 09:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

For fun, a google of the phrases: "I'm a X" where X is a diversity of opinions:

1. anarcho-capitalist: 777
2. anarcho-syndicalist: 1,010
3. Christian Democrat: 7
4. communist: 12400

[f.ex.: “I'm a communist! Yay! Topic: WE ARE ALL COMMUNISTS!!”]

1. capitalist schweinhund: 0
2. social democrat: 1460
3. national socialist: 392

For information: I'm undefined, me myself. Said: Rursus ☻ 09:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Now, jokes aside, I 'm inclined towards separating anarcho-capitalism from anarchism, and put it into liberalism, since the anarchists use to adher to the individual-collective-symbiosis concept, while liberals instead see the individual as a fundamental basis for the collecive (or in the case of "neo-liberalism" denies the existence of a collective, but that's its own story - one may doubt that "neo-liberalism" actually qualifies as liberalism). Said: Rursus ☻ 09:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Good luck with that. Fifty-two pages of archival discussion indicate that fighting over anarcho-capitalism is a bad idea. - N1h1l (talk) 14:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Is it to much to expect that you would actually read our featured article on anarcho-capitalism? I don't mean to be offensive, but this post shows astounding ignorance of the topic. Skomorokh 19:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree there. I know of plenty of people who identify as anarcho-capitalist. To say that it doesn't exist is absurd. I just wanted to point out that it did not actually come from anarchism. Zazaban (talk) 20:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not classical liberalism is a strongr influence, it is extremely well documented that individualist anarchism – particularly the American tradition of Tucker, Warren, Spooner et al – is a direct antecedent of contemporary anarcho-capitalism. See Anarcho-capitalism#Sources_that_consider_anarcho-capitalism_a_form_of_anarchism Skomorokh 15:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Depends on who you ask. The Great Rothbardo did take some ideas from individualist anarchism to be sure. However, an intellectually honest ancapper should admit that rejecting socialist core principles means that even Tucker and Spooner wouldn't have called Murray an anarchist. Aelffin (talk) 04:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree. Afterall, Tucker called Auberon Herbert an anarchist, though Herbert, along with other British individualists, rejected what Tucker took to be the socialist core principle, the labor theory of value and all that follows from that rejection such as non-rejection of interest, rent, and profit. The old individualists disagreed on many things but they still regarded each other as anarchists. Operation Spooner (talk) 16:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Given that Herbert explicitly argued in favour of a state and for government, Tucker was obviously wrong. (see http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secF7.html#secf72 ) Herbert also explicitly said he was not an anarchist. As such, Tucker's comment is hardly strong evidence... Suffice to say, while some academic may consider "anarcho"-capitalism a form of anarchism (probably because they use the word "anarchist"), few anarchists think so. And I should note that Rothbard subscribed to views on key issues which Tucker explicitly argued were statist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.82.107.51 (talk) 13:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

It's irrelevant as to whether Herbert believed himself to be an anarchist or not. What makes someone an anarchist is not whether he accepts or rejects the term but whether he actually is. Therefore you cannot conclude that Tucker was wrong on the basis that Herbert did not accept the label (btw Tucker knew he did not accept the label). Given that Rothbard did not even reject the label but whose philosophy is more anarchistic than Herbert's because he like Tucker was for competitive security, surely Tucker would regard Rothbard to be an anarchist. Finally I'm wondering what you're referring to when you say that Rothbard subscribed to views that Tucker explicitly argued were statist. Operation Spooner (talk) 00:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

What makes someone an anarchist is heavily debated both inside and outside the movement. The objective fact of the matter is that there are differing views on the subject. Aelffin (talk) 18:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I claim there is no such thing as Anarcho-Capitalism, in the same way as there is no Crypto-Calvinist faith.

Most anarchists would agree with you, but thanks to Wikipedia, a small number of militant anarcho-capitalists have exploited this open resource to establish some legitimacy for what most people accurately see as an oxymoron. Some of the anarcho-capitalists eventually grow up and learn the error of this label, with many of them taking up something more sensible like market anarchism, agorism, left libertarianism and so on. The fact that people can use Wikipedia to establish logical fallacies such as anarcho-capitalism and national anarchism as being legitimate demonstrates the serious weaknesses of Wikipedia. Anarchism is anti-capitalist. It's really that simple. Bit in Wikipedia-land, 2 + 2 = 5. Chuck0 (talk) 06:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

First, I want to say I agree with you about anarcho-capitalism's relationship to anarchism proper (see my own rough draft classification scheme here). However, I don't think the fault lies mainly in Wikipolicy.

Wikipedia's blanket ban on original research is certainly the reason that the ancap faction can keep a large amount of accurate and important information out of the article. But the ban on OR is important...otherwise, the whole wiki would be full of speculation.

Yes, this is unfortunate for anarchism, because outsiders have never done a very good job of studying anarchism and anarchists themselves haven't done a very good job of writing about their movement, so the vast majority of information available in print--and thus acceptable for Wikipedia--is heavily distorted and outright wrong. Much more accurate information is available online and in the huge body of anarchist zines. However, since these sources are amateur and/or hard to find, it is unlikely that this information will find its way into Wikipedia.

Since accurate information is in the interest of both Wikipedia and the anarchist movement, I think we should address this lack mainly by seeking publication in respected journals. That will take time, but I think it's the best route to improve the wiki and to improve the image of anarchism. In the meantime, the only other solutions I see are to dig through old anarchist zines and websites for insights and cite them thoroughly, and of course to remember the First Rule of Wikipedia.

Aelffin (talk) 15:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

No, it is not. If it is, you can show me IN THE DEFINITION where anarchism is anti-capitalist. Look: I know you hate capitalism. Go rage against it all you like. But for you to bald-facedly claim that anarchism is anti-capitalist is the same type of anti-intellectual nonsense that people use when they say that atheism is communist or that atheism is anti-theism. You can hate capitalism all you want; but you can't get away with trying to add more to a definition than there really is. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 21:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Baawa, I moved your response so it's in the correct order. The question is "Who's definition of anarchism?" My answer is "anarchists' definition" which historically has clearly been inherently socialist. You are free to prefer a different definition, but you can't deny that the anarchist political movement started as and still is self-defined as socialist. It is also very clear as a matter of history that anarcho-capitalism evolved out of neo-libertarian philosophy, not out of socialist anarchism. Whether you want to apply the term "anarchism" to two only distantly related movements is up to you, and I'll respect your decision. But I choose not to, and I expect you to respect my decision. Aelffin (talk) 23:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the position of the response. And since "an" "archon" does NOT in any way, shape, or form speak to anything about capitalism or socialism or anything else: adding it to the definition is utterly unwarranted. Again: it's no different from saying that atheism is communism or antitheism. No different whatsoever. It's adding something which does not belong. And I will not respect your decision to add something unwarranted. To do so is to do an injustice to reality. It is to sanction your desire to play a redefinition game, and I'll have none of that. It makes absolutely no difference whatsoever what the "historical" anarchists were. Historically, most christians were catholic, so only catholicism can be the true christianity, right? Further, we must remember that the individualist anarchists in the 19th century weren't opposed to private property (whereas the socialist ones were). Are you going to deny that Spooner was an anarchist? Come on--don't play No True Scotsman. It never works--and it's a fallacy to boot. Fallacies destroy arguments. Always have; always will. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 00:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

As Nietzsche said, "only that which has no history can be defined." Or, to put it another way, the literal etymology of a word tells you very little about what that word actually means; the history of the word's use is what tells us the meaning. All the 19th century anarchists, whether individualist or collectivist, were socialist and opposed to capitalism as they understood it; the article should reflect this history. Some libertarians like to call themselves anarchists, and, mor importantly, have drawn on individualist anarchism, so reasonable to mention anarcho-capitalism in this article; but the idea that the connection between anarchism and anti-capitalism is some kind of "redefinition" is absurd.VoluntarySlave (talk) 01:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the idea put forth by Chuck0 and others that anarchism is can only be anti-capitalistic IS a re-definition game. Please note that I have never denied that the early anarchists were anti-capitalist. And not all of the 19th century anarchists were opposed to capitalism as they understood it in the sense of ownership of private property. Caplan's FAQ makes that clear. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 03:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not the one playing the No True Scotsman game... I recognize that "absence of government" is one alternative definition. You are free to have that definition. I happen to prefer a different alternative, which you are saying is not valid because of your interpretation of what constitutes an "archon". That's an essentialism that is not backed up by the complicated history of the term "anarchism". The inherently socialist definition goes back to the begining--remember that the ancient Greek anarchists also opposed property--so you can't discount it just because you don't like the implications. That's rewriting history. Aelffin (talk) 01:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you are playing a redefinition game. And "absence of government" is not simply an "alternative definition"--it's the one found in the dictionary! And the one found at the beginning of the article! So yes: you are playing a re-definition game. Remember: the definition of "christian" and "catholic" were one and the same for nigh on 1,000 years. Are you saying that we need to go back to that, because that's where your re-definition attempt leads. You want to do the historical argument? Fine. You have to be consistent. If you refuse to be consistent, then you admit to playing a re-definition game. Those are your options. It is binary. Choose one or the other. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 03:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The one found in the dictionary? It's a pity you posess only one dictionary. Even more unfortunate that your dictionary only supplies one definition. Dictionary.com gives no less than eight definitions. Some only list government as that which anarchism opposes and some "add on", as you say, other things like "all forms of coercive control". None of these definitions are intrinsically right or wrong. So, again... I recognize your right to pick the definition you please, and I respectfully request you to recognize my right to choose the definition which suits me. Aelffin (talk) 03:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see you've taken to a strawman. Pity. Even more unfortunate that you wish to continue with your re-definition game and that you are utterly inconsistent. Oh-you do have the right to choose a definition which suits you. You just don't get to clam it as fact and get away with it. Because you will be challenged on it. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 03:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

How is recognizing all the definitions of the word a straw man? Please stick to WP:AGF. Aelffin (talk) 04:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

But that's not what you were doing. I wish I could assume good faith on your part, but I cannot at this juncture. You still refuse to admit that you would have to believe that only catholics are christians. To me, that says you're utterly inconsistent and that you just want to have your pet "definition" for some non good-faith reason. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 13:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I said on multiple occasions that there are many valid definitions of anarchism (the same is true of Christianity for that matter). I happen to prefer a particular definition because I think it has some historical weight, but I said I think the others are valid. So again, why do you accuse me of acting in bad faith? Aelffin (talk) 14:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

You're talking out of both sides of your mouth, from what it looks like. And I accuse you of bad faith because you're trying to twist what I wrote. That's bad faith. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 22:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

My position for this entire discussion has been this: Anarchism has many valid definitions, some are anti-capitalist and some are not--I think an anti-capitalist definition has greater historical precedence, but you are free to prefer a different definition. In what way have I contradicted this position? In what way have I twisted what you wrote? Aelffin (talk) 22:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

This isn't a personal criticism, but we should look at respected journals as a weasel phrase that goes against the principles of Wikipedia and against the very ideas of anarchism. It could be safely argued that Wikipedia has a long tradition of populism and hostility towards authority, thus we should be skeptical of people who cite respected journals on the topic of anarchism. What we should encourage is that people cite information from materials that are relevant to this topic. In the world of anarchism, zines have traditionally been the medium of choice for anarchists. Academic journals have not been a primary means of communication, so they should be seen as less germane to citations on this subject.

Some of you may remember my fight last year with the so-called "anarcho-capitalist" who was later banned by Wikipedia for trolling under a half dozen accounts. I challenged him on several of his citations. He was citing material from mainstream reference books on politics. I'm a librarian who know a few things about reference books, so I pointed out to him that mainstream reference books have a long history of printing false and inaccurate information about anarchism and the anarchist movement. I think we should be extremely skeptical when somebody sources a reference book article on anarchism that has been written by some political science professor who doesn't know squat about the subject of anarchism. As anarchists, we should encourage Wikipedians to be skeptical of citations to material written by academics and "experts." Often, they are wrong, biased, and don't know what they are talking about.

Yes, it may be hard to find material on anarchist subjects from anarchist publications. For some of us, this isn't a problem, because we have an extensive collection of anarchist books, journals, zines, and other materials. I can help with citations using my large library, so people just need to ask me for specifics. Chuck0 (talk) 19:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

If you are talking about self-published sources, you can save yourself a lot of effort. -- Vision Thing -- 20:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the most accurate soures on anarchism are zines, some of which are self-published. Okay, I don't mean to go on, but I want to be really clear about this...

Wikipedia policies prohibit the use of the most accurate sources on anarchism.

To a certain extent, Wikipedia does allow these sources to be used, for example as self-references and potentially under WP:IAR. However, to a large extent, these resources cannot and should not be used (if you do, you risk throwing all accuracy standards out the window). This means that Wikipedia is necessarily wrong on certain subjects, such as anarchism, and other topics that don't get a lot of mainstream press. Like I said, the way to combat this in the long run is not to throw Wikipolicy out the window, but to get serious, informed writers to write about anarchism in respectable journals. Aelffin (talk) 20:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Let me put that a different way: Wikipedia is not a source of accurate information, it is a source of firmly established information. When a more accurate view of anarchism becomes firmly established, Wikipedia will have an accurate article on anarchism. Until that time, this article will remain inaccurate. Aelffin (talk) 20:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, well put. It's ironic that the populist Wikipedia is moving in an elitist direction, which will mean that it we be default adopt a mainstream bias about all subjects. This is one reason why Infoshop maintains an alternative to Wikipedia. If Wikipedia is going to have policies hostile to citations based on alternative literature, then it will be biased towards a mainstream view of subjects like anarchism. I agree with you to some extent that anarchists should publish more, but the anarchist in me also says that we should make our own policies here. Perhaps we need to fight within Wikipedia for a policy on citations that affirms that non-academic sources are more accurate on some topics such as anarchism. Chuck0 (talk) 18:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that in anarchism and some other topics, mainstream sources are most commonly biassed and outright wrong. I also agree that it would be wise to work within the wiki to develop a more context-dependent set of criteria for judging publications in various fields. However, I am not sure how you would formulate rules that allow the best resources to be favored in the most cases--I'm sure it could be done, but there are a lot of obstacles to overcome. For example, if you let self-published material be used in the anarchism article, wouldn't that mean that self-published creationist literature should be accetped in the evolution article? If so, I don't think it's worth it. Aelffin (talk) 19:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to clear up a false premise employed above, which is the claim that anarchism is historically anti-capitalist. That's not true. Look at anarcho-capitalism for example. It's not anti-capitalist. Review its history. It's been around for a very long time. If anyone thinks it's not historical, then at what year in the future will it be considered historical so that you will no longer say that anarchism is historically anti-capitalist? Recall that at one time, anarchism was historically anti-communist. Now anarcho-communism is considered a form of anarchism. So eventually you're going to have to give in to anarcho-capitalism being a form of anarchism, as the years go by. Or, at least you won't be able to use the argument that anarchism is historically anti-capitalist. I say it's already too late for that argument. Operation Spooner (talk) 03:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Look, there are multiple acceptable definitions of "anarchism". Nobody is contesting that--except possibly Baawa (but I can't really tell). Some definitions are inherently anti-capitalist and some are not. There's no question about that. It's not the label that is at issue here. It is the historical development of anarcho-capitalism with respect to socialist anarchism. You may choose to use the term anarchism in such a way to cover both or you may choose to give them two different labels. I don't care which you choose. What I care about is the history of the two movements, and I think it is clear that they emerged out of two different schools of thought. So, whether you label one or the other or both as "anarchism", I think it should be recognized that they are at most distantly related movements. Aelffin (talk) 04:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

You can't really tell? Now I know you're not acting in good faith. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 13:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I honestly don’t understand whether you think there are multiple valid definitions of anarchism or whether there is one "right" definition. Your stance is unclear because on the one hand, you say things like "...for you to bald-facedly claim that anarchism is anti-capitalist is the same type of anti-intellectual nonsense that people use when they say that atheism is communist or that atheism is anti-theism..." and "...show me IN THE DEFINITION where anarchism is anti-capitalist." I take these statements to mean that you are unwilling to recognize that anti-capitalist definitions of anarchism are equally valid to your own preferred definition. Yet, on the other hand you make claims like "...we must remember that the individualist anarchists in the 19th century weren't opposed to private property (whereas the socialist ones were)." and "Please note that I have never denied that the early anarchists were anti-capitalist." I take these statements to mean that you recognize multiple valid definitions of anarchism. Unless I missed something crucial, it sounds to me like you’re arguing both sides. So, yes I think your position is unclear. Perhaps I am mistaken, but that is my honest perception. Now, once more, I ask you to stop accusing me of acting in bad faith, and to please drop the accusatory tone. Aelffin (talk) 14:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

My stance is quite clear. All you have to do is read what I wrote. And drop YOUR accusatory tone. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 22:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no false premise involved when anybody argues that anarchism is historically anti-capitalist. There just isn't any controversy about this within the anarchist movement. I invite you to review the hundreds of books and magazine articles and pamphlets written about anarchism over the past 150 years. Or got talk to any anarchist. Most anarchists will look puzzled if you ask them about anarcho-capitalism. Since anarcho-capitalism is mostly a movement that exists on the Internet (over the past 10 years), many anarchists will never have heard of it. Others will simply laugh and dismiss the concept as an oxymoron. Yes, there is an anarcho-capitalist tendency that goes back decades, but it's really only had proponents since the mid 1990s. And the number of anarcho-capitalists is quite small compared to the rest of the anarchist movement. They sound much bigger, but that's because they use Wikipedia as a form of activism to establish themselves as something bigger. Chuck0 (talk) 19:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

That is exactly correct. I would add that the anarcho-capitalist definition of anarchism is also much closer to the layman's definition of anarchism, so they have a slightly easier time of citing non-academic references that agree with them. Aelffin (talk) 19:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Do we really have to go through this every six months? Is this really productive? Why can't we stick to our current methodology of "if it calls itself anarchist, and some proportion of independent reliable sources call it anarchist, then let's include it"? This article reports and attributes the claims that anarcho-communism and anarcho-capitalism are not really anarchism, and that anarchists usually reject capitalism according to The Oxford Companion to Philosophy. Isn't that good enough - can't we state the controversies and let the reader decide what to think? Skomorokh 18:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

As long as anarchists feel that this article misrepresents their movement, this will continue to be an issue. In the minds of most anarchists, treating anarcho-capitalism as a branch of the anarchist movement is tantamount to treating Creation science as a branch of science or Jews for Jesus as a branch of Judaeism. Right or wrong, that's the perception, and if we want to move past this debate, it'll have to be dealt with better than it's currently being dealt with. Aelffin (talk) 23:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I stumbled across an interesting quote today about this topic from a source that most Wikipedians would not have access to because it is ephemeral like most anarchist publications. I was looking for some materials on situationism today and ran across a booklet titled "Note on Anarchism in North America: 1940-1996" by Mike Hargis. Hargis has long been associated with the magazine Anarcho-Syndicalist Review (formerly Libertarian labor Review). This booklet was published by the old Autonomous Zone infoshop that used to exist in Chicago.

On page 27, Hargis mentions anarcho-capitalists who were active in the 1970s federation, the Social Revolutionary Anarchist Federation (SRAF):

 Over the years pressure built up to narrow the parameters for participation in the Federation, 
 specifically to get rid of the anarcho-capitalists, and it is certainly true that left anarchism predominated.
 As the decade of the 1970's progressed the anarcho-capitalists did for the most part drop out
 leaving the main division within the federation between cultural and class struggle anarchists.

This little boolet has lots of other useful nuggets. I'll see if I can put the full text online. Chuck0 (talk) 03:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the quote! Very interesting. Let us know if you get the rest of the text online. Aelffin (talk) 11:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Green anarchism and anarcho-primitivsm

Hello,

The section on green anarchism really needs to be cleaned up. I would do it myself, but I'm just a translator for the Esperanto Wikipedia, and not a qualified contributor. Also, since there is now a section on anarcho-primitivism, it seems that this school of thought would only need to be mentioned briefly in the green anarchism section.

In fact, I don't know if having a sub-section on anarcho-primitivism is such a good idea. If there's one on that, there may as well be one on social ecology as well, and this sort of constant addition of schools of thought would make an infinitely long article. Perhaps anarcho-primitivism could be linked and mentioned in green anarchism, and not included as a section at all.

Thanks, --Nick Kalivoda 03:52, 28 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Hi Nick, that section has been problematic for us for a long while. You don't any qualifications to edit, especially not around these parts, so if you have reliable sources, please feel free to rewrite the section as you wish. Be bold! Skomorokh 04:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Here is my proposal for a new section on Green anarchism. We could theoretically just delete the anarcho-primitivism sub-section, since it is mentioned and linked in my proposal, and the anarchism article is already incredibly long. I admittedly heavily copied the introduction to the Green anarchism article itself--is that allowed?

Green anarchism puts an emphasis on the environment. Some green anarchists can be described as anarcho-primitivists and sometimes anti-civilization anarchists, though not all green anarchists are primitivists. Likewise, there is a strong critique of technology among some green anarchists, though not all reject it entirely. Sometimes green anarchism is said to be techno-positive or techno-negative to differentiate between those who advocate use of advanced green technology to create and maintain an anarchist society and those who mainly see civilization and modern technology as something negative. Murray Bookchin's social ecology is a more techno-positive variant.

--Nick Kalivoda 10:43, 28 Apr 2008 (UTC)

I agree the new proposed section looks better than the old one.--Fang 23 (talk) 19:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Resources

Below are some quotes from articles about anarchism in mainstream news media. I'd like to come to a consensus about how to incorporate some of the information from these sources into the article. Aelffin (talk) 16:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

New York Times

Book Fair Unites Anarchists. In Spirit, Anyway.

By COLIN MOYNIHAN

April 16, 2007

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/16/nyregion/16anarchists.html?scp=16&sq=anarchism&st=nyt

• Despite the diversity, there are a few main tenets shared by nearly all anarchists, including opposition to the sort of authority embodied by the state, capitalism and organized religion.

• There are almost as many definitions and interpretations [of anarchism] as there are adherents.

• Critics, from the late 19th century to the early 21st century, have condemned them as a disorganized mob of nihilists bent on creating chaos. But many anarchists see themselves more as revolutionary idealists seeking to make society more humane by replacing authority with autonomy.

New York Times

Anarchism, the Creed That Won't Stay Dead; The Spread of World Capitalism Resurrects a Long-Dormant Movement

August 5, 2000

Joseph Kahn

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E04EFDE153CF936A3575BC0A9669C8B63&scp=2&sq=anarchism&st=nyt

• Anarchists consider themselves of the left, not the right.

• Ideologically opposed to power and ambivalent about organization, anarchists perpetually live on the fringe of great movements -- and on the verge of defeat.

• And at the turn of this century, [anarchism] is undergoing a fresh resurgence.

• Self-described anarchists are small in number. But anarchism, broadly construed, is becoming fashionable.

• With the decline of socialism, you have seen anarchism go through a revival as an easy way to oppose global capitalism, said Paul Avrich, a leading historian of anarchism who teaches at Queens College in New York.

• But anarchist groups are reappearing in every major city, [Avrich] says. Today they have their own bookstores, like Blackout Books on the Lower East Side and Social Anarchism in Baltimore.

• Proudhon advocated free bank credit and rejected parliamentary politics as hopelessly dominated by the elite. But anarchism was defined and popularized by Bakunin, a heavily bearded Russian insurrectionist who helped foment uprisings across Europe in 1848.

• But nothing has revived anarchism like globalization. Anarchists are now battling what they see as a concentration of power in multinational corporations.

• [Anarchists] have also attacked the World Bank, the World Trade Organization and the International Monetary Fund because these are seen as superseding national governments.

• Many other anarchists call anarcho-primitivism a disturbing trend, and, perhaps not surprisingly, sectarian strife among the anarchists is rampant.

• [Non-primitivist anarchists] have called Mr. Zerzan a McAnarchist who dumbs down anarchism and corrupts young gullibles with mystical visions of life before civilization.

• [Bookchin] says some anarchist groups have taken the ecological message too far, becoming misanthropic nihilists who ignore anarchism's core humanitarian message.

This is an opinion piece by the way, so if anybody decides to use it, make sure you check out the WP:RS guidelines for using opinion pieces. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 02:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

New York Times

Abraham Bluestein, 88, Dies; An Advocate of Anarchism

ROBERT MCG. THOMAS JR.

December 14, 1997

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B01E1DD163FF937A25751C1A961958260&scp=4&sq=anarchism&st=nyt

• To adherents of a movement that had been among the fiercest opponents of Communism in Russia, Nazism in Germany, Fascism in Italy and dictatorship in Spain, the Spanish Civil War proved an irresistible lure for many anarchists in the United States…

New York Times

Ideas & Trends -- Heartland Radical; Anarchy Explained

RANDAL C. ARCHIBOLD

August 29, 2004

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE0D91E3EF93AA1575BC0A9629C8B63&scp=7&sq=anarchism&st=nyt

• [Anarchist Chuck Munson:] In an anarchist model, people would be working in a cooperative workplace, worker-owned.

Fox News

Why Democrats Are Failing in Congress

October 31, 2007

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,306520,00.html

• Fact is, the far left hates these supposedly national Democrat leaders. And since the leaders can't control the wild-eyed bomb throwers, the far-left anarchists rule by fouling things up at key moments.

This too is an opinion piece by the way, so if anybody decides to use it, make sure you check out the WP:RS guidelines for using opinion pieces. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 02:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The London Times

February 21, 2004

The death of anarchy is pants

Felipe Fernández-Armesto

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/article1024347.ece

• The term anarchism was invented in 1840 to mean a society run on principles of reciprocity, like a mutual or co-operative society.

• I predict a resurgence. Today anarchism makes better sense than any other discarded ideology of the last two centuries.

• With officerless armies, [anarchists] fought fascism and Bolshevism, clericalism and capitalism.

---

The problem with using sources like these is that they are not conscious of the broader context of anarchism, the articles are not in-depth examinations of "the" anarchist movement. I think if a section on contemporary anarchism is to be included, it should not be from sources such as the NYT or the Times, which I think most are agreed do not have a great track record of accurately reflecting the state of anarchism. I personally would prefer scholarly sources such as Graeber's Fragments of an Anarchist Anthropology or articles from Anarchist Studies, Anarchy: A Journal of Desire Armed and other books and journals that are reliable on the topic.

I mean, no problem saying something like "Anarchism enjoyed a resurgence in North America at the turn of the 21st century, coinciding with the growing anti-globalization movements which opposed institutions such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. In the 2000s United States, anarchist bookshops were established in major cities, and anarchists were strongly opposed to the two dominant political parties." But a) it's completely biased towards one country out of dozens with anarchist movements and b) is all this of such importance? Skomorokh 18:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that peer-reviewed scholarly sources are to be preferred. However, I chose these articles for two reasons... First, I hope to avoid any controversy about the reliability of the sources; these are widely-cited throughout Wikipedia and should not raise any eyebrows. Second, I wanted to provide a wider range of opinions, showing that the acceptance that anarchism is almost wholly a leftist phenomenon is not just held by "partisan" sources, but by uncontroversial outside parties as well.

That being said, there are a couple of other quotes I included just because I find them interesting. Aelffin (talk) 19:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Aelffin, Paul Avrich (who you quote as "a leading historian of anarchism who teaches at Queens College in New York") classified Murray Rothbard as an "American economist, historian, and individualist anarchist." -- Vision Thing -- 21:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Aelffin, I have no problem in general with these kinds of sources; they are great for verifying factual information about events i.e. "Susie fell down the well.[New York Times]". As daily/weekly news organisations, however, they are less good at giving broad overviews, which is what I think you are asking for here. On the topic of proving anarchism as a leftist phenomenon, even aside from all the market anarchists, the post-leftists and postanarchists would surely baulk at being described as leftist, and I can't imagine the green anarchists or primitivists would be too happy with that either. It's easy for reporters to characterize anti-WTO protestors as "left-wing" by association, but I think we should look for a higher standard of analysis for our article here. Thanks for the hard work and interesting quotes though. Skomorokh 21:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd argue that they are a good representation of how anarchists view themselves and the popular perception of anarchism as well as being a source of simple factoids. Anyway, this is just a quick sampling, and I encourage other editors to peruse and make use of the by now quite substantial press coverage available, which I think counts as rather more reliable than the dated materials the current article is largely rooted in. Aelffin (talk) 23:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with citing articles from these sources as long as it is understood that these sources are not authoritative about anarchism or the anarchist movement. It's one thing to quote a New York Times article that reports on an anarchist event happening. It's quite another to cite the NY Times as a credible source on anarchism. These publications represent the agenda of the ruling class, which has a long, documented history of publishing inaccurate, prejudicial and sensational stories about radicals of any stripe. Reporters are also ignorant of the subject matter and will often piece together something quite skewed from their notes. Chuck0 (talk) 03:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, half the sources cited in the article aren't credible, but Wiki policy counts them as reliable sources, so they are acceptable. By what criteria do we pick and choose among reliable sources? The Times may or may not have their own opinions on what anarchism is, but they beyond doubt reliably report what anarchists believe themselves to be. When reliable sources disagree, isn't consensus view to document the disagreement as such? Aelffin (talk) 04:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The Times is certainly more up to date than many of the sources currently cited. The Times is well respected--it has fact-checkers and is known to correct its errors. Besides, the assertion that certain reliable sources are more reliable than others constitutes original research. Aelffin (talk) 04:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Anarchism and Property

For the sake of consistency within Wikipedia, I believe the disproportionate emphasis given to anarcho-capitalism in the article should be addressed. The following selections from various Wikipedia articles illustrate why the the strict "anti-government" definition is too narrow since the term has almost always had anti-capitalist, or at least anti-property implications. (italics added)... Aelffin (talk) 17:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The Cynics of Ancient Greece were originators of anarchism; the philosopher Zeno of Citium, in opposition to Plato, argued that reason should replace authority in guiding human affairs. (History_of_anarchism) Their philosophy was that the purpose of life was to live a life of Virtue in agreement with Nature. This meant rejecting all conventional desires for wealth, power, health, and fame, and by living a life free from all possessions. (Cynics)

In the modern era, the first to use the term "Anarchy" to mean something other than chaos was Louis-Armand, Baron de Lahontan, in his “Nouveaux voyages dans l'Amérique septentrionale”, (New voyages in northern America) (1703) where he described the indigenous American society, which had no state, laws, prisons, priests or private property, as being in anarchy. (History_of_anarchism)

Pierre-Joseph Proudhon is regarded as the first self-proclaimed anarchist, a label he adopted in his groundbreaking work “What is Property?”, published in 1840. It is for this reason that some claim Proudhon as the founder of modern anarchist theory. He developed the theory of spontaneous order in society, where organization emerges without a central coordinator imposing its own idea of order against the wills of individuals acting in their own interests; his famous quote on the matter is, "Liberty is the mother, not the daughter, of order." In What is Property? Proudhon answers with the famous accusation "Property is theft." In this work, he opposed the institution of decreed "property" (propriété), where owners have complete rights to "use and abuse" their property as they wish. He contrasted this with what he called "possession," or limited ownership of resources and goods only while in more or less continuous use. About this latter type of property, Proudhon wrote "Property is Liberty," and argued that it was a bulwark against state power. (History_of_anarchism)

---

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. If at three paragraphs anarcho-capitalism has undue weight in this article, it remains to be proven. Appeals to what other articles say is essentially original research. I agree that the way we have allocated weight in the article up to now has not been on the basis of relative importance in the real world, but I have seen no evidence from reliable sources that indicates that we should give any particular school of thought more or less weight. If someone comes up with a reliable source that says something like "anarchism of type x is the most popular and active faction as of 2008, with anarchism of type y is dwindling in importance", then I think we have good grounds for reviewing emphasis. Until then, this is just editorial opinion on your part. Skomorokh 18:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not citing Wikipedia as a source, just pointing out that we are being inconsistent between our articles when we emphasize a layman's definition (anarchism=anti-government) in this article while simultaneously describing anarchism according to a more technical definition (anarchism=anti-leader) in other articles. I'm hoping to spur some debate on whether or not we should address this inconsistency. Basically, I'm saying that going back and forth between these different definitions is a form of equivocation, so we should either pick one or be more careful in explaining which we're using in which contexts. As for the undue weight issue, well my understanding is that anarcho-capitalism is a marginal, distantly related concept, so I'm not sure how we cover other such marginal phenomena in articles on other political movements. Whatever the consensus is on that is what we should follow. Aelffin (talk) 19:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Point taken about consistency. As to anarcho-capitalism being marginal and distantly related to anarchism, I think for our purposes, that remains to be proven. The anarcho-capitalism as a form of anarchism question was put to rest here long ago by an extensive (though not exhaustive) survey of the sources - see Anarcho-capitalism#References. I know certainly that in academic philosophy (and indeed in economics: see Anarchy in Somalia), the term anarchism almost exclusively denotes anti-statism rather than anti-hierarchy, and I think in terms of the history of anarchism as a social movement excluding individualism, the anti-hierarchy definition is much more prominent, so it's difficult to see a decisive definition we should follow. I imagine the best way to clear up the definitional inconsistency, where it exists, is to trot out the line from The Oxford Companion to Philosophy that "there is no single defining position that all anarchists hold, beyond their rejection of compulsory government, and those considered anarchists at best share a certain family resemblance." Opposition to compulsory government is at least a minimalist definition. Is it just the history of anarchism article you feel is inconsistent with this one? Because the bulk of work on that article was completed a long time ago; it could be worth updating in line with this one. Skomorokh 22:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Not having the books at hand, I can't judge quality of the sources that consider anarcho-capitalism to be a form of anarchism except to note that a large number of them appear to be references on politics in general, rather than anarchism in particular. That said, I'm not going to deny that some sources do use the more general definition of anarchism = anti-government. However, I think the quotes above establish at least the popular perception of anarchism as a leftist phenomenon. Even leaving aside both the opinions published in actual anarchist writings and the historical roots of the movement as documented in History of anarchism, I think the difference in definitions, and consequently the difference in opinion on "what counts as anarchism" at least deserves to be mentioned in the opening paragraphs where we define the term. Aelffin (talk) 23:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

What would you think of having a Background or Overview section where we can lump all the definitional/taxonomic issues in together? The lede of the article is already dominated by trying to spell out what anarchism is and isn't, when it is supposed to be summarizing the article. Thoughts? Skomorokh 18:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'd be happy with an overview immediately after a short lede. Perhaps this could be the outline...

=== What is anarchism? ===

• Dictionary defninitions.
• Rejection of dictionary definitions.
• Definitions from prominent anarchists, in chronological order.
• Differing taxonomies resulting from differing definitions.
• Comparison between socialist and capitalist definitions.

Aelffin (talk) 19:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The "historical" definition means absolutely nothing! How many times must this be stated? Historically, atheism was defined as not only being "godless", but "evil" as well. Being black was defined as being "subhuman" and "inferior". Jews were defined as "vermin" and "christ killers". Should we then claim that those "definitions have any merit whatsoever just because they were "historically used"?

Further, the section on anarchocapitalism is small compared to the entire rest of the article, and compared to the combined collectivist anarchist positions (all that aren't individualist are collectivist): it's dwarfed. So I fail to see where you're coming up with "disproportionate emphasis". - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 18:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Presumably, most Wikipedia editors think history is somewhat important, judging from the number of pages we have dealing with historical matters. You can't throw historical accuracy out the window. Yes, many terms, such as anarchsism and atheism have been used as insults in the past, and we should certainly make a note of such usage. However, your metaphor is flawed. The inaccurate uses of words like atheism are always applied by those *outside the movement*. That is why they are inaccurate. Likewise, the definition "anarchism = no government" is something used by those outside the movement, and that is why it is inaccurate. As for the the emphasis, you're free to have your opinion. I think accuracy demands weight on a different definition. Aelffin (talk) 20:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Then, by your reasoning, it is accurate to describe atheists as "immoral", blacks as "inferior", and jews as "vermin" simply as that. That IS what you're actually demanding. You're not simply saying that the past usage should be noted, but rather than those past usages are also accurate. You go too far in your desire. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 20:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

That's not at all what I'm saying. I'm saying that there are many definitions of anarchism, some that are newer, some that are older, some that are used by anarchists, some that are used by anarcho-capitalists, and some that are used by people who don't call themselves anarchists at all. None of these is intrinsically right or wrong. They're just words. However, some are more directly relevant to the anarchist movement, and those should be emphasized. The most relevant to traditional anarchists is "anti-hierarchy". The one most relevant to non-anarchists and anarco-capitalists is "anti-government". The one most relevant to opponents of anarchism is "violent rebellion". Each of these has a place in the article, but I think the one that deserves the biggest share of attention is the one favored by the biggest share of people who call themselves anarchists. I suppose relevant is a better word than accurate, since it doesn't imply a right or wrong. Aelffin (talk) 00:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

If none are intrisically right or wrong, then one wonders why have definitions at all. We can just make up usage as we go along. Words will cease to be useful.

And considering that the majority of the article deals with the collectivist side of anarchism, I would say that your "more relevant" definition is more than adequately covered. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 04:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not about right or wrong, it's about relevance and clarity of description. Yes, collectivist anarchism is weighted nicely as a movement, however the definitional disagreement is not dealt with very well, and not where it should be for most clarity--at the begining. Aelffin (talk) 04:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the way to achieve a clear explanation of the subject is to start with the lede saying, basically "Anarchism is a term applied to several distinct political philosophies in the classical liberal tradition, loosely derrived from ancient Greek traditions. Though the term has often been used in a derrogatory manner, this article will deal only with its usage as political philosophy." Then, the next section should deal with the various political definitions. This way, we provide a clear and concise context right up front before the reader dives into the zoo of sub-movements and related phenomena. Fair enough? Aelffin (talk) 04:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

How the hell is anarcho-communism in the classical liberal tradition? Central to the classical liberal tradition is the idea of a free market. Anarcho-communists are opposed to a free market. Operation Spooner (talk) 20:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Presumably Anarcho-Capitalism is lumped in with market Anarchism, Agorism and t some extent Individualist Anarchism as a relatively 'new' and 'contemporary' development while Anarcho-Communism, Syndicalist and Collectivism are viewed as older, or 'classical' Anarchist philosophy. This argument is sometimes used to portray the latter has having a kind of superiority. Aside from this usage, it is a potential valuable categorisation (as it provides a concession so opposing views can get along) so long as it is unbiased, cleaned up and 'codified'. Although I would argue that Mutualism is the original Anarchism with Proudhon being the father of the philosophy. Interesting that little tid-bit is often left out along with the point that he advocated property (despite advocating possession) as a boundary to defend the individual against incursions by the state. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Yeah, that's another problem that clouds the issues. "Market anarchism" and "anarcho-capitalism" are used interchangeably. In fact, I consider myself market anarchist, as well as an anti-capitalist. Unfortunately, this sloppy useage extends to both sides of the issue, and is so deeply entrenched that the terms are effectively identical when applied to modern anarchists. When applied to historic anarchists however, we have to make the distinction more carefully, because many of the individualists were--like me--both pro-market, and anti-capitalism and lumping them together gives the false impression that all or many of the individualists were therefore anarcho-capitalists. Also, I definitely don't want to use the priority/majority positions to falsely inflate the importance of one movement or another, however I think it's important to draw a distinction between these radically different and historically distant movements. Otherwise, the importance of anarcho-capitalism is being inflated by riding the coattales of the other movement, so to speak. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 15:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

If you're a market anarchist and anti-capitalist, what differentiates you from an anarcho-capitalist? Operation Spooner (talk) 02:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

A market is just a means of distributing goods and services. (Or, to quote Market--a market is a social structure that has emerged more or less spontaneously or has been constructed deliberately by human interaction to enable the exchange of rights (cf. ownership) of services and goods.) Anarcho-capitalists support a totally hands-off market with virtually no management. I support voluntary exchange of goods and services in a wealth-leveled marketplace, with democratic management. I also support collective ownership of natural resources, such as land and water, as well as the ending of rent, intellectual property, and other passive income schemes. Finally, I think hierarchical business structures are de facto governments, so all businesses should be flat networks, run similar to the way Wikipedia functions, where anybody can come in and start doing the work they think needs to be done, and share in the profit. I see anarcho-capitalism as a sort of economic primitivism--essentially saying "don't tamper with the market, take away all regulations" is like saying "don't tamper with the weather, take away all umbrellas". Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 11:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Let me put this way...hierarchy is government, they're the same thing. So, if you hire some employees and set up a business, and you decide who gets what percentage of the profits, then you a one-man government to those employees, and you are regulating their economic interactions. So, for a market to truly exist without government, you can't have bosses. I support such a market. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 12:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have a strange idea of anarcho-capitalism. Anarcho-capitalists don't favor hierarchical institutions over non-hierarchical. You're making a strawman out of anarcho-capitalism. Anarcho-capitalists are for allowing you to run busniesses however you want to run them, hierarchically, democratically, or whatever. In fact the anarcho-capitalist David Friedman says he prefers a society of enterpreneurs, with no employees, instead of one based in wage labor. All capitalism is is private, as opposed to state or community, ownership of the means of production and free market to trade these means of production and what's produced. However people want to manage their enterprises is up to them. Operation Spooner (talk) 17:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say anarcho-capitalism favors hierarchic forms, I said it favors a hands-off market. I favor a hands-on market. I was being asked to explain how it is possible that I can be an anti-capitalist market anarchist, not to go into the nuance of ancap theory. Anyway, this discussion is not about my views so if anybody would like to continue this tangent, you're welcome to direct comments to my user talk page. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 19:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Spooner, you're right. I should have said the "liberal" instead of "classical liberal". The traditional anarchists are definitely within the liberal tradition, but only the anarcho-capitalists are within the more restricted classical liberal tradition. Which is precisely the reason why most anarchist view it as a distantly related, but clearly separate movement from anarchism proper. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 15:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Aelfin, I would ask why you would want to elevate the collectivist, anti-hierarchy position of Anarchism to a higher position than that of the market Anarchists? Yes, collectivist Anarchists have a long tradition, but so do market Anarchists and you cannot sideline them on the basis that one branch of the philosophy is controversial.--58.166.247.164 (talk) 10:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to imply a greater importance to one or the other, just to clearly portray their (distant) relationship. Anarchism proper is a branch of liberal socialism, including the individualist anarchists. There one or two questionable exceptions, but otherwise, everybody who called themselves an anarchist prior to Murray Rothbard, saw themselves as part of an anti-capitalist movement. Rothbard, on the other hand, was clearly within the classical liberal tradition, not the socialist tradition. Therefore, his back-mapping of his philosophy onto the market anarchism of the individualist movement is historical revisionism. The only reason this confusion persists is because of the constant equivocation by both sides between the older and newer meanings of the words "market" and "capitalism". I do not advocate inflating the importance of one or the other movement. However, I strongly oppose conflating movements that have different histories and philosophies, and I strongly support giving a clear sense of perspective when it comes to the importance of both movements. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 15:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

"everybody who called themselves an anarchist prior to Murray Rothbard, saw themselves as part of an anti-capitalist movement." That statement doesn't mean much because capitalism wasn't always defined as it is today, which is a free market. Operation Spooner (talk) 02:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Bingo. Which is why it doesn't make much sense to point at old style (anti-capitalist) market anarchists, conflate that with capitalism, and then turn around and say anarcho-capitalism is a part of that tradition. In modern times, the word capitalism has become almost meaningless (see the "zaxlebax problem" above). It's worth noting, however, some people still use the old definitions accurately, and it's also worth noting in the article that among the people who use the older definitions are virtually all anarchists, with the exception of anarcho-capitalists. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 02:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

You can't state as a rule that old style market anarchists were not anti-capitalists if you use a contemporary definition of capitalism. For example there is very little difference between Lysander Spooner and Murray Rothbard. Spooner never opposed capitalism, i.e. private property, including in land, and free markets. Operation Spooner (talk) 17:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, Spooner was very much opposed to what we call capitalism today, and what Rothbard thought of as capitalism in his day. Read contemporary definitions of the word capital (basically just meant "having money"), and then re-read Spooner's work. It's pretty clear that he was anti-capitalist in a modern sense. Whether he was anti-capitalist in the older sense is unclear, as the term's usage was almost as zaxlebaxy then as it is today. Regardless, the only way to call Spooner and Rothbard part of the same movement is to misconstrue the old uses of the word "capitalism" as meaning the same as modern uses. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 19:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

It depends on how broadly you define "the same movement." Bejamin Tucker, Lysander Spooner, and Murray Rothbard are all certianly in the individualist anarchist movement and the market anarchist movement. There are things Tucker disagreed with Spooner over, but they're still both individualist anarchists. To be part of the individualist anarchist, or less broad the market anarchist movement, doesnt require agreement on much of anything except support for private ownership as opposed to state or public ownership. Your premise seems to be that individualist or market anarchists have to agree with each other. Market anarchism, and especially individualist anarchism, is a big tent full of conflicting views. Operation Spooner (talk) 21:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not about how broadly I define individualist anarchism, it's about how broadly the individualists defined their movement. Certainly, none of them would have seen modern capitalism as part of their movement, and all the major individualists were long dead by the time Rothbard was born, so it smacks of historical revisionism to say he was part of their movement. It's as if Jimi Hendrix decided to call himself a Baroque composer. No doubt you could find some people to go along with that, but a historian of music will know better. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 22:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The movement is very difficult to define other than extremely broadly, because it's been all over the place. Even the 19th century individualist anarchists themselves would drastically change their positions from one day to the next. For example, Benjamin Tucker said that land could legitimately exchange hands by force. He said that if someone take land by force from someone else, that makes him the new owner. Tucker said "In times past...it was my habit to talk glibly of the right of man to land. It was a bad habit, and I long ago sloughed it off. Man's only right to land is his might over it. If his neighbor is mightier than he and takes the land froim him, then the land is his neighbor's, until the latter is dispossessed by one mightier still." The fact that Rothbard disagrees with that, and believes in only peaceful trade of land to establish ownership and natural rights, doesn't make Rothbard not an individualist anarchist. Individualist anarchism is a big tent. It's simply all anarchism that is individualistic. You say "certainly, none of them would have seen modern capitalism as part of their movement." It depends on how you are defining "modern capitalism." How are you defining it? Operation Spooner (talk) 03:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I'll be more precise. Certainly, all notable individualist anarchists would have seen the anarcho-capitalist mantra of laissez-faire capitalism as antithetical to their cause, even the ones whose writings helped to inspire Rothbard. The individualist tent was big, yes. But it didn't have an open door policy. And even if Rothbard had lifted theories from the fringe of the individualist anarchist movement (which is what the ancap claim boils down to), the point remains that he was an outsider to the movement. Rothbard was not part of individualist anarchism for the very simple fact that when that movement was active, Rothbard had not yet been born. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 15:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

You don't understand that individualist anarchism is active TODAY. Anarcho-capitalists ARE individualists anarchists. You don't seem to be able to grasp that "individualist anarchism" means simply anarchism that is individualistic. Anarcho-capitalism is individualistic. Therefore it's individualist anarchism. Individualist anarchism is still active. There are numerous sources that say anarcho-capitalism is a form of individualist anarchism. Individualist anarchism is not confined to a specific time period. If one is an anarchist and an individualist, he is an individualist anarchist. This is true whether he lived one hundred years ago, one thousand years ago, lives today, or will live a thousand years in the future. The only necessary conditions of being an individualist anarchist is that one is an anarchist and an individualist. Most anarcho-capitalist probably do not even call themselves anarcho-capitalists, but individualist anarchists or market anarchists. Wendy McElroy, for example, simply calls herself an individualist anarchist, but her philosophy is the same as Rothbard's. You need to understand what "individualist anarchism" means before we can have a coherent conversation. Operation Spooner (talk) 16:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I think I understand individualist anarchism fairly well. The crux of the issue is that either you and I have a different understanding of what a movement is, or you think individualist anarchism was something other than a movement. My position is that individualist anarchism was a political movement. It wasn't a philosophy because there were no shared philosophical positions (I say this for the sake of argument because that's your contention, not mine, by the way). Neither was it a doctrine or set of doctrines (again, according to you). We can all agree that it wasn't a political party, a union, a social club, or any other type of political organization. So, it was a movement. A political movement. Read what a polital movement is. According to the wiki article: A political movement may be organized around a single issue or set of issues, or around a set of shared concerns of a social group. That's what a political movement is...it's a social movement organized around a particular set of shared political positions, or shared political concerns of a particular social group. According to you, individualist anarchism is not "organized around a single issue or set of issues" and according to the historical record, the individualists and the anarcho-capitalists were two different social groups separated by several decades. So, anarcho-capitalist "individualist anarchism" and 19th century individualist anarchism also do not represent "a set of shared concerns of a social group". In other words, they are two different movements. Different ideology + different social group = different movement. Even if they use the same terminology, even if they call themselves by the same names, because of the gap in both time and philosophy, they are two different movements. If they were to be considered part of the same movement, there would have to be philosophical and/or sociological continuity between Josiah & Friends and Murray & Friends. In precise parellel, I think we can all agree that the anarchist movement started by Proudhon is not the same movement as the anarchist movement started by the ancient Greek Cynics. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 18:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

You still don't get it. "Individualist anarchism" is a CLASSIFICATION, just as communitarian anarchism (or social anarchism) is a classification. Anarcho-capitalism falls under the individualist classification. Anarcho-communism, for example, would fall under the communitarian classification. Individualist anarchism is not a movement. It's a classification under which several movements fall. It's easy to show that Rothbard is part of the evolution of Benjamin Tucker's movement. Rothbard wrote in the same journals that Laurance Labadie wrote in, who was the son of Joseph Labadie who was an associate of Tucker. There is a clear link. If you want to confine Tucker's movement to Tucker himself, go ahead. It just depends on how you are defining the movement. If you don't allow for evolutions in a movement, then sure, Rothbard is not part of the same movement to which Tucker belonged. But then neither would Tucker be part of the movement when he evolved to egoism. Operation Spooner (talk) 01:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

That's right, "individualist" and "communist" are classifications...of...movements. "Individualist anarchism" is a term used primarily to classify a 19th century socialist movement, and also used by some to classify a 20th century libertarian movement. No matter what label you choose, they were different movements. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 15:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't care whether you call them different movements or not. It's just semantics. It depends on how broad you're defining "movement." If "individualist anarchism" is a movement, then Murray Rothbard, Max Stirner, William Godwin, and Benjamin Tucker are all part of the same movement, because they're all individualist anarchists. And, the 19th century individualist anarchists in America were not socialists. Take a look at the definition of socialism. Socialism is social control over the means of production. Individualists are for individual control, not socialized control. They were not socialists. What definition of socialism are you using? Operation Spooner (talk) 16:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

There have been three distinct anarchist movements: 1) the Greek Cynics, of which little is known, 2) the movement started by Proudhon that continues to today's WTO protesters, and 3) the movement started by Rothbard and revived by neolibertarians. These three movements could all fairly be called "anarchist", and they all have some things in common, and they've influenced each other in various ways. However, they revolve around three different sets of shared principles, and they are held by three different social groups. That makes them three different movements. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 15:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

And once more, I will cite the examples of Jews for Jesus (who see themselves as Jews but are rejected by those who are recognized as Jews) and Creation scientists (who see themselves as scientists but are rejected by those who are recognized as scientists). This article's explanation of Anarcho-capitalists (who see themselves as anarchists but are rejected by those who are recognized as anarchists) should be consistent with the explanations of those other fringe movements. It's not necessarily a matter of importance, but a matter of consistency and clarity--although admittedly, readers may choose to make their own judgements on importance when reading an accurate portrayal of the relative size and sway of the two philosophies. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 16:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

"Anarcho-capitalists (who see themselves as anarchists but are rejected by those who are recognized as anarchists) " <--What is that supposed to mean? Anarcho-capitalists are included in those who are recognized as anarchists. They don't reject themselves. Operation Spooner (talk) 02:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

And some people see creation science as a branch of science--and not just creation scientists themselves, mind you. So, why should wikipedia handle anarcho-capitalism differently than it handles creation science? I'm not saying creation science, anarcho-capitalism, or Jews for Jesus are wrong or less important or whatever, I'm just saying that this is an analagous situation, and the articles should be handled similarly. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 02:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

To put it a different way...all sources recognize anarcho-syndicalists and anarcha-feminists as anarchists, all sources recognize geologists and physicists as scientists, and all source recognize Ashkenazis and Shepardis as Jews. On the other hand, Jews for Jesus, creation scientists, and anarcho-capitalists are only recognized by some sources as Jews, scientists, and anarchists, respectively. Fringe groups should be clearly portrayed as such. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 02:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Your premise on sources is wrong. Of course you can find particular anarcho-communists who say anarcho-capitalism is not genuine anarchism, just as you could find anarcho-capitalists say that anarcho-communism is not genuine anarchism. But these are polemical pieces. Virtually all secondary and tertiary sources recognize anarcho-capitalism as anarchism. Operation Spooner (talk) 17:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Look, from a Wikipedian stance, word anarchist is almost irrelevant (although this usage is seen as baiting and is extremely offensive to most anarchists). Whether one is more "genuine" than the other is also irrelevant to Wikipedia. The important issue from a Wikipedian point of view is whether one is a subset of the other. Forget the word for a minute, and look at the point I'm trying to get across: My point is that "anarchist" type 2 is clearly not a subset of "anarchist" type 1, even though they both lay claim to the label "anarchist". Think of it this way... Let's say there's a group we'll call "Type A1". This group conists of several subgroups, such as A1-red, A1-green, and A1-pink. Now if "Category S" and "Category C" are non-overlapping subsets of "SuperCategory L", and "Type A1" is a subset of "Category S" while "Type A2" is a subset of "Category C", then is it possible for "Type A2" to be a subset of "Type A1"? If you see that the answer is "no" then you should also see that it makes no sense to list "Type A2" alongside A1-green and A1-red. Putting "Type2" anarchists into the set of "Type1" anarchists does a disservice to both, and is inaccurate to boot. I know that all sounds a bit obtuse, but that's the actual taxonomic structure of these movements, and if the article is to be accurate, it has to find a way to communicate all of that. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 18:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Most secondary and teriary sources don't explicitly classify anarcho-capitalism as a type of anarchism. Most of them list two different uses of the word anarchism, one being anarchism=anti-government, and the other being anarchism=anti-hierarchy. So yes, implicitly anarcho-capitalism is included in one of the two main definitions of the word. This ignores the fact that virtually all primary sources on anarchism define the term as anarchism=anti-hierarchy or some variant thereof. So, again it's equivocation between two different meanings of the word, strangely rejecting the one used by the primary sources...and we're back to creation "scientists" and "Jews" for Jesus. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 22:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Most secondary and tertiary sources indeed explicitly classify anarcho-capitalism as a type of anarchism. And, no most of them do NOT list two different uses of the word anarchism. And, you could be right that most primary sources on anarchism define it as anti-hierarchy but that could just be that most primary sources are anarcho-communists. Because anarcho-communists define it as without hierarchy, that doesn't mean that how it should be defined in this article. All that gives is the definition of anarcho-communism. Primary sources should for the most part be ignored by Wikipedia articles unless they're used as a reference for the source itself. In other words, you can't use a definition of anarchism from an anarcho-communist primary source as the definition for anarchism. You have to use a definition from a secondary or tertiary source. Operation Spooner (talk) 03:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I've Always been puzzled by this claim that one subset of Anarchism is not 'anti-government', but 'anti-hierarchy'. From my understanding Bakunin opposed Marx, the authority cited by most 'anti-hierarchy Anarchists', on the basis that beureaucratic government was the true evil in society, despite being a Communist and radical Syndicalist. This whole evolution of the 'ANCAP v ANSOC' debate into the 'anti-hierarchy', 'anti-government', debate has gone from bad to idiotic. Excplitly 'anti-hierarchy' positions used to attack market Anarchists, Mutualists, Agorists and Anarcho-Capitalists are redundant as the original Anarchists seem to be pretty firmly against government itself. There, at least, seems to be common ground. I think it's a pretty obvious fact Anarcho-Capitalism is a disputed label - there is evidence for that everywhere. But I also think that you, Aelffin are calling Anarcho-Capitalists supporters of today's current Corporatist state when they generally aren't! (obviously you get a minority, like how you'll find libertarian communists who support state-sponsored communism, but that's no reason to judge the rest)--58.170.123.159 (talk) 09:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't be too puzzling, since the anti-government position was derived from the anti-class position (later generalized to anti-hierarchy). Proudhon's foundational work makes that pretty clear. That's why most anarchists see it as inherently socialist. Essentially, modern anarchism is derived from Proudhon, with the sole exception of anarcho-capitalism (and perhaps anarcho-primitivism). It really is a smooth transition from early socialism to modern anarchism. Virtually all anarchist theory from Proudhon to Bob Black has been a logical extrapolation of the basic principle that you can't have one type of equality without having *all* types of equality. Anarcho-capitalism is derived almost entirely from classical liberalism, so even if we all agreed to label it as "anarchism", we should be able to agree that it's a different movement. At least according to Wikipedia's explanation of what a movement is. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 15:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

No, modern anarchism is not derived from Proudhon. Proudhon is simply an influence on modern anarchism, and not much of an influence at that. And early individualist anarchism in America was not derived from Proudhon either. Josiah Warren and Thoreau were not exposed to Proudhon. Early individualist anarchism in American was derived almost entirely from classical liberalism. Later, Proudhon influenced early American individualist anarchism. Proudhon didn't influence the individualist anarchism of Max Stirner either. Operation Spooner (talk) 16:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous, why do you say I'm "calling Anarcho-Capitalists supporters of today's current Corporatist state"? I've done nothing of the sort. I know better than that. Anyway, saying these are different movements is not a judgement, it's just an insistence upon accurate taxonomy instead of this fuzzy, anhistoric lumping together of all things that kinda look like they're opposed to government. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 16:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

No, most secondary and tertiary sources are general dictionaries. Most general dictionaries give multiple definitios, including the two mentioned above. Most dictionaries do not contain the term anarcho-capitalism. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 16:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

No, dictionaries aren't secondary sources. They're tertiary sources. And, The Oxford English Dictionary, arguably the most important dictionary, defines anarcho-capitalism. Operation Spooner (talk) 16:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Terminological Confusion

Since there has been a lot of confusion about the current and historical meanings of terms, I thought it would be useful to post some word etymologies here. Below are the etymologies of some key terms relating to anarchism. (from Etymonline)

anarchy - 1539, from M.L. anarchia, from Gk. anarkhia "lack of a leader," noun of state from anarkhos "rulerless," from an- "without" + arkhos "leader" (see archon).

capital - The financial sense (1630) is from L.L. capitale "stock, property," neut. of capitalis.

anarchist - (1678) got a boost into modernity from the French Revolution.

capitalist - 1791, from Fr. capitaliste, a coinage of the Revolution and a term of reproach.

commune - 1792, from Fr., "small territorial divisions set up after the Revolution," from M.Fr. commune "free city, group of citizens," from M.L. communia, orig. neut. pl. of L. communis, lit. "that which is common," from communis (see common). The Commune of Paris usurped the government during the Reign of Terror.

socialist - 1827, from Fr. socialiste, in reference to the teachings of Comte de Saint-Simon, founder of Fr. socialism.

socialism - Attested from 1837, apparently first in reference to Robert Owen's communes. "Pierre Leroux (1797-1871), idealistic social reformer and Saint-Simonian publicist, expressly claims to be the originator of the word socialisme" [Klein]. The word begins to be used in Fr. in the modern sense c.1835. Socialista, with a different sense, was applied 18c. to followers and pupils of Du. jurist Grotius (1583-1645).

capitalism - First recorded 1854; originally "the condition of having capital;" as a political/economic system, 1877.

commune - Applied to a government on communalistic principles set up in Paris in 1871. Adherents of the 1871 government were Communards.

communism - 1843, from Fr. communisme (c.1840) from commun (O.Fr. comun; see common) + -isme. Originally a theory of society; as name of a political system, 1850, a translation of Ger. Kommunismus, in Marx and Engels' "Manifesto of the German Communist Party." The first use of communist (n.) is by Goodwyn Barmby, who founded the London Communist Propaganda Society in 1841. Shortened form Commie attested from 1940.

Nihilism - With a capital N-, it refers to the Rus. revolutionary anarchism of the period 1860-1917, supposedly so called because "nothing" that then existed found favor in their eyes. Nihilist first attested 1836, in the religious or philosophical sense; in the Rus. political sense, it is recorded from 1871.

---

While I respect the attempt to clarify terminological difficulties, this approach is utterly futile because the meaning of words changes over time. The way anarcho-capitalists and social(ist) anarchists use the terms "capitalist" and "socialist" are completely different. What is commonly referred to now as "libertarian" is completely different from what the anarchist communist, Dejacque had in mind when he coined it. Wikipedia rightfully looks askance at dictionary definitions: "Wikipedia is not in the business of saying how words, idioms, phrases etc., should be used (but it may be important in the context of an encyclopedia article to discuss how a word is used: e.g. freedom)." I do not know what you hope to achieve by this approach in improving the article. Skomorokh 18:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm not trying to say that these are better or worse definitions than modern ones, but since a lot of our conversations deal with what so-and-so was saying back in 18-whatever, it's good to have a reference point as to what these words meant to the people who were using them. And, of course it's also good to recognize that some of these definitions are still in use today by some parties whereas other parties may use meanings of more recent coinage. Aelffin (talk) 19:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

An observation: The etymology given for "anarchy" is wrong; the dictionary cited is inconsistent when it uses the term "leader" instead of "ruler." To quote:

archon - one of the nine chief magistrates of ancient Athens, 1659, from Gk. arkhon "ruler," prp. of arkhein "to rule," from PIE *arkhein- "to begin, rule, command," a "Gk. verb of unknown origin, but showing archaic Indo-European features ... with derivatives arkhe, 'rule, beginning,' and arkhos, 'ruler' " [Watkins]. link

"Archon" itself is derived from a word for "throne." Clearly it refers to rulers, and not voluntarily followed leaders. PhilLiberty (talk) 18:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

More resources

Here are some stories from the Associated Press archives (mentioned specifically as a high-quality source in WP:RS). Unfortunately, you've got to pay a small fee (a buck fifty) to read the whole article, but if you're interested in improving the Wiki, it may be worth it. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 02:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Despite poor image, anarchism is catching on among young activists disillusioned with capitalism

Author: MALCOLM FOSTER Associated Press Writer Date: January 18, 2003 Publication: Associated Press Archive

Brien Gartland goes "Dumpster diving" every day for his food. He raids the garbage bags outside gourmet groceries looking for slightly bruised mangos, unopened containers of rice pudding and the like.

Known as "Deadbolt," the bearded 21-year-old sleeps in a vacant building and refuses to get a job because he's disillusioned with capitalism and Western democracy, systems he believes exploit the poor and give power to the elite....

Participants in Seattle protests long for a simpler world

Author: JEFF BARNARD Associated Press Writer Date: December 12, 1999 Publication: Associated Press Archive

On a quiet street in Eugene's oldest and funkiest neighborhood, a mural on the side of an art gallery expresses the idyllic world vision of many of the anarchists who took part in the Seattle protests against the World Trade Organization.

It is a far cry from the scenes of confrontation and violence that included black-clad youths jumping through the broken windows of a Seattle Starbucks. Instead, the mural reflects a longing for a world where people live in small villages...

Anarchists occupy building to protest WTO

Author: NICHOLAS K. GERANIOS Associated Press Writer Date: December 4, 1999 Publication: Associated Press Archive

Speaking through a mail slot, anarchists occupying a warehouse to protest the World Trade Organization declined to be interviewed Friday, and suggested reporters call their publicist.

"Have a nice day," a female voice said. Police and others in this violence-weary city have blamed a small number of anarchists as the source for much of the vandalism that marred this week's WTO meeting.

The anarchists illegally occupying the downtown building...

Reliable Sources

Since there has been considerable discussion here on what constitutes reliable sources, I've gathered a few policies below that may be applicable to this article to remind editors when it is appropriate to use some of the types of sources we've mentioned in the past. In particular, I believe there is room within wikipolicy to cite anarchist publications within certain contexts. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 02:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

News Organizations (from WP:RS)

• Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed, particularly the high-quality end of the market, such as the The Washington Post, The Times of London, and The Associated Press. When citing opinion pieces in newspapers and magazines, in-text attribution should be used if the material is contentious. When adding contentious biographical material about living persons that relies upon news organizations, only material from high-quality news organizations should be used.

Use of Electronic or Online Sources (from Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples)

• "Websites and publications of political parties, religious groups, anti-religious groups, or any other partisan group, may exhibit bias and should be treated with caution. Neither political affiliation nor religious belief stated in these sources are in themselves a reason not to use them, as these websites can be used to present the viewpoints of these groups, if properly attributed. Such sources should be presented alongside references from other sources in order to maintain a neutral point of view."

Extremist and Fringe Sources (from WP:RS)

• Organizations and individuals that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist should be used only as sources about themselves in articles about themselves or their activities, and any information used must be directly relevant to the subject and their cause of notability. Articles using such sources should not repeat any contentious claims, or any claims made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources. Finally, these sources should never form the primary source for an article.

Using Questionable or Self-published Sources (from WP:ATT)

• Questionable and self-published sources should not normally be used. There are three exceptions:

1. Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves

Material from self-published or questionable sources may be used in articles about those sources, so long as:

• it is relevant to their notability;
• it is not contentious;
• it is not unduly self-serving;
• it does not involve claims about third parties;
• it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
• there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it;
• the article is not based primarily on such sources.

So, there are some guidelines that I hope will encourage editors to make wider use of the many materials available on the subject of anarchism. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 02:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow! That policy is worse than I remember. Almost all anarchist publications would be barred from citation if people just followed the idiotic "extremist" section of this policy. The bias against electronic sources and self-published sources are also unfriendly towards anarchists. It's ironic that Wikipedia, which prides itself on being an open, free encyclopedia is now so narrow-minded about sources. I say that people should use direct action and cite sources that this policy frowns upon. Chuck0 (talk) 15:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, you can rewrite the policies and hash it out over there for sure. But I don't find them to be as restrictive as people claim. The way I understand these policies, most anarchist writings are fair game for use in articles about anarchism. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 17:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Chuck, I've reverted the edits you made to my policy post above. These are direct quotes from Wikipedia policy, so if you don't like them, go to those policy pages and argue with the editors there. Besides, it's always bad form to edit another person's post. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 16:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

It was not my intention to edit your post. I edited the Wikipedia policy to reflect a policy that we can use through direct action to write anarchism-related pages. If Wikipedia doesn't like our policy, they can come stop us. Otherwise, every anarchism-related page should get disputed tags and other tags to note that these pages rely on sources that are biased against anarchism. Chuck0 (talk) 02:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'd support disputed tags. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 03:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

People, "anarchist" does not mean "extremist"! There are lots of extremist Republican sites out there, a fair number of extremist Democrats, and yes, some extremist anarchists, but it is blatantly not NPOV to brand a source "extremist" solely because of its political philosophy. The question you need to ask instead is whether the source values its credibility - in other words, is it possible that they would lie just to make a few extra points? Unless and until someone on the policy page gets a consensus to write ALL anarchists are extremists into formal policy, you don't have to go by it... and if they do it may be time to break a rule.

As for self-published sources, make sure you look over the specific case. Just because a magazine or a Web site was published by anarchists doesn't mean that they took every scrap of paper people send in and publish it without reservation. I don't know your specific situation, but you should be able to find lots of anarchist sources being published by third parties with at least the cursory level of review that FOX News would give one of its columnists! Wnt (talk) 01:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

"Extremist" is an empty propaganda label with no real denotative meaning. There is no philosophy called "Extremism" and no people who call themselves "extremists." Something is "extremist" if it's outside the bounds of respectable discussion, and you end up outside those bounds if powerful people find it convenient to put you there. The term "fringe" in the same policy would be sufficient in itself and more accurate. EbonyTotem (talk) 00:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

More resources for editors

Here are a couple more articles from a reputable news agency that anybody here could use to flesh out the article, especially on the subject of recent developments in the movement. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 17:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Picking sides: Young minds molded for 21st-century activism tend to embrace the far left or far right, with little political middle ground in sight

Dennis Roddy

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Sunday, July 25, 2004

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04207/350301-51.stm

• On the left, disarray reigned after the fall of communism. Without Marxism standing as the guardrail on the far left lane, a new interest in anarchism arose and, with it, an anticapitalist, antiglobalist politics that shunted aside old theorists in favor of new.

• "Electoral politics doesn't move people as much as it did once," observes Todd May, a professor of philosophy at Clemson University. May traces the current action on the left as coming in several waves, building in the antiglobalization protests of eight years ago.

• "That [activity] was coming from young people, and it was coming from a relatively new theoretical place," May said. "The Marxist ideas just don't resonate with anyone anymore." Instead, there was a post-Marxian form of anarchism, a complex system that fuses personal liberty with opposition to centralized wealth and power and an abiding sense that whichever of the two major parties holds power, the game is not significantly changed.

Anarchists: Can they get it together?

Dennis Roddy

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Sunday, February 02, 2003

http://www.post-gazette.com/columnists/20030202edroddy02p1.asp

• One of the most visible but least-explored tributaries of the anti-war left comprises a group of people, mostly young, who dress in black, conceal their faces with masks and combine street theater with street fighting. They call themselves anarchists.

• ...they define their philosophy by what they are opposing, be it war, capitalism, world trade or the police.

• This combination of personal libertarian views, coupled with the theory that people can be individuals only among other people, leads the anarchists to accept the idea of shared property, shared societies, but a sort of direct democracy that makes a political unit larger than a village or neighborhood hard to imagine.

• Like others who broke away from the peace rally last Sunday, Shaffer found himself marching behind a banner that read "No War Between the Nations, No Peace Between the Classes." The theory of class warfare is embraced without apology, as is the theory that, come the day of the anarchist, there won't be any nations to make war.

• As the 20th century was aborning, the term anarchist was sufficient to demonize the far left.

Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 17:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

New policy on reliable sources

I'm re-posting my re-working of Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources. The main policy is offensive towards anarchism, in that it penalizes anarchist sources in favor of biased mainstream sources. I think that we should adopt this as our working policy through direct action. People working on anarchist entries are welcome to edit the block I've added below. Chuck0 (talk) 02:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I may be an anonymous participant and barely ever do any editing, but I would wholeheartedly support such a campaign.--58.170.123.159 (talk) 09:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

---

Reliable Sources (for entries on anarchist topics)

Corporate News Organizations (from WP:RS)

• Material from mainstream news organizations can be used for citation, such as articles from the The Washington Post, The Times of London, and The Associated Press. When citing opinion pieces in newspapers and magazines, in-text attribution should be used if the material is contentious. When adding contentious biographical material about living persons that relies upon news organizations, only material from high-quality news organizations should be used. It should be understood that articles from mainstream corporate news organizations are often inaccurate and/or sensational about anarchists and anarchist subjects. There is a long history of bias against anarchists from mainstream news sources.

Use of Electronic or Online Sources (from Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples)

• "Websites and publications of political parties, religious groups, anti-religious groups, or any other partisan group, may exhibit bias (like any other source). Neither political affiliation nor religious belief stated in these sources are in themselves a reason not to use them, as these websites can be used to present the viewpoints of these groups, if properly attributed. Such sources should be presented alongside references from other sources in order to maintain a neutral point of view."

Ephemeral Sourcess (from WP:RS)

• Organizations and individuals that express views in ephemeral sources such as zines and pamphlets can be used. Articles using such sources should not repeat any contentious claims, or any claims made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources. Finally, these sources should never form the primary source for an article.

Using Questionable or Self-published Sources (from WP:ATT)

• Questionable and self-published sources should not normally be used. There are three exceptions:

1. Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves

Material from self-published or questionable sources may be used in articles about those sources, so long as:

• it is relevant to their notability;
• it is not contentious;
• it is not unduly self-serving;
• it does not involve claims about third parties;
• it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
• there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it;
• the article is not based primarily on such sources.

---

While I appreciate the effort, I can't imagine this proposal will get very far given the current crop of editors we have on this article. The way to rectify these policies, IMHO is to go to the discussion page for WP:RS, explain the issues we've encountered here, and try to develop a policy you like better. I know it's time consuming, but sometimes you've got to put in the time to get the effect you want. Again though, as far as I can tell, the existing policy is not really a problem for what you want to do. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 19:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

While you're at it, you might be interested in my comments on the Jeremiah Wright controversy. That article is pretty strictly Democrat vs. Republican, but there are a lot of crummy sources in it and I was asking there where to draw the line on blogs and the like and ended up quoting from the same policy but not being sure how to interpret it. I do think that because of "New Media" that the Wikipedia policy is already becoming obsolete, and that it will be a respectable intellectual challenge to try to decide how to draw the line fairly in the future. Perhaps this alternate ideological context can offer some complementary insights on the problem. Wnt (talk) 01:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't this have been better carried out on the Anarchism Task Force talk page? It's only indirectly related to this article.--Cast (talk) 03:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The Russians wanted an Anarchism

I have heard that during the soviet period, many Russians wanted an Anarchism. Falcon-eagle2008

Really? where did you hear this? I find that quite interesting please tell more.. and feel free to mention it in the article (that is if you can cite it!). Randy6767 (talk) 21:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Libertarian socialism section

I have removed the "libertarian socialism" subsection from the summary of anarchist schools of thought as it is not in the latter article. If someone wants to add a properly referenced section on lib. soc. to that article (making sure it has a sourced claim to be a major anarchist school of thought) we can add it back in here later. Skomorokh 23:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I replaced "social anarchism" with "libertarian socialism." I have never heard the word "social anarchism" except the magazine Social Anarchism. Without the magazine, libertarian socialism is used much more commonly for communitarian anarchism than social anarchism. According to Google libertarian socialism has 19,400 results while [7] social anarchism has 210 [8] (talk) 18:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Anarchism and how long could it exist

Well I was thinking about anarchism this day and I've bumped into a problem:

1.) Anarchism from a Capitalist State

If there's a goodly working Capitalist Democracy, and then through a revolution it turns into Anarchism(wich is the abolishment of every law and governmental oppression) Companies would surely take the power because only they have enough money for weapons. So Anarchism will become "Capitalism Liber" wich isn't really better than the original government, because they could even kill the residents if they want to.

2.) Anarchism from a Communist State

Yes, I've already philosophised about how anarchism created from a socialist society would work(nearly everything is controlled by state and there's strict authority) then it would turn out like this: New groups would form and there would be a bloody competition for previously state-controlled facilities and they will taxatate the use of them so it's basically the same "Capitalism Liber".

3.) So how anarchism could be stable?

Well, I think that the strongest bond that could hold the people together in the state of absolute freedom is Religion. Maybe if there would be a religion wich STRICTLY OPPOSES CAPITALISM, and MONEY Anarchism could be maintained by the followers of that religion. And if there would be an ORGANIZED MILITARY just for DEFENCE, than this would hold people together also and defend from invasions, and it won't destroy the ABSOLUTLY FREE STATE OF SOCIETY.

What do You think about my opinion? I would gladly go into a philosophical argument.;)

SRY FOR MY BAD ENGLISH

Signature :Hoax —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.182.41.73 (talk) 08:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• Please see WP:NOT#FORUM

This isn't a message board for your debates. It's a space for addressing the improvement of this article. Take it to an anarchist/political forum, please.--Cast (talk) 03:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Anarchist International

May I have some help? User:Anna Quist is repeatedly removing a proposal for deletion and is refusing to enter discussion or even leave an edit summary. I cannot revert her without breaking 3RR. Zazaban (talk) 01:41, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I have added AI - IFA - IAF approved content to this article.

I have added AI - IFA - IAF approved content to this article.

The homepage of the Anarchist Internatonal, www.anarchy.no , is not nonsensensial. Try to prove it and you will fail. The article Anarchist International on Wikipedia is objective and to the point.

The organizations/networks associated to the Anarchist International are found at the link-page of www.anarchy.no , and then there is a big network of networkmembers/subscribers related to the different organizations/networks.

As for Zazaban I have problems with taking him seriously. In a discussion on Anarchism.net he answered with the following "intelligent" and a bit ochlarchical statements: "You're one to talk. - And, just to see how you react; FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK. FUCK FUCK. FUCK." Source [9]. I would not put too much weight on what he means. I don't think such comments are funny.

Anarchist Greetings Anna Quist

Anarchy Defined

There are several problems with the new section added by SchfiftyThree:

• The claim that the English language is twisted in an Orwellian way to support hierarchy is controversial, to say the least.
• It contains headlines that don't follow Wikipedia formatting conventions.
• It is polemical and violates the NPOV rule.
• The claim that anarchism is a science contradicts the (much less controversial) claim in the intro that it is a political philosophy.

These are only the problems that are evident ten paragraphs in. Do I really need to go on? I'm going to reverse the edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SgtSchumann (talk • contribs) 23:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Why is every few words have a new citation number on it?

This is ridiculous and cluttering up the article, especially in the first few paragraphs.... WAY too many citation numbers. People need to stop liberally slopping these things on to every sentence, and in many cases, WITHIN A SENTENCE !!!! Just no need for it and it looks ridiculous in the extreme. its howdy doody time !!! (talk) 06:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I am sure the querent can find all sorts of articles on the internet which are not supported by rigourous citations, and perhaps its howdy doody time !!! might consider gazing at such pages when they wish to experience the sort of aesthetic experience which they find lacking when they look at this page. The profusion of citations is not some kind of sloppy liberalism, but a recognisation of the importance of citing suitable authorities for every element of the article - something particularly important bearing in mind the nature of the article.Harrypotter (talk) 07:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Valid references are important, especially for a controversial topic such as anarchism. But I have long thought that reference links should be a less conspicuous color, perhaps a pale blue-grey. -Pgan002 (talk) 21:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)