Talk:Anarchism/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

→

Archive 25

Anarcho-Communist Platform?

I think we should include the Platform in the Conflicts section of this article. Either that, or in the anarcho-communism section, which is sort of dead at the moment. --Jazz Remington 17:02, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Immediate Action Required

This dispute has gone on for far too long. The information gathered in this discussion showed that the article has been left at the socialist point of view or that information on anarcho-capitalism should not be on this article and other similar complaints. To whoever has the authority: Remove the Protection Tag; the Two Versions Tag; and after experts on the subject have corrected and added information to this article, the Neutrality Tag must also be removed, which should then be replaced by the Controversial Issue Tag if needed. Any available experts on the subject should monitor the article daily and correct any false, outdated, or one-sided information as soon as possible. This is the best method for ending the dispute and it must be carried out within a week at the most.

No Reason for Debate

This entry has been the subject of edit wars for some time. It's time for the so-called "anarcho-capitalists" to stick to their own page and leave this entry alone. Anarcho-capitalism has never been a part of anarchism and it is simply factually incorrect for this entry to treat anarcho-capitalism with any seriousness. The Anarchist FAQ has throroughly debunked anarcho-capitalism as an ideology. Just because a few misguided individuals sabotage this entry with their nonsense about anarcho-capitalism doesn't mean that Wikipedia should allow false information to be posted as a live entry. People can check any anthology of anarchist writings at your library and find nothing about anarcho-capitalism. It has nothing to do with anarchism. There is no need to qualify anarchism as consisting of "left anarchism" vs. "anarcho-capitalism." Please get the correct version of this article online without the section about anarcho-capitalism. A link to the anarcho-capitalism section would be understandable, but a section in this version on anarcho-capitalism is simply inaccurate. -- Chuck0, Infoshop.org and Radical Reference

Chuck0

Time to Unprotect the Page

It says in [Wikipedia:Protection policy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Protection_policy] that "temporarily protected pages should not be left protected for very long." Well, it's been protected for very long, so this protection is in violation of Wikipedia policy. Consensus is not going to happen, obviously. Edit warring is probably the best way to go. RJII 16:16, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I was the one who requested protection of the Neutral Disambiguation Page, not knowing at the time that the admin was biased toward the socialist version. I'd rather have an edit war than the really stupid version up there right now. Hogeye 17:05, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You forgot both sides had requested protection, not just you (in fact, the other side requested first: [1] and [2]). And I'm biased against edit wars, not towards a specific version of this page. That said, if both sides want it unprotected, I will unprotect it; you can also ask on WP:RFPP for unprotection. I'm also annoyed at it being protected for this long (I dislike keeping pages protected for too long, they grow stale), but it's still better than an edit war. --cesarb 17:37, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Is anyone else disturbed by RJII's "edit wars are good" theory? Seems pretty clear he's just here to cause trouble. Gave up arguing rationally about two weeks ago. Oh well. If worse comes to worst, I'm sure I have more free time than you and thus have the edge in a war of attrition :P But I assure you I'll do anything to avoid this course. --Tothebarricades 19:43, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not here to "cause trouble" at all. I'm here to help correct the article. If that's troubling to you, that's unfortunate. Either way, whether it's interminable debate, or endless editing, there will be no resolution. There will always be anarchists who think somebody else's school of anarchism is not real anarchism (as in the traditional individualists who held that communist and syndicalist forms were not anarchism). So, the best we can do is edit endlessly without resolution. A dynamic article is better than a stagnant one. The point of Wikipedia is not for writers to appease other, but to provide dynamic, living articles, that anyone can edit. I, for one, will not the sacrifice quality and accuracy of an article for the sake of avoiding conflict or avoiding "causing trouble." If anyone would, then they shouldn't be editing an article. RJII 20:23, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep it protected, please, until some sort of agreement is made about how to resolve these content disputes. I would like to see more respondants to the survey. How can we call more attention to it? Perhaps we should just wait another week for more commentary? --albamuth 22:01, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I wanted it unprotected too, until I saw the capitalists want it unproctected as well, now I'm not so sure. Keep it protected because they'll surely go back to their vandalistic ways. The current page isn't perfect, but it's better than a ton of people who visit this page every day getting an entirely and utterly completely false view of what anarchism is. --Fatal 22:49, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Free the Article! Remove the freeze. The hierarchy at Wikipedia is oppressing me by not allowing edits.

Anarchism is anarchistic, so its entry is, too, nu?

No wonder anarchism leads to edit wars! Doing your own thing generates disagreements! This is because people are different! Viva la difference! — Rickyrab | Talk 22:07, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well argument is the stuff of life - I have no problem discussing, collaborating with other wikipedians on this. But on this page for the last few months we have had the same 2 or 3 anarcho-capitalists pushing their POV and UNPROVEN claim that A/C is entered in the article as a 'school' or substantial subsection. Folk coming in have only really experienced this and little discussion on the other parts of the article. IMHO it is classic trolling as A/C's are abusive.,.. uncooperative and just go on POV rants without refering to unbias sources or evidence. -max rspct 22:37, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sort of like how the surrealism talk page is surrealistic (just look at it, it's insane). I don't have a problem with people having different views - very little of my discussion here even goes into anarcho-capitalism, more a concern about the quality of the article --Tothebarricades 23:08, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

It is just strange that the anti-property anarchists guard the page like it is their property, and it is the property anarchists that are willing to share and share alike. It looks like "public property" in the gift economy will be the object of considerable conflict.--Silverback 00:02, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

It looks like the problem in hand is being avoided by making personal attacks that have no basis in fact. I <3 petty attacks on peoples' integrity. Get a life. --Tothebarricades 02:05, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

If integrity mattered, the gift economy theory, would be a little more fleshed out. As it stands now, it is little more than a mantra. I suspect most participants in the anti-globalist movement are just exploiting an excuse to misbehave and enjoy a sense of belonging to a counter-culture, but there should still be some constructive thinkers able to contribute to gift economy theory, so that it can be subjected to critical analysis. There is not enough there to shake a stick at, nonetheless call an "economy".--Silverback 02:26, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Anarchism has nothing to do with chaos, sloppiness, disorder or anything else that this "anarcho"-capitalist POV war is demonstrating. Once the article gets to the point where that is clear I will be satisfied. --Bk0 02:34, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That is one thing we can agree on, I doubt any of us would be interested in anarchism if it was. The question is, are some anarchists intending a society that can only exist if all dissent is coercively purged, or has high levels of social ostracism. Many who think they would be the ones to survive the purge, may be like the vietcong dupes who thought they were fighting for something noble and ended up getting re-education camps, or worse.--Silverback 03:02, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

I for one am opposed to all attempts to institute newspeak such as using "left-anarchism/anarcho-socialism" when one simply means "anarchist." What re-education camps do you speak of? Do you know what you're talking about? --albamuth 12:42, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Could you please tone down the crazy ranting? This page would have a lot fewer than 19 archives if the Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a soapbox suggestion was taken more seriously. --Tothebarricades 03:16, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Please Stop

Let the defenders of anarcho-capitalism have a section in the Anarchism topic that referes to a page on which they can expound on it.

Let the Socialist-Anarchist defenders have the same.

Let the Anarchism page be the index to the Anarchism content in Wikipedia as it once was.

--Juanco

The article already have disambig in the form of the message This article describes a range of political philosophies that oppose the state and capitalism. For other uses, see anarchism (disambiguation). That should work fine. // Liftarn

I agree with Juanco. Let's go back to the following Neutral Disambiguation Page and avoid edit wars.

Anarchism is derived from the Greek αναρχία ("without archons (rulers)"). Thus "anarchism," in its most general meaning, is the philosophy or belief that rulership is unnecessary and should be abolished. For other usages, see anarchism (disambiguation).

Anarchism may mean:

• Anarchism (anti-state) - the theory or doctrine that all forms of government are unnecessary, oppressive, and undesirable and should be abolished.

• Anarchism (socialist) - philosophies, movements, and ideologies that advocate the abolition of capitalist exploitation and all other forms of authority.

Hogeye 15:45, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As you indicate - the original Greek meaning does not literally apply to the Anarchist philosophy and movement. But the rest is incorrect - No encyclopedia or textbook on the subject defines there being two camps. The only editors being divisive on this page are the Anarcho-capitalists such as yourself ..who want anarchism split up to satisfy your own propagandic needs. max rspct 17:04, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Max> "The original Greek meaning does not literally apply to the Anarchist philosophy and movement."

Are we reading the same thing? The Greek etymological meaning is exactly the same meaning as today - without rulers, i.e. without a State (in more modern terms.)

Max> "No encyclopedia or textbook on the subject defines there being two camps."

Right. Mainly because there is a distinct owner of the article, and in most cases one writer. In Wiki, there are a bunch of authors with no/contested ownership, so many straightforward propositions become battlefields.

Max> "The only editors being divisive on this page are the Anarcho-capitalists such as yourself..."

Get real, Max. The anarcho-socialists are just as intransigent. They too refuse to budge an inch on the definition of anarchism, and denigrate all objective sources such as dictionaries and even the words of their own luminaries. What you're really saying is that the anarcho-socialist clique temporarily had control of the article until people with a different point of view showed up again.

19 archives and counting

Hey, has anybody else read the 1st archive for this talk page, back in 2002? They were debating Anarcho-capitalism then too, and we have been, for 3yrs now! Can we just make the needed edits (Wikipedia:NPOV, inclusion of all verifiable POV's, disambig page...) and put this one to rest already?!? Sam Spade 17:29, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sure, as long as your conception of NPOV is actually neutral ;) --Tothebarricades 18:07, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Question: How can I pull up a 2002 version of the anarchism article from History without hitting "next 50" a thousand times? Hogeye 19:37, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Just change the limit= and offset= values on the URL you get after clicking "next 50". You can jump thousands of edits that quickly that way. Sadly, there's no way of guessing how many you have to jump; do a binary search to find them. --cesarb 19:44, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Here. Notice the history ends rather abruptly; the article is even older than that, but the history was lost when the software was upgraded to the current one (in fact, the older software lost the history after some time; the upgrade didn't have much to preserve). See Wikipedia:Usemod article histories for details. Probably there was talk earlier than 2002 too, also lost. --cesarb 19:53, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Cesar. Of interest: it didn't start out claiming that anarchism was anti-capitalist, as today's ansoc partisans are demanding. It used the commonality of all anarchisms approach - i.e. anarchism is anti-statist but not necessarily anti-capitalist. "b" in the survey. The original def was:

Anarchism is the political theory that advocates the abolition of all forms of government. The word anarchism derives from Greek roots an (no) and archos (ruler).

Hogeye 20:00, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And the rest of the article remained even-handed in its discussion of capitalist and socialist varieties of anarchism. I guess it was later that the socialists moved in en masse and shifted the focus of the article. *Dan* 20:38, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

The question is whats to be done, both here, and in other articles where a POV lobby group has taken over... Thats why their considering a content arbitration commitee, but I'm not sure thats the right approach... what would an anarchist do? ;) Sam Spade 21:27, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's amazing to me how the Anarchism article has gone downhill over time. This article from 23 Jun 2002 is a hundred times better than the current article. One way that it's cleaner is that, instead of talking about every little sub-movement, it just discusses the three major divisions: libertarian socialism, anarcho-capitalism, and individualist anarchism.

The Swiss cantons of old simply divided when faced with fundamental differences (e.g. Reformation.) There are semi-independent half-cantons and even (I think) quarter cantons. The obvious way to solve these definitional disputes is to split the question, letting each faction have their way in their own article. That's why I still support the Neutral Disambiguation Page. Maybe others will figure it out after three more years of edit wars... Hogeye 21:44, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Interesting. The old version even had a section on individualist anarchism, which the POV collectivists have taken upon themselves to censor in subsequent versions. RJII 23:19, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes the big history is interesting. What's wrong with the current Individualist anarchist section? It has similarities with a-C which also has a hefty section. max rspct 00:23, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC) the article is in fairly good shape at the moment no? max rspct 00:30, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What individualist anarchist section? There isn't one. It isn't included as a school of anarchism. It's just mentioned in the internal conflicts section. The POV collectivist anarchists took the section out, apparently since the individualists support private property and a market economy. RJII 00:36, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

LOOK = Individualism vs. collectivism:
While most anarchists favor collective property, some, such as individualist anarchists of historical note support a right to private property. These include Benjamin Tucker and Lysander Spooner. Tucker argues that collectivism in property is absurd: "That there is an entity known as the community which is the rightful owner of all land, Anarchists deny...I...maintain that ‘the community’ is a non-entity, that it has no existence..." He was particularly adamant in his opposition to "communism," even to the point of asserting that those who opposed a right to private property were not anarchists: "Anarchism is a word without meaning, unless it includes the liberty of the individual to control his product or whatever his product has brought him through exchange in a free market—that is, private property. Whoever denies private property is of necessity an Archist." However, these individuals opposed property titles to unused land.

Benjamin Tucker and Lysander Spooner, Tucker opposed property titles to unused land? DON'T SOUND LIKE anarcho-capitalists TO ME -max rspct 09:40, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Exactly. I'm the one who wrote that section in "Internal conflicts" since the POV collectivists anarchists didn't want individualist anarchism included as a school of anarchism. No one is saying that traditional individualist anarchists are anarcho-capitalists. I don't know what you're talking about. RJII 14:12, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The former Anarchism (anti-state) article included the individualist anarchists. Naturally. With a big ol' picture of Lysander. Hogeye 00:51, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Disambiguation note?

Hogeye/others, since you seem to have admitted the following: 1) There are multiple definitions of anarchism (as is evident by your forking) 2) You wish to avoid an edit war ; on what grounds can you continue to oppose pointing the reader to anarcho-capitalism by means of a disambiguation note? It is standard policy to do this if one meaning is more notable. That anarcho-capitalism is less notable than what you call "Anarchism (socialist)" is clear, no argument necessary.

So I have two questions:

• 1) Does anyone else see this as a reasonable solution?
• 2) If not, on what grounds?

If the answer to the second is irrelevant to wikipedia policy and consists solely of biased whining, you will be ignored. --Tothebarricades 01:30, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

TTB> "On what grounds can you continue to oppose pointing the reader to anarcho-capitalism..."

For the umpteenth time: the issue is not about the anarcho-capitalism article. The issue is about the Anarchism article - in particular, whether it uses the broader dictionary definition, or the narrower popular definition. The article Anarchism (anti-state) includes all major schools, socialist and individualist and capitalist alike. The Anarcho-capitalism article is solely about anarcho-capitalism and its history/influences. Click and compare. Not the same at all - different subjects. Hogeye 02:56, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It appears that the goal of this capitalist POV war is not to present their "anarcho-capitalist" "philosophy" in an acceptable, NPOV manner; but rather to dilute the definition of anarchism to the point where it loses all coherence and connection with anarchist tradition and history. It is reactionary in the extreme and not at all benign. For that reason alone I'm not comfortable with the "Anarchism (socialist)" nonsense. It's not socialist, it's anarchist. --Bk0 01:46, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"...or the narrower popular definition." - Unfortunately for you, Wikipedia always uses the "narrower popular definition" in favor of dictionary definitions (especially when most people would equate the two, since seeing capitalism as "cooperative" is a little off the wall). And that definition gets the main article. Also, by saying, "Click and compare. Not the same at all - different subjects." - are you saying that you agree with what we were saying all along, i.e. that anarcho-capitalism is an entirely different topic? --Tothebarricades 03:26, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

I'm saying that an overall anarchism article is different from an article about anarcho-capitalism. Obviously. In free-market capitalism, any interaction between two people must be voluntary, and every trade mutually beneficial ex ante. That's cooperation. One man, one veto. That's much more cooperative than majoritarian-ruled communes. Real cooperation is one-on-one. Hogeye 16:10, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nice straw-man to throw in the end there to justify your "tiny-tyranny" panarchic system. Kev 6 July 2005 05:34 (UTC)

Proposed Disambiguation pre-amble

I proposed the following preamble on the VfD page, which was supported by at least one other user. I propose it again here to end the editwar:

The term anarchism is also claimed by anarcho-capitalists. This article deals with the predominant political usage of the term anarchism within international English. For other uses of the word anarchism, see anarchism (disambiguation).

This proposal mirrors the construction used successfully on Libertarianism to end an editwar, where (incidentally) the balance of forces between running dog lackey capitalist-roaders, and damn commo marxist pinkies was the opposite. Fifelfoo 05:50, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There wasn't much opposition to doing that there. There is opposition here. That's the difference. Personally, I'd rather that article cover all kinds of libertarianism --not just right libertarianism. RJII 14:20, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I would use the wording The term anarchism is also claimed by other groups. This article deals... as it's also claimed by crypto-anarchism and national anarchism. Or for that matter the current one does the job. Why change something that works? // Liftarn

I advocate Fifelfoo's preamble. --albamuth 15:37, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The only way I'd surrender the the main "Anarchism" article to the socialists would be with an honest preamble, such as the one I suggested before:

Anarchism

The term anarchism also has a standard dictionary definition - see Anarchism (theory). This article deals with the meaning of "anarchism" prominent on US college campuses. For other usages, see Anarchism (disambiguation).

or

Anarchism

Anarchism refers to a broad range of philosophies which oppose the State. For this meaning, see Anarchism (theory). This article deals only with certain anti-capitalist schools of anarchism. For other usages, see Anarchism (disambiguation).

or maybe

Anarchism

This article deals only with anti-capitalist anarchism as defined by Bakunin. For the dictionary meaning of anarchism, as defined by Proudhon, Kropotkin, and Rothbard, see Anarchism (theory). For other usages, see Anarchism (disambiguation).

Hogeye 15:05, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

All of those preambles avoid the real issue, which is the dispute over whether to refer to all writers/followers of anarchism (other than Libertarians) as anarcho-socialists, plus the characterization of any anarchists at all tolerating capitalism. --albamuth 15:35, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No more or less than the preamble you endorsed, Alba. The best analog to the Libertarian article is

Anarchism

The term anarchism also has a standard dictionary definition - see Anarchism (theory). This article deals with the meaning of "anarchism" prominent on US college campuses. For other usages, see Anarchism (disambiguation).

Fifelfoo's preamble contains a clearly false claim: "This article deals with the predominant political usage of the term anarchism within international English." We've already shown by looking a random samples of dictionaries that the predominant political usage is anti-state but not anti-capitalist. Hogeye 16:18, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Your dicdef is false due to selection bias. The "web" dictionaries you suggested on the fork VFD were of very poor quality. Additionally they were predominantly English-US. Pocket dictionaries are entirely unsuitable to resolve this issue. Additionally, most dictionaries you cite are poor in terms of contemporary usage. OED3 anarchy 1b is the most useful head for us, being "A theoretical social state in which there is no governing person or body of persons, but each individual has absolute liberty (without implication of disorder)." whose usage "1892 Daily News 27 Apr. 5/8 Anarchy means the placing in common of all this world's riches to allow each to consume according to his needs. Anarchy is a great family where each will be protected by all and will take whatever he requires." clearly indicates the common usage of anarchy to present a social state with no government and no disorder (OED3 headword: Anarchy, def 1b, usage 1892 Daily News). Compare, if we shall, to anarcho-capitalism (first use 1969) and particularly anarcho-capitalist (first use 1969, usage, "1969 Libertarian 15 May 3/1 The great majority of revolutionary anarcho-capitalists are highly enthusiastic about the Black Panthers and their potential for leading a black liberation movement." (OED3). These somewhat confused neologisms, whose usage has varied so greatly between 1969 and today that the prior sees the eager support of the Black Panthers and the contemporary sees the worship of the oligarchs of private government (or capitalists, for when money speaks with its iron tongue, that is a form of govern-ing). OED3, due to its etymological concern, acts as a very solid dictionary of international English. Anarcho-capitalism, being a usage strongly at odds with the chief social usage of anarchy in English, being, "the placing in common of all this world's riches to allow each to consume according to his needs," AND, as the smaller social movement, AND, as the more recent social movement, should be disambiguated on a seperate page. It is gross cultural imperialism to subsume international English behind the petty English of US college campuses, simply to tar the article with a brush whose colour you detest. Fifelfoo 23:29, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Fifelfoo's definition from OED3: "A theoretical social state in which there is no governing person or body of persons, but each individual has absolute liberty (without implication of disorder)."

Even your cherry-picked definition does not rule out capitalism. Anarcho-capitalism is definitely a theoretical social state in which there is no governing person or body of persons, but each individual has absolute liberty. Thank you. We can add one more dictionary which agrees that anarchism is anti-statist but not necessarily anti-capitalist. (BTW, first usages are not definitions.) Hogeye 23:48, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You might try reading an introduction to a definitive etymological dictionary, like OED sometime. Usage is meaning, and the collection of distinctive and widespread usages is a key function of an etymological dictionary. Compilers of etymological dictionaries create definitions through analysis of first usages*, thus meaning that usage is very important. Usages prior to 1892 include solid references to the Narodniki's collectivism, Proudhon in his mutualist moment**, and prior to that, the sainted Godwin. Obviously one may make a case for Godwin's usage; whereas it is difficult to bend mutualism into the ultra-propertarian definition of anarcho-capitalism, let alone the peasant-communalism of the narodniks. [*first usages are important because they indicate the time that a usage became common, current or unique from other usages. Second usages are less important. **While Proudhon supported the interchange of possession in his mutualism, its stringing Odysseus' bow to claim that his mutualism is compatible with the freedom of private property declared by anarcho-capitalists.] Fifelfoo 00:04, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Bottom line: The definition that you cited supports the anarchism qua anti-statism position. Your appeal to etymology is laughable, since anarchism comes from Greek meaning "without ruler", i.e. without a State. Perhaps you should look a little earlier than 1892 for 'first use.' LOL. BTW, I've already cited Proudhon's first use in 1840 in "What is Property." His def also agrees with the broad tent definition.

Since some of you seem to only be concerned with joking around, here's an attempt at an honest preamble: This article deals with a philosophy which traditionally opposes both capitalism and the State. For other philosophies related to anarchism, such as anarcho-capitalism and national anarchism, see anarchism (disambiguation).

That sounds like a good compromise (even if it does leave out crypto-anarchism). It should be acceptable for all parts. // Liftarn

I won't accept that, because that's not what anarchism is. The title of the article would be wrong. If you want an article about that it would have to be called something like "Traditional anarchism." Anarchism is a cluster of philosophies that oppose to the existence of a state, some of which are mutually compatible and some not. From the premise that anarchists have opposed capitalism in the past, it cannot be deduced that opposition to capitalism is a prerequisite for being an anarchist. That's ancient history. This is today. RJII 19:02, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"China" is also a type of pottery and the name of several American towns. That doesn't mean having a disambiguation note toward these less notable meanings is somehow factually inaccurate. --Tothebarricades 19:23, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Anarchists, in the past, were not called anarchists because they opposed capitalism, but because they opposed the existence of a state. Now all of a sudden, some of you want to say that to be an anarchists you have to oppose stateless capitalism. There is a grave error in logic in that reasoning. RJII 19:29, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually they did do that, but what set them apart from other types of socialism was that they also was against a state. // Liftarn

So far, the closest to NPOV is this one:

Anarchism

Anarchism refers to a broad range of philosophies which oppose the State. For this meaning, see Anarchism (theory). This article deals only with certain anti-capitalist schools of anarchism. For other usages, see Anarchism (disambiguation).

Hogeye 23:54, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I oppose that because "Anarchism" is commonly regarded as referring to theory. It's this article that needs to deal with the various philosophical positions. If anyone wants to talk about a so-called "social movement" of collectivist anarchists, then that's why you would need another article with an alternative name. Anarchism is commonly thought of, first and foremost, as a set of philosophical positions. We shouldn't let a few POV'ers corrupt the meaning of the term to mean a "social movement" (by social movement I take it that they mean people demonstrating in the streets and/or throwing bombs) which necessarily consists only of collectivists anarchists, and necessarily excludes individualist anarchism and anarcho-capitalism. That's highly non-standard, and "original research." RJII 00:08, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

CNT? FAI? Nabatniki? Who died at Genoa? Who made Prague into a good showing or a bloody nightmare (depending on your political views)? Who was blamed over Seattle? Who fought the German police in the 1980s? Who died at Haymarket? Anarchism's common usage refers to a social movement. Even within academic disciplinary political studies (three disciplines to mention: Politics, Political Economy and Social History), anarchism refers to a myasma of theory only in the first*, and to a social movement in the two second. [*The obvious critique of the disciplinary methods of politics in the West needs not to be given, the methodological presumptions against engaging social movements is obvious. One could even say that disciplinary politics is what happens when sociology gets first bite of your area of concern.] Fifelfoo 00:31, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britannica says anarchism is "a cluster of doctrines and attitudes centred on the belief that government is both harmful and unnecessary." If that widely-disemminated and popular dictionary does not give the most common understanding of what is meant by "anarchism" then I don't know what does. Anarchism is most commonly regarded as referring to IDEAS ..PHILOSOPHY. Anarchism is philosophy. A riot is a riot. RJII 00:37, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Britannica is not a dicationary. Nor is any encyclopedia considered to be of sufficient quality to base any assertion and substantiate it*. Encyclopedia are created with reference to primary sources, and secondary sources of disciplinary qualities, not by reference to other encyclopedia*. A major riot, such as Genoa, has more influence in the substantial definition of a word than a dead-tree encyclopedia. [*Obvious exception: assertions and encyclopedia entries directly related to encyclopedia as a topic.]

A riot in Genoa has absolutely no influence on what anarchism means. A riot is a riot. A riot of anarchists is a riot of anarchists. Rioting itself is not anarchism. Anarchism is the PHILOSOPHY behind these riots. RJII 01:36, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

OED, Macquarie, and other major dictionaries of national or international usage have some basis to speak to usage, the quality of their etymological research. An encyclopedia which summarises for the public does not. That's the reason why wiki has a no-original-research policy, and its why Britannica is not a credible source. Fifelfoo 00:51, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britannica is an excellent source for attempting to determine what is commonly meant by "anarchism." We should present the most common usage here. The most common usage is, by default, the correct usage. Anarchism most commonly refers to PHILOSOPHY, not the act of rioting in the streets. RJII 01:36, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Anarchism (anti-state) article

Those who wish to work on the Anarchism (anti-state) article can do so here: User:Hogeye/Anarchism. This is the article for the editors who take anarchism to mean anti-state (but not necessarily anti-capitalist). If you are an anarcho-socialist (or libertarian socialist or whatever) and think that anarchism is necessarily anti-capitalist, then please do not edit this page.

Eventually, this page will either be Anarchism (anti-state) pointed to by the Neutral Disambiguation Page, or it will be used to overwrite the socialist shit when the edit war resumes on Anarchism.

There's no sense in sitting on our hands while the main Anarchism article is frozen. Let's continue to improve the good article while we're waiting. Hogeye 05:14, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You're forking again simply to avoid the issue, as Fifeloo clearly pointed out, because the real issue about usage of "anarchism". Why create anarchism (anti-state) when it's only going to be a replication of anarcho-capitalism? --albamuth 05:58, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We agree that the real issue is a definitional one, not simply a content POV issue. Other than that we are going 'round in circles. Do I need to explain yet again the difference between articles? Hint: Anarchism (anti-state) includes anarcho-syndicalism and national anarchism. Anarcho-capitalism does not. Hogeye 15:35, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why would you have anarcho-syndicalism on the anarchism article AND the anarchism (anti-state) article? Why would you include national anarchism, which is itself the most ridiculous neologism of them all? I don't see the point. The only difference would be mention of Anarcho-Capitalism, and since it has its own article, then there's no need for anarchism (anti-state). --albamuth 15:39, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Are you purposely playing dense? Anarchism (anti-state) will replace the current POV anarchism article as soon as the edit war continues. (Sporadically.) Unless we use the Neutral Disambiguation Page of course. Hogeye 15:45, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I think the most sensible division would be "Anarchism (philosophy)" vs. "Anarchism (movement)", where the distinction would be between philosophical viewpoints that are termed "anarchist", and a specific political/social movement under that name. *Dan* 17:43, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Does anarcho-syndicalism go in philosophy, movement, or both? It seems like most schools would have almost duplicate entries in both articles, i.e. they are both philosophies and movements. 70.178.26.242 00:01, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Good idea. I'll work a little on that one. I may sit out on any more debate here. You guys let me know when there's a so-called "consensus" so I can start editing this article. RJII 06:07, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please do not continue editing this article. You are in clear violation of Wikipedia's NPOV doctrine, and your attitude (which can be summarised as "I'm doing this because I'm right and you're and an edit war is the way to prove it" with a side order of "my POV is NPOV, and anyone who dsagrees with me is simply unable to see beyond their limiting POV") is unacceptable. -Dayv 19:53, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It would be highly hypocritical for any partisan of the current edit conflict to finger another for unacceptable edit warring and POV-pushing. - Nat Krause 20:22, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The User:Hogeye/Anarchism article is totally Wikilegal, and (I understand) the proper way to make a scratch article. It is NPOV, unlike the frozen socialist Anarchism article. Dare to compare. The purpose and existence of the User:Hogeye/Anarchism article is open and public: to continue to work on the broad-tent Anarchism article while the official Anarchism article is frozen. Hogeye 20:40, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it's one of the two common ways of doing a temporary scratch article. The other one is to use a subpage (for instance, Anarchism/Temp). --cesarb 20:56, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Pardon my lack of clarity there. By "this article," I mean the main article on Anarchism (which is, of course, locked at this time), not your scratchpad article. You should, of course, feel free to work on whatever temporary articles you want wherever doing so is appropriate. What I am primarily concerned with is your previous edit and revert warring and your stated intent to continue using these methods once the article is unprotected. While I would not say that the Anarchism article as it currently appears is perfectly free of POV material, your modifications (particularly those of reclassification or deemphasis of forms of anarchism you do not appear to support) come across to me as being far more biased by your own POV. -Dayv 06:27, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Proposed header

Note - Some anarchists deny that some philosophies that purport to be forms of anarchism are actually so. This article takes no POV on this matter, but presents all ideologies that claim to be forms of anarchism. RJII 06:40, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is an excellent note, underlining Wiki's policy of neutrality. I'm glad you added it to the Anarchism (anti-state) article. Hogeye 15:40, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This article covers the commonly understood usage of anarchism: to denote a social movement and political philosophy that is opposed to all forms and causes of social, economic, and political hierarchy, including the modern state and capitalism. For other uses of "anarchism" and "anarchy", see anarchism (disambiguation). --albamuth 15:10, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Support this version, improved by the clarification debates above. Reduced POV elements. Fifelfoo 01:13, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Better. I support this as an improvement over the current stalemate. --Bk0 01:22, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's a wonderful header for the socialist Anarchism article. The broad-tent article starts like this:

This article surveys a broad range of political philosophies that oppose the state. For other usages, see anarchism (disambiguation).

Note - Some anarchists deny that some philosophies that purport to be forms of anarchism are actually so. This article takes no POV on this matter, but presents all ideologies that claim to be forms of anarchism.

Hogeye 01:42, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And the reason why we won't use that is presents all ideologies that claim to be forms of anarchism. Claims? Claims? I should be the anarchist son of God, maybe that will grant me inclusion to your article-version. --albamuth 09:46, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes it would - if you were a political philosophy. Actually Leo Tolstoy beat you to it. We have a link to Christian anarchism, of course. We also recently included Black anarchism and National anarchism. National anarchism is interesting. Its nationalism/race-consciousness is reminiscent of Proudhon's French patriotism and Bakunin's Pan-Slavism. Its anarchism is similar to Kropotkin's mir and Bookchin's municipalism. Hogeye 15:58, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"We have a link..." So there's a faction of editors out there that don't feel that their work belongs to everyone, that they get their own little article-space to control without allowing contravening evidence, reason, or opinion. Pray tell, where is this miraculous, private article of yours? --albamuth 16:39, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:Hogeye/Anarchism maybe? He seems to be developing a temporary article there. --cesarb 17:23, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What happened to all the talk about english anarchism vs american anarchism .. - have u abandoned it for anarchism socialist verses "anti-state" anarchism?? Why do u talk of "TRENDS" on u.s campuses ... after claiming that anarchism traditional never reached yer shores? I think this is still all about a/c POV warriors and their throwaway 'philosophy'... I dig up that quote again from my standard 1st year book at university (using political ideas by barbara goodwin ISBN 0471935840) "Their true place (anarcho-capitalists) is in the group of right-wing libertarians described in chptr3" --------U see my point is A/C should get a mention.. but that is all unless this article is going to kowtow to the POV requirements of the A/C trolls - max rspct 17:50, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC) also: - i have checked the 4th edition (june2004) and although she has expanded ecology and feminism .. Anarchism and it's paragraph on Anarcho-capitalism remains the same (i am sure i put most of it up ..now in archives) if i can get a code for textbridge pro... i will scan the whole chapter. -max rspct 20:13, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

I've submitted a request for mediation between myself and User:Hogeye, User:RJII, and User:Dtobias. If anyone wants to "party up" with me, please add your comment at that link. --albamuth 17:53, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Count me out of that. I've done enough debating here. And, you misrepresented my position on that page. And even speculated there that I was a working for Libertarian Party. Have I ever said that I supported the Libertarian Party or even anarcho-capitalism? Obviously you're not a reasonable person to deal with, as you have immediately begun that dispute attacking motives of individuals and what you perceive to be their political pursuasions. RJII 20:39, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm insulted, too. No self-respecting anarcho-capitalist would ever join the LP; not since Wendy McElroy got run out way back when. The LP uses evil means (electoral politics) and is way, way, too statist. (They're damn minarchists, for Hog's sake!) Alba is apparently into Wiki gamesmanship. I, too, decline to participate in his new distraction. Hogeye 20:50, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I honestly believe it would be better to participate; it's not "gamesmanship" or a distraction, it's instead a way of trying to resolve a conflict. He might have misunderstood you, but his intentions weren't bad. The purpose of mediation is to try to find a common ground both sides can agree on. --cesarb 21:03, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If anyone, including any mediator, wants to see my positions they can in these discussion pages. I'm not going to rehash everything to a mediator. All this debate is getting really pointless. Actually, there may be a point to it. The point is to drag this out interminably and keep the biased article protected from being edited as long as possible isn't it? Wikipedia policy says that pages should not be protected "very long." This page has been protected for "very long." The protection, at this point, has become a violation of Wikipedia policy, and if not POV motivated, surely gives the outward appearance of a POV-motivated lockdown designed to keep a biased article from being neutralized. Wikipedia is supposed to be a place where anyone can edit an article. After this length of time, this lockdown is contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia. I refuse to take part in prolonging the lockdown, here or in mediation. If, and when, the article is unlocked, then I'll be back to edit it.RJII 22:34, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am really really tired of this debate. I started out editing anarchism on wikipedia because it was immediately the topic that interested me. However, I find myself devoting most if not all of my internet time to this article, when I would really like to be working on other articles. I don't want the article protected forever, either, but it's not going to get unprotected until we can work this out. Also, even if you are not with the Libertarian party per se, your admission of association (Hogeye) still shows that we have two unreconcilable POV's to work out. Mine and yours. How does it affect the definition of anarchism? I don't see why you're opposed to mediation...it's just part of the wikipedia process--it's not like they will TELL us what to do. Are you afraid of mediation because you are willfully making false claims, claims that you know to be false, only for propagandistic purposes? Only zealots ignore what they know to be true in order to promate what they want to be true -- if you are not a zealot, and truly believe in your own arguments, why not enter into mediation? If you claim to represent truth, then what do you have to lose? --albamuth 08:57, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

mediation is often more about compromise than truth, although perhaps it will do a better job of achieving balance than the various polls and RfCs to, which are even less about truth, but if the mediation isn't binding, what progress have we made? Not only has the mediation process been inactive for months, I doubt it's decisions would be respected here. The text of your request for mediation, was a distortion, and a dismissal of the positions you disagree with, just as your poll questions on the issues were. The lack of intellectual honesty which makes mediation necessary, probably also makes it doomed to fail.--Silverback 09:21, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

There is a lack of intellectual honesty going around, no doubt about that. --albamuth 28 June 2005 13:10 (UTC)

Alba> "We have two unreconcilable POV's..."

I agree. No amount of mediation will change that. I don't believe you will change your definition, and I know I won't change mine. But if you have some new points, present them here publicly on the Talk page, not on some other page. I don't see anything on your RFM page that hasn't been discussed over and over already on this Talk page. Hogeye 16:46, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm requesting mediation because I would like some third party to help figure out how to reconcile this debate. Yes, we've all made the same arguments over and over, polls only point out what we know about each others' positions, and this goes on and on in circles. Something new needs to happen. --albamuth 28 June 2005 07:18 (UTC)

Moving on -- POLL

Question: In 50 words, more or less, what do you object to, in the article in its present protected state?

Answers:

• It's protected, I think protected articles are contrary to wikipedian principles. Pedant 21:06, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)
• The POV definition of anarchism. All other objections follow from that. E.g. the omission of various schools, mischaracterization of what anarchists think/believe. Hogeye 22:39, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• That it's an article about one particular meaning of anarchism, referring to a specifically anti-capitalist movement, rather than about the broad range of philosophies that can be considered anarchist under a more inclusive definition. *Dan* 01:17, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Its dissimilarity w articles on the topic which can be found elsewhere, and that this dissimilarity is based on a wikipedian socialist POV lobby, rather than more balanced references than other sources. This article is proof of failings of both the wiki ideals and anarchism. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 01:23, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• The article is not balanced between the two main schools of anarchism, the individualist and the collectivist with prominent mention of anarcho-capitalism in the individualist camp. This lack of balance gives the impression that the well written history and origins of anarchism are "owned" by the collectivist school. The lack of recognition of this primary divide between the individualist and collectivists, does not provide a proper location for the key issues that divide them. Is property coercive and is collectivism (which seems to require some kind of enforcement) coercive? --Silverback 06:46, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
• It could use some polish here and there, but basicly it's a good article written in a neutral style. Considering how many different branches of anarchism there are it does a good job covering them all. // Liftarn
• I have no problems with the range of topics it covers, but would rather that anarchism be presented via evolutionary epistemology, to show the development and addition of ideas. --albamuth 18:36, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So you don't mind discussing the evolution of anti-statist liberalism into anarchism (e.g. Bastiat, Molinari,) and the evolution of socialist anarchism into anarcho-capitalism in the 20th century? Hogeye 28 June 2005 14:19 (UTC)

Just like in evolution, some branches of the meme-pool are dead-ends, and never become a permanent part of it. Unlike biological evolution, influences and sources for the ideas (memes) can be positive, negative (as a reaction against), or even complementary (parallel but not conflicting concepts). For the article, it is not necessary to list every author that influenced anarchist writers (even Isaac Newton would be mentioned), but those authors that framed the concepts that the anarchist movement inculcated and retained. --albamuth 29 June 2005 03:34 (UTC)

Also, what you call "socialist anarchism" never developed into "anarcho-capitalism." To delineate direct relation of one writer's ideas to another, you have to look at whom they cite and refer to. In the absence of citation (original research), you must see if that writer's ideas became part of the memeplex for what we are describing (anarchism). Does Rothbard draw on the tradition of previous anarchist writers? Is there a movement that follows his ideas? If they call themselves anarcho-capitalists, but no anarchists follow those ideas, then it is fair to say that the anacho-capitalist movement follows Rothbard's ideas and that anarchists do not. Therefore, an article about a social movement that expouses a political philosophy called anarchism need not mention Rothbard, but an article about anarcho-capitalism should. Theory: if in evolution speciation occurs when two segments of a population become so differentiated that they cannot breed together, then in political philosophy speciation occurs when two segments of a social movement become so at odds that they cannot purposefully collaborate/agree (take the SWP and the IWW, for example). Caveat: ideologies are not species and memes are not genes, therefore their origination and evolution is not fully analogous. --albamuth 29 June 2005 04:17 (UTC)

It looks to me like Godwin, and even Proudhon to some degree, evolved from classical liberalism. Anti-statist liberalism, Proudhon's mutualism, and Bakunin's socialism are all strains of anarchism. Tucker took some of Bakunin's exploitation theory, and a lot of Herbert Spencer's moral theory, mixed in some Ayn Rand, I mean Max Stirner egoism, creating individualist anarchism. Later, Rothbard synthesized individualist anarchism and Austrian economics to get modern anarcho-capitalism. Your focus, Alba, on only one strain exposes your biased POV. At any rate, it's clear that a history-only article would not break the impasse. It just reframes the issue from "what is the definition of anarchism" to "what should be included in the history of anarchism." Hogeye 29 June 2005 07:21 (UTC)

• It's in good shape... apart from protection status - but that is there to prevent loads of spurious anarcho-cap POV.. It still could be expanded but I don't have a problem with it in it's present form. I big-up Albamuth's suggestion of presenting the article in an Evolutionary epistemological way. a good solution for all those concerned? -max rspct 29 June 2005 13:47 (UTC)

Wait a second. The protection is not supposed to be taking sides in the content dispute. Do you know for a fact that is why the protection was put on? Please give evidence.--Silverback June 29, 2005 13:58 (UTC)

I requested protection because of all the edits User:Hogeye and User:RJII were making over and over while ignoring discussion on the talk pages. --albamuth 1 July 2005 03:41 (UTC)

Moving on Part Deux - Poll

We've had several polls about the socialist POV article. Now let's have one about the broad-tent article.

Question: In 50 words, more or less, what do you object to in the Anarchism( anti-state) article?

• The title, "Anarchism (anti-state)" is silly; it implies the existence of a "pro-state" anarchism to contrast it to. I prefer the division "Anarchism (philosophy)" vs. "Anarchism (movement)". *Dan* 18:41, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Don't worry - it will be called "Anarchism." The Anarchism (anti-state) article will replace the current socialist article whenever it gets unprotected. Either that or there will be a Neutral Disambig Page which points to both articles - Anarchism (anti-state) and Anarchism (socialist). In the latter case, it is clear that anti-statism is being contrasted with socialism. Hogeye 28 June 2005 14:27 (UTC)

Threats? In what way are threats helpful? Or did you forget to put in a smiley.

I'd also suggest that your understanding of 'socialism' is flawed if you think it has anything to do with statism. Katzenjammer 1 July 2005 00:08 (UTC)

• It's utter false and missleading. It used invented word like "anarcho-socialist". It giver way too much space for "Anarcho-Capitalism" considering how utterly insignificant it is. The section on individualist anarchism is biased, but could be used with some tweaking (probably in the Individualist anarchism article). In short, it's biased and adds very little to what aleady is in the current article. // Liftarn

The first problem can be solved by simply replacing "anarcho-socialist" with "libertarian socialist" everywhere in the article. Hogeye 28 June 2005 14:27 (UTC)

• It's redundant and biased. In short, there's no need for it. --albamuth 28 June 2005 13:07 (UTC)

• The proposed article is merely a POV dupe of this one being pushed by a small number of people sympathetic to anarcho-capitalism. It is inferior to the current article and far more biased. In -depth explainations are below. Kev 30 June 2005 03:52 (UTC)

• Bias, adhoc graphics made up by POV editor/s.. historically inaccurate, misleading..Whole article is contrived to provide POV platform for A/C trollers (talk about ORIGINAL RESEARCH ETC!!!...and that photo of M.Rothbard scares me like the catholic church does) -max rspct 30 June 2005 17:37 (UTC)

Why the current article is far superior to the one being pushed by POV warriors

In particular problems include: (1) the template, which is skewed to over-emphasize anarcho-capitalism and indicates not only that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism (which is a point of contention), but that it is a form of individualism (which is another point of contention) (2) Its claim to take no point of view on which philosophies are a form of anarchism, when in fact the forms of categories it displays and its presentation is biased to the anarcho-capitalist position that they are a form of anarchism. (3) its timeline, which labels someone who never considered himself an anarcho-capitalist as such, and falsely labels bakunin the first anarcho-socialist when many consider mutualism to be a form of socialism, (4) its inclusion of Molinari in the development of modern anarchism, when in fact molinari was not identified with the anarchist movement until the anarcho-capitalists came about 100 years later and revisited history to claim him, (5) its political chart, which is blatantly AC pov that puts Tucker and Proudhon inbetween socialism and capitalism despite the fact that Tucker called himself a socialist, and implies that anarcho-capitalism is in fact a form of anarchism or that capitalism is compatible with anarchism, two claims that defy the history of anarchism and are under contention, (5) its claim that individualist feminism is a form of anarchism, when in fact many individualist feminists are not anarchists, (6) its inclusion of anarcho-capitalism in "schools of anarchism", when it should be placed separately, (7) its heavily biased individualist anarchist section, which along with the individualist anarchism article have been under the control of anarcho-capitalists of late, (8) its "anarchist schools chart", which oversimplifies and misrepresents aspects of both collectivist anarchism (most do not believe in crime) and individualist anarchism (their support of both land and property is qualified, and it is not neutral to claim that this answer is either simpy "yes" or "no", further, Tucker did believe in expropriation in certain instances), (9) the ridiculous contention that anarchists support polycentric law, part of the problem of including anarcho-capitalism outside its own section which misrepresents anarchism as a whole in order to cater to a small sub-movement hostile to anarchist tradition, (10) the ludicrious claim that the "capitalism vs. socialism" is the most controversial conflict between anarchists, when in fact anarchists by and large ignore anarcho-capitalism as an irrelevant attempt to subvert their tradition, further, the presentation in that section is obviously from AC pov (11) the linking of Tucker with panarchism, (12) the inclusion of several sections dealing specifically with AC perspectives, which are already detailed in their article and over-emphasize a relatively small movement, (13) its inclusion of an entire section dedicated to anarcho-capitalist books, which would be as silly as putting such a section in there for all possible anarchist sub-movements and claimaints, and again over-emphasizes anarcho-capitalism, (14) the general tone and direction of the article, whose main purpose is so obviously to emphasize the personally favored philosophy of its editors that it would be hard for them to deny without appearing to be either total idiots or complete ideologues.

For all of these reasons I will not accept any attempt to overwrite the current article, the product of years of work, with this heavily POV anarcho-capitalist replacement. Now will I stand by as such a highly biased piece of writing is used to try to alter the current article which is -more- than fair to this particular sub-movement given its standing in regards to traditional anarchism. Kev 30 June 2005 03:54 (UTC)

Most of Kev's points are redundant, i.e. are simply different formulations of the core definitional dispute: 1,2,6,10,12,13, and 14.

(3) and (4) Kev makes the error of ignoring the definition of anarchism and ignoring ideas closely related to anarchism (anti-state liberalism), with the flimsy excuse that so-and-so did not self-refer as an anarchist. Strangely, Kev doesn't mind that William Godwin never refered to himself as an anarchist, but he does mind Molinari. POV? You make the call.

I don't ignore the definintion of anarchism, I just refuse to select out only those bits and pieces that support my theory. I do think that ideas which are closely related to anarchism rather than ideas which are closely related to "some sub-movement within anarchism" should in fact be present in a history of anarchism that is not actually a history of "some sub-movement within anarchism". I find that logical, you seem to think it is POV. As for Godwin, which sub-movement rejects him? If there is one, I would agree that he should not be included in the broader history. Kev 3 July 2005 19:10 (UTC)

(5) By the modern definition of socialism and capitalism, Proudhon (and mutualists in general) have some similarities and dissimilarities to each. See the chart comparing anarcho-socialism to individualist anarchism to anarcho-capitalism. Clearly, mutualism is somewhere between socialism and capitalism, with some features of each.

Saying that it is "somewhere between" capitalism and socialism assumes that you reject the definition of socialism used by some mutualists, and also does not tell you where it is between those two movements. Oddly, your overly-simplistic chart tells us exactly where it lies, without telling us why. Kev 3 July 2005 19:10 (UTC)

(7) Kev has a history of trying to put a detailed individualist anarchism article within other articles, rather than a few essentials and a link to IA.

Nah, I have a history of not allowing anarcho-capitalists to claim ties with individualism without stating the whole case. I don't like how you folks tend to only include those rare instances in which they agree with you, while purposely censoring those numerous instances in which they flat out reject your economics. Kev 3 July 2005 19:10 (UTC)

(8) Kev makes the ridiculous claim that most collectivist anarchists "do not believe in crime." Let's check the veracity of that claim:

"Powerful states can maintain themselves only by crime, little states are virtuous only by weakness." - Bakunin

"Have not prisons - which kill all will and force of character in man, which enclose within their walls more vices than are met with on any other spot of the globe - always been universities of crime?" - Kropotkin

Maybe Kev meant that most bald punkers with circle-A tatoos believe that. I dunno.

Have you ever heard of modern anarchism? You know, if I took your standards and assumed that only the early historical anarchists spoke for the modern movment, then I would be forced to blank the anarcho-capitalism article altogether. I do, however, appreciate your constant attempts to reduce the level of conversation with insults and antagonism. For that reason I'm going to have to stop taking you seriously anymore Hogeye, though you do have to admit I hung in their a long time while you threw abuse about. Kev 3 July 2005 19:10 (UTC)

(9) Kev: "...the ridiculous contention that anarchists support polycentric law."

Kev must have misread. The article reads, "While some anarchists reject organized defense of liberty outright, many have proposed forms of polycentric law."

That sentence says that some anarchists support polycentric law. The only anarchists who support polycentric law are anarcho-capitalists, and whether or not they are actually anarchists is a matter of ones POV, not an appropriate thing to assume for the reader. Kev 3 July 2005 19:10 (UTC)

(11) Kev: "the linking of Tucker with panarchism"

Again, a misreading of the article. It does not link Tucker with panarchism at all. It links Tucker with tolerance. E.g. Tucker's article in Liberty praising Auberon Herbert as an anarchist. Herbert was pro-capitalism by the way.

Yeah, I read that article, and I found your RJ's assumptions, which were the same as yours, in regards to it to be faulty. I can't remember whether I already responded to him at the anarcho-capitalist discussion or the individualist anarchist one. Maybe you could cite it here? As I recall, Tucker refered to Herbert's ideas of having the essence of anarchy, he did not actually refer to Herbert himself as being an anarchist. You do know that indviduals can have ideas related to anarchism without actually being anarchists, right? Kev 3 July 2005 19:10 (UTC)

Hogeye 1 July 2005 18:42 (UTC)

LOL! RJII 30 June 2005 04:03 (UTC)

As it happens, I agree with most of Kev's criticisms. Vis a vis 4) Molinari could readily be included and be described as a "close predecessor" of pro-capitalism anarchists. I don't necessarily agree with 7), as Kev has his own POV when it comes to "bias" on individualist anarchism. Regarding 8), I wonder whether it is really a good idea to continue thinking of "individualist anarchism" exclusively in terms of Tucker; are there really no other individualists worth citing? I'm also not sure about 11) (I really have no idea), and 14) is entirely a judgment call. - Nat Krause 30 June 2005 04:37 (UTC)

As I explained above, I don't think precursors of any faction should be included in the general history. First, because they are only precursors of particular factions and this is a general history, they can all be put on their own pages. Second, because these claims tend to be controversial. Third, because it would overload the history with a lot of factional speculation and inevitably lead to edit wars. If we must include some precursors in the history, and we might as well, they should be ones for anarchism in general, rather than any claimed by only one or two factions. Other than that, only people who actually refered to themselves as anarchists should be in the history.

I do have my own bias when it comes to individualism, my bias is that their works not be misrepresented to make it appear that they supported things that they in fact rejected wholesale. I believe in staying true to their memory, I find it distrubing that people can claim their tradition while at the same time ignoring it. I agree that Tucker should not be the sole indicator of individualism, but neither should sweeping statements about individualism be made when they disagree with the views of any particular individualist. Kev 1 July 2005 17:18 (UTC)

I agree that the current article is far superior to the one being pushed by POV warriors. // Liftarn

Kev, I think we officially win, RJ has stooped to the Sam Spade level of argumentation, that is to say, interjections of capitalized internet slang :P (two personal attacks in one comment, oh yeah - i'm just kidding folks). Anyway I think the issue is very, very obvious at this point so I'm not going to get worked up with any more silly arguments. I agree wholeheartedly with Kev's sentiments. --Tothebarricades June 30, 2005 11:22 (UTC)

Anarcho-communism

There is a suggestion on it's talk page that it get moved to Anarchist-communism.. what do people think - Is it anglo vs american usage of the term? -max rspct 30 June 2005 14:10 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter, so long as one redirects to the other. It's just another synonym, like "libertarian communism." Hogeye 30 June 2005 14:25 (UTC)

Well it does matter to some extent.. But yo reaction is predictable, in light of your vaunting of 'left anarchism' and 'anarcho-socialism' (misleading, made-up words.. very rarely used except by detractors) The article should use the most widely used word - and redirect from the other one. -max rspct 30 June 2005 17:27 (UTC)

I don't use the term "left-anarchism," since all anarchism, including anarcho-capitalism, is left - i.e. opposes the ancien regime aka the existing State. Cf: Left and Right: The Prospects for Liberty by Murray Rothbard. I consider "left anarchism" and "right anarchism" to be commie terminology used by anarcho-socialists like Ulrike Heider ("Anarchism: Left, Right, and Green.) I have never ever heard a market anarchist self-refer as "right anarchist." Hogeye 30 June 2005 20:06 (UTC)

I've never heard someone today call themself an anarchist-communist, when people identify that way, the dominant term today is anarcho-communist. There's also libertarian communist and free communist (however practically no one uses these anymore). If they're going to integrate the two articles, put them all in anarcho-communism. --Fatal 30 June 2005 19:47 (UTC)

I have heard the organisation Folkmakt being called "libertarian marxist". They use a marxist view of history, but are otherwise (I'm told) your basic anarchists (they try to be as wide as possible so they are a bit unclear about what they want). // Liftarn

A bit off the subject but...

does it strike anyone as funny that a straightforward definition of anarchism is taking longer than 3 years to hammer out? Wikipedia is by its very nature anarchist, so this seems to me to point out some reasons why anarchism and a strict adherence to consensus process work best on a small scale. Anarchists, if you want to show that anarchism works, lets get it together and move forward on this article.Pedant 2005 June 30 19:13 (UTC)

This has demonstrated the instability and hopelessness of collective ownership - that's for sure. It's pretty clear that the Wiki article on anarchism will never have the quality of e.g. the privately owned Anarchist Theory FAQ, simply due to the controversial nature of the topic. Private ownership, of course, solves problems such as this by providing clear jurisdiction. It took Josiah Warren two years at Robert Owens' utopian community to figure out that individualism and private property were where it's at. Here we've demonstrated the same thing in under a month! Hogeye 30 June 2005 19:57 (UTC)

I'd disagree. I'd suggest that it demonstrates only that, to survive, any community must have a way to prevent vandals from wreaking their will. There will always be a small group of anti-social people who gain enjoyment from destruction and the imposition of their will on others. That doesn't really impeach the idea of communal ownership at all. Communal ownership is voluntarily practiced by over 700M people throughout the world as of 1995--more than twice the population of the USA. And it works fine for us. If you want to see an example of communal ownership that has endured for at least 300 years, look back through the issues of National Geographic. You'll find an article about a communal irrigation and farming system in New Mexico. Every year the village allocates land, and on an agreed day everyone turns out to de-rubbish the canals. The elderly and infirm have their equal allotment, and the rest of the people take care of it for them as a matter of course. It's very nice. Many peoples living a pre-industrial life successfully practice communal ownership because the people around them depend for their lives, too, on mutual respect and talking things out. Katzenjammer 1 July 2005 12:26 (UTC)

You are right, Katz, that remote desert aboriginals can make collective ownership work. Why will that work, but not Wiki collective ownership? Mainly due to the closed system and the common values. Probably a stranger to the culture would have great difficulty joining the tribe. In fact, very few outsiders want to participate in such primitive lifestyles, so the question rarely comes up. Similarly, the few successful utopian communities limited themselves to like-minded religious cultists, and were typically very stict on who could join.

Constrast that with Wiki, where anyone can join, and where the commons is open to anyone and everyone, and is easily accessible from any computer rather than in a remote desert. Sure, Wiki could make its commons work - if it severely restricted who could become editors, and protected its property with passwords and such. Hogeye 1 July 2005 16:42 (UTC)

Thus completely destroying most potential of a wikipedia freely edited by all users, and most of its spectacular growth over the last couple years. Kinda like propertarianism and its effect on the economy, sacrifice most of its potential in order to strictly control what little you have left. Good analogy Hogeye, very informative of authoritarian views. Kev 1 July 2005 17:21 (UTC)

[giggle] I'm not sure I'd call US citizens living in New Mexico with all the trappings of modern industrial life 'remote desert aboriginals'. :-) You seem to have a much more gloomy view than I of human willingness to cooperate. Yet it's been demonstrated that, except for the few psychopaths under the tail of the distribution, most people respond to their socialization by becoming cooperative. It's only later in their lives, because of the split-personality nature of Capitalism (it rewards competition in school, then demands cooperation on the job while rewarding pseudo-cooperative competitiveness) that people's socialization starts to break down under the strain. We get what we reward. Katzenjammer 1 July 2005 20:13 (UTC)

Katz> "You seem to have a much more gloomy view than I of human willingness to cooperate."

I wouldn't say that. I would say that I have a much broader view of what cooperation among humans is.

Katz> "Most people respond to their socialization by becoming cooperative."

I agree. People have achieved an amazing amount of cooperation in production by use of division of labor and private property. This capitalist cooperation has already brought much of the world out of starvation and poverty.

Katz> "It's only later in their lives, because of the split-personality nature of Capitalism (it rewards competition in school, then demands cooperation on the job while rewarding pseudo-cooperative competitiveness) that people's socialization starts to break down under the strain."

I find it rather bizarre that you use schools, heavily dominated by government, to be an example of capitalism. I see the government schools as statist indoctrination centers - the enemy of capitalism.

Frankly, your implicit premise that people are motivated primarily by competition vs. cooperation is mistaken IMO. People are motivated by self-interest, as they perceive it. They are much more interested in whether an action is in their interest than whether it is cooperative or competitive. I consider both cooperation and competition to be natural and good. Most actions have elements of both.

Kev> "Thus completely destroying most potential of a wikipedia freely edited by all users..."

The so-called potential is undermined by a fact of reality: overuse. This is the classic tragedy of the commons. Either Wiki gets overgrazed (edit wars and semi-permanent freezing of articles), or it must limit the number of users. All successful communes (e.g. the family) are small. Small is beautiful. Wiki's growth is precisely what will make it unworkable. Hogeye 1 July 2005 21:58 (UTC)

Well, this little OT discussion has been fun and I wouldn't mind continuing, but I'm feeling a little too guilty about doing it in this context, so I'll stop here. Katzenjammer 1 July 2005 22:30 (UTC)

Using your analogy, it's more accurate like this: the local community consensus agrees on one thing, and then a guy flies in from out of town, who doesn't even believe in consensus, and runs into the room screaming "I'm being excluded! I'm being censored! CONSENSUS!! INCLUDE ME!!!" essentially ruining the original consensus of a community they were never part of. It's like a republican coming into an anarchist festival and demanding that everyone adhere to their love for "america" and capitalism because they are personally offended by the black flags and revolutionary literature. I don't think I ever met an anarchist that believed consensus should be used on a scale of hundreds of millions. Consensus is something that supposed to be used in groups no bigger than a community or neighborhood, given that almost all decisions that are important can be made locally, when the need for larger opinion is needed, they don't negotiate in one larger meshing of the two, they decide what their collective decision is in their community and tell the other, and yes it makes a huge difference. To debate using consensus, you first have to actually believe in consensus, and to debate anarchism you have either be an anarchist or know what the fuck you're talking about and know about anarchism, two requirements that hogeye and the other vandals on here DO NOT HAVE. --Fatal 30 June 2005 19:59 (UTC)

Fatal> "Using your analogy, it's more accurate like this: the local community consensus agrees on one thing, and then a guy flies in from out of town, who doesn't even believe in consensus, and runs into the room screaming "I'm being excluded!"

That's not a bad analogy, Fatal. It recalls the Puritans of Massachusetts in the 1600s. The local community consensus was no Sabbath-breaking, strict dress codes, puritanical codes of conduct and work, and that everyone should be a good Puritan. Occasionally a Quaker or Baptist would wander through. These heretics would be imprisoned, beaten, mutilated, or "whipped through town." This latter was popular - you remove the shirt of the Quaker (man or woman), tie them to the back of an ox-cart, and whip the shit out of them in every town on the way to the border. Then dump them in the atheist hell-hole of Rhode Island. Of course, in the virtual world, your whip is replaced by mere pixels on a screen. It's going to be hard to whip the blasphemers through town with mere pixels. You might have to share the commons; either that or have a commons war. Hogeye 30 June 2005 21:33 (UTC)

The concept of consensus is grounded in the idea that those joining a group that seeks consensus in decisions will also seek consensus, not purposefully join in order to disrupt consensus. Your analogy to Puritanism is entertaining, but misplaced. --albamuth 1 July 2005 03:57 (UTC)

Responding to the RFC

I'm a pro-social anarchist (and currently embroiled as such over in the misnamed 'libertarianism' page). I believe that the bare term 'anarchism', like the bare term 'libertarian', is too general to be colonized by any sectarian group. In other words, I see no reason why the pro-Capitalism sect can't have equal room under the anarchism umbrella. This implies that the 'anarchism' page itself be a pure portal/distributor/disambiguator page, and that each of the sects settle for having a page with a fully-qualified/disambiguated title.

I'm arguing that same position over at 'libertarianism', and plan to lodge an RFC on Monday as the first step in the conflict-resolution process. Since the pro-Capitalism forces are taking the same stand here that I am taking over there (I found that wonderfully ironic, needless to say), can we count on having your support for making that page, too, be a disambiguator rather than the highly partisan POVful page it is now? Katzenjammer 1 July 2005 00:01 (UTC)

I can't speak for any of the other pro-capitalists, but I just might be willing to go along with a compromise position that gives more "balance" to the "left" and "right" varieties of libertarianism (notwithstanding that pro-capitalist libertarians such as myself don't actually consider ourselves "right wing", as we reject the one-dimensional political spectrum altogether), provided that a similar thing is done with respect to anarchism. *Dan* July 1, 2005 00:39 (UTC)

That's what I'm talking about. I think the most NPOV solution that can be reached is to 'demilitarize' the small-l/small-a terms, and cede the big-A/big-L terms to the pro-social and pro-Capitalism groups respectively as proper nouns/terms of art that have somewhat settled associations (in the case of Anarchism, going back more than a hundred years) Katzenjammer 1 July 2005 11:43 (UTC)

I would not mix the issues with of one article with another. --albamuth 1 July 2005 03:54 (UTC)

I think they're mixed naturally--don't you find the terms to be synonyms in practice? I certainly do. Katzenjammer 1 July 2005 11:43 (UTC)

Katz> "This implies that the 'anarchism' page itself be a pure portal/distributor/disambiguator page, and that each of the sects settle for having a page with a fully-qualified/disambiguated title."

I take it you mean something like this Neutral Disambiguation Page? That was suggested here (by me) early on - but every single one of the ansoc partisans rejected it out of hand. (And even got the sub-pages deleted.)

Yes, I do think the libertarianism article would be more NPOV were it to have a similar "portal/distributor/disambiguator page." E.g.

Libertarianism in its most general sense is a philosophy holding liberty to be the primary political value.

Libertarianism may mean:

• Libertarianism (capitalist) - the a political philosophy favoring personal and economic liberty or freedoms to the extent that they do not infringe on the same freedoms of others.

• Libertarianism (socialist) - political philosophies dedicated to opposing coercive forms of authority and social hierarchy, in particular the institutions of capitalism and the state.

Also see Libertarianism (metaphysics) - a conception of free will.

Hogeye 1 July 2005 02:42 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I'm talking about. I like your proposed disambiguator pages, too. I'd probably urge some tweaks, especially in your proposed anarch page (e.g. everyone is anti-state), but nothing really major. Katzenjammer 1 July 2005 11:43 (UTC)

I would split those into individualist and collectivist, or right and left (left and right is probably the most common use). RJII 1 July 2005 02:48 (UTC)

I think you'd have to define 'collectivist' before I'd know what to say about your suggestion. The meaning I have for that term doesn't seem to fit. Katzenjammer 1 July 2005 12:46 (UTC)

Why not talk about libertarianism on the appropriate talk page? ;) --albamuth 1 July 2005 03:54 (UTC)

I don't think we're so much talking about libertarianism as we are about both l. and anarchism and how to resolve the conflicts that are mirrors of one another. Katzenjammer 1 July 2005 12:46 (UTC)

IMHO does the current disambig (This article describes a range of political philosophies that oppose the state and capitalism. For other uses, see anarchism (disambiguation)) a good an NPOV job. // Liftarn

I disagree completely with Katzenjammer. I think the current disambig scheme in both Anarchism and Libertarianism is the way to go. The Libertarianism page has already been through a RFC, and multiple people have come and gone trying to get liberatrian socialism on that page. It never works!!! At least try learning from past mistakes. My biggest problem is what other word would you use for non-anarcho-capitalist anarchism, and what would you call non-libertarian socialism libertarianism? To rename both would require us to basically make up a new term. Unlike what was said above, not all non-individualist/non-capitalist anarchism is anarcho-communism (anarcho-syndicalism and post left anarchy are completely different). The best word to use might be social anarchism, but that word was originally used as a contrast to individualist anarchism, and may not include some newer variants. In short, anarchists use the word anarchism (with no qualifiers), anarcho-capitalists, use the word anarcho-capitalism. Let them have their page, and point to that page where nessecery in this article, just as libertarianism points to libertarian socialism whenever it might be mentioned. There's no need to reproduce info. in several articles just to appease some people who haven't been here to see these same edit wars ad nauseum. millerc 1 July 2005 13:02 (UTC)

Perhaps you misunderstand what Dan, Hogeye, and I are suggesting? We're not talking about 'get[ting] libertarian socialism on that page'. We agree that 'it never works'...or certainly is unlikely to work as long as people believe their needs can only be met by a zero-sum solution.

We're talking about letting every sect have their own page both there and here, letting each sect define the small-letter term 'libertarian' or 'anarchism', parenthetically qualified, entirely as they please. We could probably increase the NPOVness by also allocating rebuttal pages to every sect so that, for example, the pro-Capitalist anarchists/libertarians could complain about the shortcomings they find in the corresponding pro-social pages and vice versa.

Our presumption is that everyone wants to get their understanding of the term anarchism or libertarianism published in a way that doesn't make it seem as though their definition is less valid or central than any other definition. Can you agree with that characterization of people's goals? Katzenjammer 1 July 2005 13:57 (UTC)

I think you're the one who misunderstood. I have no problem with describing different political philosophies. What doesn't work is trying to label non-anarcho-capitalists as something like "socialist-anarchist" or someother BS, since they call themselves anarchists (no qualifiers). In fact, the best solution I've heard so far is the historical approach advocated by albamuth. Its what worked for the liberalism article, which seems to have achieved as much of a NPOV as a political article can. But this has already been suggested in the past (see the archives)! No one else's idea of anarchism or libertarianism or liberalism is being pushed aside. 'Libertarian socialism' is seen as a valid term by libertarian socialists, but there is no corrosponding valid term for what I would call right wing liberatrianism. The same is true for anarcho-capitalism and anarchism... millerc 1 July 2005 16:13 (UTC)

Perhaps you're right and I do misunderstand. But let's see whether we can come to an agreement about what people's goals are. Can you agree with the statement I made, above? If not, would you please say in what respect you think it's in error?

No New Arguments?

Since I made the Summary of Arguments above, I've noticed that no new arguments not on that list have popped up. Is it really that simple? Have all the relevant arguments been made? Does anyone have any new insights arguments to add? Why not let this go to mediation, then? Or failing that, arbitration? --albamuth 1 July 2005 04:04 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be more true to our pro-social beliefs, as Pedant implied above, to agree a cooperative solution in which everyone gets a fair share? Katzenjammer 1 July 2005 12:08 (UTC)

Everyone having their "fair share" does not entail that a handful of people in a town of 10,000 should get half the representation, over and above even more significant factions such as primitivists and individualists. Currently the article is already disambiguated, there was only one single group which wanted it disambiguated and it was done just for their sake. This should be all that is necessary. Then the anarcho-capitalism section was added back in, which is redundant when it is already disambiguated since this page is no longer supposed to be about their selective definition. I'm happy to go with either of these solutions (rather than both), and either is completely "fair" given both the controversial nature of their claims to our tradition and their relative insignificance historically, they are getting their very own page to detail their views, and either way a method by which to link from this page to their own. To do what the anarcho-capitalists are attempting to do, have this page both disambiguated and introduce anarcho-capitalism, -plus- change the definition to suit their bias, and add in a bunch of misleading charts combined with over-simplified comparisons, and rearrange categories to make it appear that wikipedia itself supports their claims, and put in tons of links to their own factional books, is certainly not in the realm of "fair". Kev 1 July 2005 17:10 (UTC)

Kev still doesn't grok the difference between disambiguating different definitions of "anarchism" and links to particular schools. Well, Katz, you see the problem. Not a single partisan anarcho-socialist supports the neutral disambituation idea. I suspect that some may come around in the long run, but only after months of edit warring (and/or article protection) when it will become apparent that they will never regain absolute control over the article. It seems to me that so long as the ansoc faction sees the possibility of "winning", either via binding arbitration or edit warring, they will not come to the table willing to negotiate. Hogeye 1 July 2005 17:44 (UTC)

Your version of a neutral disambiguation is contested. You opposed my version. How can you claim that Not a single partisan anarcho-socialist supports the neutral disambituation idea and not be hypocritical? Your bias is clearly reflected in your disambig header version, as others have pointed out. That is not helping. --albamuth 2 July 2005 06:54 (UTC)

Not a single socialist partisan supported a Neutral Disambiguation Page. What you suggested was not a neutral page, but simply the status quo - an italicized biased disambiguation message at the top of the POV article. Quite a different thing from what Katz and I are talking about. Hogeye 2 July 2005 14:49 (UTC)

Kev, have we been sufficiently clear about what we're proposing? Your description makes me feel that we haven't. We're talking about a bare-bones page that points to sectarian pages. That would mean that this current page would no longer be required to have any pro-Capitalist content at all, not even links. It could be made 100% pro-social, with all negotiation limited to like-minded people. All NPOV-ness would be encoded in the tree structure of the pages, not in the content of any page. This page, under our proposed solution, could become the 'Anarchism' page rather than the 'anarchism' page. The 'anarchism' page would be the neutral, bare-bones page that would point to all the second-tier pages.

How do you feel about that? Katzenjammer 1 July 2005 19:32 (UTC)

Now I'm not clear. I think Wikipedia ignores capitalization of the first letter. Are you sure it's possible to have both an anarchism and an Anarchism article? I was thinking we'd have to have something like anarchism (anti-state) and anarchism (anti-state + anti-capitalist). Hogeye 1 July 2005 20:12 (UTC)

There will never be an article with a stupid name like "anarchism (anti-state)." I've proposed a disambiguation link a number of times but you seem to be confused about how such a thing is done. Here it involves a simple one sentence line on the top of this page. Your "neutral disambiguation" thing is bullshit because it's the antithesis of neutral - the most important meaning gets the main article, as elsewhere. Fringe interpretations do not get equal representation - deal with it. --Tothebarricades July 2, 2005 02:05 (UTC)

Did you miss the "something like" part? To me, that means the text in question is meant only as an example, not as a suggestion. Does it mean something else to you? Can you agree with my statement of people's goals (above)? Katzenjammer 2 July 2005 06:15 (UTC)

You might well be right, I've been too busy to do any experimentation to see how it works. In fact, now I come to think about it, you almost certainly are right. It might even force capitalisation of the page title, for all I know. But I've been assuming all along that, even if the linkage can't be flagged to be case-sensitive, we can achieve the goal in an honest way editorially. Katzenjammer 1 July 2005 20:29 (UTC)

Why Mediation?

Alba, if all relevant arguments have been made then mediation is useless. In any case, as you see there is still a lot of discussion of the Neutral Disambiguation Page, and about enlarging the discussion to include a deal concerning the libertarianism article.

I just don't understand your insistence that mediation would help. Is there some brilliant mediator you have in mind that would come up with a magic bullet to change your mind about the definition of anarchism? Who would you like to be mediator? As for arbitration: I prefer continued attempts to convince people than giving the decision to some unknown arbiter. Furthermore, I question what mediation or arbitration means in Wikiworld, since every new editor overrides all previous decisions. Hogeye 1 July 2005 16:14 (UTC)

Hey Hogeye, the libertarian party called, they're missing one of their members.

Reason #37 why LPers don't like me: Tweedledee or Tweedledum. Hogeye 1 July 2005 22:51 (UTC)

Not to mention, the people who get bored of debating (like me) and wait for you guys to come to a consensus then come back and start editing. This whole procedure of coming to a consensus is a sham. I'm convinced this protracted lockdown is POV based to keep the article from being changed. I suggest that anyone who wants the article to be unlocked, stop debating. Official Wikipedia policy says pages shoulnd't be locked for very long. It's going on a month now. . This lockdown is in violation of policy. We're just playing into the rogue adminstrator's hands by dragging out these debates so he can keep the article locked. RJII 1 July 2005 22:31 (UTC)

I wonder what the record is for lockdown time? Hogeye 1 July 2005 22:51 (UTC)

As if I weren't also annoyed at having this article protected. If I were sure unprotecting it wouldn't lead to a pointless edit war, I wouldn't think twice. However, as much as the discussion here is running in circles, it's much better than what would happen if everybody only thought of reverting to his/her preferred version.

If you think I'm wrong, remember there are 500 administrators who can unprotect this page; asking on WP:RFPP is the standard way of asking not only for protection, but also for unprotection. However, think twice before doing so; if it is unprotected and the edit war that caused the protection continues, I won't protect the article again unless the situation turns ridiculous (and perhaps not even then). Oh, and by the way, do not forget about Anarchism (disambiguation) if you do ask for unprotection.

I wasn't expecting such a long protection — I thought it would last less than a week until it was resolved. Looks like I was wrong on that one.

And calling people "rogue administrators" just because they did something you do not agree with is not exactly a nice thing to do.

--cesarb 1 July 2005 23:20 (UTC)

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and apologize for calling you a rogue adminstrator if you were the one that locked the article. But, what really is the harm of an "edit war"? Sure, it may be uncomfortable for the people who are engaging in it but so what? Whether things are being reverted in a short time frame in rapid succession or over a longer time frame on more infrequent occasion what is the difference? At least Wikipedia would be functioning. Now it's not functioning with this article. If there is conflicting thought then the content of the article should be oscillating on a second by second basis if necessary. Isn't that the whole beauty of Wikipedia --that there's no finality? This whole thing about seeking consensus is absurd --trying to apply principles for a static situation to a dynamic one. On Wikipedia, once a so-called consensus is reached, it becomes irrelevant immediately afterward. It apparently only serves to give those few editors who have succesfully appeased each other a false sense of accomplishment. RJII 2 July 2005 04:23 (UTC)

What is the purpose of an encyclopedia? What is the intended purpose of wikipedia -- to be an arena where people can exercise their need for conflict and dominance, or to be an encyclopedia? It seems to me that it's to be an encyclopedia, with global editing ability being only a means to that end. Which would imply that the dominance-seeking behavior of edit-warriors is out of place. Katzenjammer 2 July 2005 07:57 (UTC)

Hogeye, if you read the RFM carefully, you'll see that I do not ask that a mediator intervene to help decide what the definition of anarchism is to be. Rather, I ask the mediators to step in to help fascilitate this debate, which has ground to a halt. I am not going to appeal to any mediator to say :"this or that argument is valid" but rather help both parties understand what criteria are necessary for creating an accurate, representative article, and more importantly, the proper grounds upon which to resolve editorial conflict. See the other WP:RFM's, they are about process, not product. --albamuth 2 July 2005 07:01 (UTC)

I looked at the other WP:RFM's, and see that they are either ignored or result in just another round of the same arguments as on the talk pages, e.g. Houston_Chronicle/Mediation. What a mess. No mediation is done at all, just more of the same blathering. Looks like a waste of time to me. Hogeye 2 July 2005 15:02 (UTC)

Appeal To Common Sense (against splitting into two articles)

Hogeye's "neutral disambig" is neither neutral nor disambiguating. If anything it obfuscates the concept of "anarchists" and "anarchism" further.

• We do not refer to Republicans as either sexy republicans or ugly republicans in common usage, nor create separate articles for them.
• Calling anarcho-capitalism a 'school' of anarchism == calling Raelianism a Christian religion.
• If some Libertarians decided to start calling the anarcho-capitalists, libertarian-fascists, should there be a disambig to two pages: libertarian (pro-capitalism) and libertarian (anti-state)? (that's not supposed to make sense)
• There is one anarcho-capitalist theorist with a handful of followers: anarchists laugh and call them names, and don't let them play in any anarchist games. A glowing red nose and "me-too!" attitude doesn't cut it.

Blah blah blah. --albamuth 2 July 2005 16:21 (UTC)

Albamuth, I have a question (the triumph of hope over experience, it seems on the record to date): let's say that somehow, we pro-social anarchists 'win' this quarrel. How exactly will we benefit? Will we have set a precedent that we can use over at the 'libertarianism' quarrel, the ideological mirror-image of this one? Will we have gained allies who will help resist later attempts at vandalism? Will we have improved our ability to solve problems cooperatively--the sine qua non of pro-social anarchistic life? Will we have improved the state of the world in any substantive way at all? If not--what's the point? Is it sort of like climbing a mountain or developing skill at a video game? You do it because it's a way to consume time and energy? Katzenjammer 2 July 2005 20:47 (UTC)

This is not about the state of the world. Because there are few good neutral sources pertaining to the anarchist movement, and almost no coverage in formal education, this article may very well be the one good source of information about the anarchist movement. I'm not about winning here, I'm attempting to approximate 'truth as closely as possible. There are two paths to follow in regards to the article -- one path leads closer to truth and reality, and the other leads down a rabbit-hole to a psychedelic, hypercapitalist Wonderland.--albamuth 2 July 2005 23:02 (UTC)

This battle--and its mirror image over at 'libertarianism', mutatis mutandis--strongly reminds me of the equal-marriage-rights battle. On the one side are people maintaining that queers mustn't be allowed equality or it will somehow devalue het marriages, and on the other side are people saying it's not a zero-sum issue, that there's no shortage of marriage licences. If you press the no-equality people for an explanation of exactly how it will spoil het marriages, they can't say.

This looks to me like a similar issue: it's not zero-sum; there's no shortage of pages. Whether one group gets a page has nothing at all to do whether some other group gets a page. As long as everyone coming in from the outside can find each page with equal ease, what's the problem? You say it will 'lead down a rabbit-hole' etc. That sounds like the same sort of vague 'end civilization as we know it' stuff that the anti-equal-rights people say. If I were to press you about just what you mean by that, could you explain it to me in detail? The anti-equal-rights people can't. They can't get any further, they go in a circle: it'd be bad because it would. Katzenjammer 3 July 2005 07:20 (UTC)

You say that everyone can have a page, but I have no idea how that is relevant. The anarcho-capitalists 'do' have a page, several of them in fact. Further, they have links from the main anarchism page to their own, and will according to almost every solution offered. You are drawing a false comparison here. What we object to is that the NPOV policy of wikipedia is misused to give a smaller sub-movement (which may not even be a sub-movement) disproportionate representation. Kev 3 July 2005 18:52 (UTC)

What are we encoding in the current page relationship? To me, it looks like we're encoding differences in legitimacy (Ours (pro-social) is the REAL anarchism and yours isn't!) What other purpose could there be in not allowing everyone to have an entry point at the same level? What else could that kind of subordination possibly encode?

That's why it reminds me of the equal-marriage-rights hoohah. Some people opposing equal rights are maybe marginally okay with giving queers 'civil unions', but there's no way they're going to let them have marriage, by God! But should people have fewer rights because they're fewer in number in the population? That doesn't seem right to me. Does it you? Katzenjammer 3 July 2005 19:29 (UTC)

---

I'd like to take this opportunity to further send everyone in a tirade of capitalist fumes and brimstone by stating the the word libertarian was stolen from anarchists by capitalists. Originally, back in the 1800s to say you were libertarian was often short for saying libertarian socialist. I don't know how the libertarian party stole this term from its once common usage as an anarchist term but it is certainly incorrect to further ruin the english language by separating things into libertarian sections of anti-state and "pro-capitalist", the original libertarians were not capitalist at all! I say we compromise by destroying the internet, then nobody can have their precious definitions, and all that will matter is what always mattered in these situations, who you see in the streets and who you see counting bills! --Fatal 2 July 2005 16:33 (UTC)

In the 1800's in America, "libertarian" meant an individualist anarchist --one who opposed collectivism, including collectivism in property, advocated private property, advocated a market economy, and supported trading labor for wages that adehered to the labor theory of value and opposed profit. That is how "libertarianism" today has come to refer to the theory that opposes collectivism, supports private property, and a market economy, but differs in that it supports profit. So, the term wasn't really "stolen." It's just that you're only looking at the 19th century European usage which was collectivist in nature. Libertarianism in America has always referred to individualism as opposed to collectivism. RJII 3 July 2005 03:50 (UTC)

I don't have a sense that that's accurate. I think your 'individualism' / 'collectivism' division is a false dichotomy. Socialist libertarians believe that ownership (and thus both profit and risk) should be fully distributed rather than concentrated, i.e., that individuals should participate equally in all aspects of socioeconomic life. That seems very 'individualist' to me. Katzenjammer 3 July 2005 07:41 (UTC)

Look up individualist anarchism. That's what's missing from this article. This article assumes anarchism is traditionally collectivist, anti-private property, anti-employee/employer, anti-wages, anti-market-economy etc, but that's ignoring the whole American tradition. RJII 3 July 2005 14:19 (UTC)

Are we reading the same article? It tries to cover too much in too little time, like one of those Ten Cities In Five Days guided tours where one goes into glassy-eyed information overload the first afternoon. But I don't see the assumptions you mention. If anything, I see explicit statements early on saying that there are doctrinal differences between the various sects about things like private property and repudiating any assumption of a single 'party line'. Perhaps you could quote the parts that support your interpretation? Katzenjammer 3 July 2005 15:50 (UTC)

You're just another case in point of someone who wasn't aware of the American anarchist tradition. And, again, that's what's biased about this article. It ignores and censors the American tradition of individualist anarchism which starts with Josiah Warren and continues on through capitalist anarchism (the latest form of individualism). All anarchists are not, and have not traditionally been, opponents of private property and trade. RJII 4 July 2005 03:42 (UTC)

The term "collectivism" can have a broad range of meanings. If you restict the meaning to property arrangements, then RJ11 has a good point. Anarcho-socialists don't believe that individuals should own capital goods. They believe that only certain collectives should hold ownership. I.e. Collectives like communes, syndicals, and cooperatives (but not joint stock companies). OTOH anarcho-capitalists believe any person - individual or group - should have the right to own stuff. So it seems to me that wrt property, Anarchism (individualist) and Anarchism (collectivist) are pretty good categories. Hogeye 3 July 2005 17:01 (UTC)

Hogeye>[Anarcho-socialists] believe that only certain collectives should hold ownership.

That overstates the case. There are plenty--I'm one of them--who believe that ownership of 'capital goods' (a nice term!) should be fully and evenly distributed (1 person, 1 share) across the set of people producing the wealth. (That's a somewhat simplified exposition, but the point is that we believe in individual ownership, not group ownership.) Katzenjammer 3 July 2005 17:36 (UTC)

But a joint stock company (even one restricted to one person - one share) is a form of collective ownership of capital goods. IOW someone may individually own a share, but the share simply certifies that he holds (with others) collective ownership of capital goods. Furthermore, in your system I'm not convinced that the individual really owns even that one share. Let's test that. In your system, can the individual sell his share to any willing buyer? Hogeye 3 July 2005 18:14 (UTC)

You know Hogeye, I'm not convinced that in your system an individual really owns themselves. Lets put it to the test, in your system, can an individual sell themselves into slavery to any willing buyer? And remember, even if you stress your belief system and say yes, a whole ton of anarcho-capitalists still say no, including most of the prominent ones. Kev 3 July 2005 18:52 (UTC)

Then every company under Capitalism right now is also 'collective ownership of capital goods', including those where the 'collective' represents the degenerate case.

As to selling one's share, in our system companies are like the vast majority of all companies under Capitalism today: not publicly traded. So yes, an owner can sell their share at any time they like--but, again like most privately-held companies today, the seller is required to sell it back to the other owners.

So apart from your system allowing more degeneracy in ownership, I can't think of much distinction between your system and ours. Katzenjammer 3 July 2005 19:10 (UTC)

Salevery is Fun!

(sic) albamuth To be fair, most anarcho-socialists don't support slavery like Alba. And most spell better, too.

I think virtually all anarcho-capitalists admit that people can, and have, sold themselves into slavery. The controversial questions are along the lines of is it a valid contract? (A very small minority claim that self-ownership is a category error.) But let's not go off on this tangent now...

Unlike self-ownership, the validity of owning of capital goods and shares of capital goods is not controversial. Katz has admitted that ansocs own capital goods in some manner. To me, anarcho-socialism is reminiscent of feudalism, where only certain privileged groups are allowed to own stuff. Human progress has largely been expanding the right of property ownership from restricted castes of the ancien regime to the individual, i.e. respecting the right of all people to own property.

"Only certain privileged groups are allowed to own"?? You mean like...people with more money than they need for living?

Yes, everyone has the right of ownership. Even thrifty people. Hogeye 5 July 2005 16:30 (UTC)

That certainly looks like a 'privileged group' in both senses of the term. Under our system, on the other hand, absolutely EVERYone would be an owner. Even if they were unable to actively contribute to the common wealth because of severe disability, they would own a share in what might be termed the 'global corporation', the income from it representing their share of the royalties from natural resource use. Katzenjammer 3 July 2005 20:42 (UTC)

It looks to me like the person with disability is privileged in your example. They get to rip off other people's production - exploit them. If you with to voluntarily give to such people, that's one thing - the virtue of benevolence. When you steal other people's life and property to redistribute to non-producers, you are simply a thief with a rationalization. Hogeye 5 July 2005 16:30 (UTC)

Katz> "Then every company under Capitalism right now is also 'collective ownership of capital goods'..."

That is correct. If you know history, then you know that joint stock companies were considered downright communist by most 19th century pro-capitalist types. Ironic, isn't it, since today corporations are held up as the epitome of capitalism - at least by its enemies.

Katz> "Yes, an owner can sell their share at any time they like--but, again like most privately-held companies today, the seller is required to sell it back to the other owners."

You are mistaken that "most" privately held companies restrict sale to only the current owners. Some do, though. So let me make sure I understand you here. Suppose I am a retired Acme Dildo Coop worker, a bone fide owner of one share. I come into some wealth, and I buy all outstanding shares from all other holders, with their full consent. Now I own the firm. Is this kosher by your rules?

I don't know that I'm mistaken about "most". I'm reasonably sure "most" are family businesses, with restrictive covenants. Do you have data?

As to buying all the shares? Sure. You wouldn't even have to own one of them to start with. If everyone agrees to sell, then you could certainly buy. But you'd have to operate the business yourself if you wanted to continue owning the whole thing, because our system wouldn't allow the wage slavery that degenerate ownership requires. Katzenjammer 3 July 2005 20:42 (UTC)

Katz> "Apart from your system allowing more degeneracy in ownership, I can't think of much distinction between your system and ours."

Anarcho-capitalism allows any person or group to own capital goods. Your system restricts ownership to only certain blessed groups. It's the same as the difference between feudalism, where only the monarch and his barons could own land, and a system where every human can own land. That said, I agree that in practice most people wouldn't care a whit about whether the firm they shop at or the place they work has freely transferrable shares or not. Who really cares or knows whether the local grocery store is a corporation or an employee-owned coop. They just look at the price of milk and eggs. Hogeye 3 July 2005 19:31 (UTC)

As I pointed out above, that's a misunderstanding on your part. In our scheme, everyone would own. Katzenjammer 3 July 2005 20:42 (UTC)

Yes, "everyone" would own, but only as a member of some "blessed" group. Individuals may not own by themselves in your system. But don't worry, your anarcho-capitalist neighbors and competitors will allow all types of ownership, and will in all likelihood be more efficient and sucessful in production. May the best voluntary association types win out! Hogeye 4 July 2005 17:42 (UTC)

Wait, you are arguing against the fact that everyone owns because it means they would have to be part of a "blessed" group? Are you aware that the alternative is to set up a system in which only some people own, while others do not? Guess who the "blessed" group is there?

What a ridiculous false dicotomy! One alternative to a restrictive system that allows only certain subsets of the population to own is a system that allows any subset to own. Even "degenerate" singleton subsets (aka individuals.) This system where any subset can be an owner is called anarcho-capitalism. There have been systems in history where only households could legally own stuff; there have been systems where only royalty could own stuff (they even had the same myth as socialism, that somehow the royalty owned it in the name of "everyone"). Anarcho-capitalism, unlike those, has no caste system restricting ownership. Everyone and every group has the right of ownership. Hogeye 5 July 2005 15:56 (UTC)

You are claiming that a system in which everyone owns everything is a system in which only certain people are -allowed- to own, and calling my argument ridiculous? The worst part is that you compare it to a system in which theoretically anyone can own anything, but in fact a small group of people could own most things, and you claim that your system has no "blessed" group? What do you call the people in control? Kev 05:45, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

May the best voluntary association win. Yea! I finally get to disregard this stupid arbitrary system of distribution by which one human being is lucky enough to be born a millionaire and another gets to work himself to death by the time he is 17. Whats that, you will shoot me if I interfere with your domination of the property around me? I had no idea that voluntary behavior needed to be enforced like that. I would even wonder who would consider such a system to be voluntary. Ah... right, according to you, and the system you prefer which is set up to produce the results you want. Instead I'll just opt out and violate your attempts to dominate everyone around you with property regulation whenever I feel the urge, and if you shoot me for it, hey, maybe I will shoot back. That is what anarchism is about Hogeye, what you seem to have ignored when sticking to your definitions and pretending there is no such thing as history, anarchism means railing against human domination in whatever form it appears, be it communist, fascist, imperialist, or capitalist. Kev 5 July 2005 10:01 (UTC)

May the best voluntary association win. Yea! I finally get to disregard this stupid arbitrary system of distribution by which one human being, just by being born, gets the unearned ownership of the fruits of those who labored and spent part of their lives to create. Whats that, you will shoot me if I interfere with your domination of the property around me? I had no idea that voluntary behavior needed to be enforced like that. I would even wonder who would consider such a system to be voluntary. Ah... right, according to you, and the system you prefer which is set up to produce the results you want. Instead I'll just opt out and violate your attempts to dominate everyone around you with property regulation whenever I feel the urge, and if you shoot me for it, hey, maybe I will shoot back. That is what anarchism is about Kev, what you seem to have ignored when sticking to your definitions and pretending there is no such thing as history, anarchism means railing against human domination in whatever form it appears, be it communist, fascist, imperialist, or capitalist. Hogeye 5 July 2005 16:15 (UTC)

Since you seem obsessed with fallacies lately, this particular one would be a straw-man. In a capitalist society property is clearly and unreservedly enforceable, in fact this is often used as an example of why anarchism (which you falsely call anarcho-socialism) will not work, because our property definitions are not as strong and not as enforceable. In an anarchist society, the ability to enforce property claims is always disputable, always under scrutiny. Thus, while I can be fairly certain of being shot by violating property in many instances in a capitalist society (in fact, capitalists often advertise their willingness to kill thieves), there is a good chance that in an anarchist society I will be left alone in most cases due to the desire of individuals not to live in a society ruled by interpersonal domination. Again, we reject domination whenever it appears, even if it appears in socialism or communism. You reject domination whenever it appears in socialism or communism as well, but you wholeheartedly embrace it when it happens to be capitalist. Nice try though. Kev 5 July 2005 18:55 (UTC)

I don't know where you live but no-one will kill you in Europe for trespassing or stealing. You might go to prison though. Don't portray capitalism worse as it is - you're just discrediting yourself. Luis rib 5 July 2005 19:00 (UTC)

What people will do and what they can do are two different things. Maybe you trust in the good nature of owners not to use the full extent of their powers when they have the option. If I had that trust, I would trust senators and presidents as well, perhaps even before I would trust the non-elected private tyrants that owners can become. Fact is that in capitalism one can legitimately shoot anyone for tresspassing, just claim that you were scared and thought they were robbers or some such BS. Personally, I don't like the idea of giving people the "right" to legitimately enforce their own dictates on other people, regardless of the system. But I'm certainly not portraying capitalism as worse than it is simply by revealing the fact that property owners can kill violators, this is well known and practiced today and generally upheld by "anarcho"-capitalists as perfectly legitimate. But there is a whole lot worse to capitalism than that. I mean, lets take for example actually existing capitalism, rather than theory. For example, the fact tha since its inception capitalism has always been allied with the state? Or like how capitalists tend to profit from supplying both sides in eternal conflicts, and indeed could even do so legitimately in a so-called "anarcho"-capitalist society? Or like how capitalists go to poor countries to "invest", so that they can strangle the economy of those countries for years (sometimes generations) by ripping every spare penny from them, pennies corporate executives then blow by visiting those same countries and throwing money about to coerce sex out of underaged girls and boys. And then they pat themselves on the back for helping out the poor! Wheee, capitalism is fun! Is any of this necessary for capitalism? No, but all of it is quite compatible with capitalism as it has always existed, and most of it is entirely compatible with capitalism even as the "anarcho"-capitalists like to dream it.

The only defense I get about this from capitalists is either A) it doesn't have to be that way (hey, Bolshevism didn't -have- to have death camps either, doesn't mean I support it), B) hey, all that stuff is really good, don't you think? (no, I don't) or my favorite, C) socialism is just as bad or worse! In which case I will readily admit, any anarchist worth a damn would reject a socialist society, or any other society, that produced such horrors. So why is it that I constantly see supposely anarchist capitalists defending their ability to do the things above, rather than rejecting them as the atrocities they are? Kev 6 July 2005 01:15 (UTC)

Privilege those motherfuckers! They "earned" it!

Katz> "Only certain privileged groups are allowed to own??"

Yes, in anarcho-socialism only certain subsets of humanity can be valid owners of X. In anarcho-capitalism, any subset of humanity can validly own X.

Katz> "You mean like...people with more money than they need for living? That certainly looks like a 'privileged group' in both senses of the term."

The ability to save - to produce more than you consume - is a virtue, not a privilege. Privilege is a special "right" bestowed by others, not something earned through hard work and productiveness.

I can only think of this as the 'Capitalist Mythos', that Hard Work and Wealth are bound together in a simple causal relationship: you work hard, you get wealthy; you don't, you don't. All our experience tells us, though, that 'the world is ill-divided / them that works the hardest / are the least provided'. GWBush, for example, is reeking wealthy; yet if the Mythos were true, he'd be lucky to be clerking in a 7-11 somewhere, and not in prison or dead in a ditch. Katzenjammer 3 July 2005 23:22 (UTC)

Your "Capitalist Mythos" is a strawman, of course. "No one" claims that hard work is a sufficient condition for getting wealthy. No one. What a silly strawman! What we do claim is that productive work is a necessary condition to achieving wealth, along with land, capital, entrepreneurship, and yes, even luck. Hogeye 5 July 2005 15:37 (UTC)

So you folks stopped believing in inheritance? Kev 5 July 2005 19:01 (UTC)

Katz> "As to buying all the shares? Sure. ... If everyone agrees to sell, then you could certainly buy. But you'd have to operate the business yourself if you wanted to continue owning the whole thing, because our system wouldn't allow the wage slavery that degenerate ownership requires."

Very good. Sounds like anarcho-capitalism. The owner should of course make sure that he doesn't hire people who would attempt to steal his new business, and if there are a lot of imperialist anarcho-socialists around, hire a PDA to protect his property. Frankly, your answer surprised me. I would have thought that selling the capital goods off to a capitalist would be forbidden, or at least bad form. Hogeye 3 July 2005 22:07 (UTC)

We might be talking at crossed purposes. I've been describing a pro-social society in which wealth is entirely a function of one's personal work rather than the legal right to skim value from the work of others. Katzenjammer 3 July 2005 23:22 (UTC)

Oh. I'm talking about the real world - not socialist nirvana. In real life, there will always be different people with different ideas, on property and justice and so on. So I don't assume everyone thinks like me. There will always be competing ideological models, property systems, and legal systems. The main question between us anarchists is whether we are tolerant of other lifestyles, or we try to enforce our own upon others. So long as you anarcho-socialists don't try to force your system on anarcho-capitalists (and anarcho-Georgists, and individualist anarchists, ...) you're cool. However, if some anarcho-socialists voluntarily sell their property to an anarcho-capitalist and then try to renig and take it back by force (as you seem to endorse in the example), then they are committing meta-aggression. Self-defense of person and property is permissable. Fuckers trying to steal stuff might get shot. Hogeye 5 July 2005 15:46 (UTC)

Similarly, if we sell stuff to some dumbass who thinks he will then own it forever, and we sneak into his lot at night and use it for a bit without him knowing, then we are in full right to defend ourselves when he aggresses against us by trying to force us not to use it. Once again, you assume, as you always do, that the aggression is against those who are propertied, rather than against those who are dispossessed. You pretend to be objective in applying your meta principle, but your analysis always skews to your own tastes. And honestly, that "fuckers might get shot" bit is a great tagline for your supposedly "voluntary" society. Man stealing an apple from the king's (er, land baron's?) orchard to feed his family? Fucker might get shot. Kev 5 July 2005 19:01 (UTC)

On a serious note...

Anarcho-capitalist: "Milk is the nutrient fluid produced by the mammary glands of female mammals."

Anarcho-socialist: "Milk is the stuff which has traditionally been called milk, at least during the 19th century."

LOL! --Hogeye 22:03, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I thought it went more like this:

Anarchist: "Milk is a fluid secreted by the mammary glands of females for the nourishment of their young."

AC: "Milk is a... mammary glands... for young."

Of course, this discussion page is supposed to be for discussion, and your level thereof is sadly lacking of late. Kev 3 July 2005 19:20 (UTC)

Q: How many anarcho-capitalists does it take to screw in a light-bulb? A: None -- they make you do it yourself, and then charge you for the electricity. And don't call it a light-bulb! It's a privately-owned revenue generator! --albamuth 2 July 2005 23:02 (UTC)

Here's the version I know: Q: How many libertarians does it take to screw in a light-bulb? A: None. The market will handle it. Hogeye 3 July 2005 17:06 (UTC)

Definitions?! Is that what we're talking about?

Common sense indicates that the problem is a definitional one. How's this for a Neutral Disambig Page?

Anarchism is derived from the Greek αναρχία ("without archons (rulers)"). Thus "anarchism," in its most general meaning, is the philosophy or belief that rulership is unnecessary and should be abolished.

Anarchism may mean:

• Anarchism qua anti-statism - the theory or doctrine that all forms of government are unnecessary, oppressive, and undesirable and should be abolished.

• Anarchism qua anti-statism combined with anti-capitalism - philosophies, movements, and ideologies that advocate the abolition of capitalist exploitation and all other forms of authority.

For other usages, see anarchism (disambiguation).

Hogeye 2 July 2005 22:37 (UTC)

Isn't the second one redundant with the first one, since it's just "first one + something else"? --cesarb 2 July 2005 22:41 (UTC)

I had the same reaction. How about:

• Anarchism - {defined as above}

• Anarchism (pro-private-profit) - the political stance that opposes government as an entity, but has no objection to centers of power based on wealth.

• Anarchism (classical (or socialistic (or pro-social (or something else)))) - the political stance that opposes any non-democratically--delegated center of power.

Katzenjammer 2 July 2005 22:52 (UTC)

Eat my NPOV Header, dude!

Repost:

This article covers the commonly understood usage of anarchism: to denote a social movement and political philosophy that is opposed to all forms and causes of social, economic, and political hierarchy, including the modern state and capitalism. For other uses of "anarchism" and "anarchy", see anarchism (disambiguation). --albamuth 2 July 2005 23:02 (UTC)

---

Cesar> "Isn't the second one redundant with the first one, since it's just "first one + something else"?"

Yes. But that's exactly how the anarcho-socialists define "anarchism." The whole issue is about whether to define anarchism as anti-statism only or anti-statism plus anti-capitalism.

Katz> "Anarchism - defined as above"

I don't follow you here. Which of the two definitions above do you mean? I'll assume you mean the anti-state definition, i.e. number 1.

Katz> "Anarchism (pro-private-profit) - the political stance that opposes government as an entity, but has no objection to centers of power based on wealth."

I don't know anyone who defines "anarchism" this way. Where did this come from? So throwing this one out, we get:

---

Anarchism broad def; dictionary def; qua anti-statism; or whatever - the theory or doctrine that all forms of government are unnecessary, oppressive, and undesirable and should be abolished.

Anarchism narrow def; classical; socialistic; pro-social; or something else - the political stance that opposes any non-democratically delegated center of power.

For other usages, e.g. ontological anarchism (Hakim Bey shit), punker shit see anarchism (disambiguation)

Preferences make the proles happy!

Of course, if anarcho-socialists prefer some other definition (like Alba's suggestion) to replace the "narrow def" above, that's fine by me. They can have whatever definition they want, as far as I'm concerned. Hogeye 3 July 2005 00:57 (UTC)

---

This article covers the commonly understood usage of anarchism: to denote a social movement and political philosophy that is opposed to all forms and causes of social, economic, and political hierarchy, including the modern state and capitalism. For other uses of "anarchism" and "anarchy", see Rothbardism. --Bk0 3 July 2005 01:05 (UTC)

Funny guy, Bk0, giving a guaranteed edit war version. Okay, here's mine:

This article covers the theory or doctrine that all forms of government are unnecessary, oppressive, and undesirable and should be abolished. For strictly anti-capitalist meanings, see libertarian socialism.

Hogeye 3 July 2005 01:25 (UTC)

---

I'll avoid offering, even as a joke, an edit-war version. I'm not sure we're at the joking stage yet. :-)

As far as the lead-in definitions go, yeah, I just scribbled those and have no investment in them. I think it would be nice, though, to see if we can agree a succinct way to describe how the sects differ to one another so that the portal page wouldn't be muddy.

I also think it might be a good idea (I'm not completely sure about this) not to privilege the pro-social and pro-Capitalist sects on the portal page. I realise that you might have done that so as to simplify things for discussion purposes, but I thought I should at least put the issue on the record.

My perception is that cap anarchists are opposed to governmental power-over but not any other kind of power-over. Does that sound fair? Soc anarchists are opposed to any kind of power-over whatsoever, unless created by democratic delegation, in which case we consider it to be power-to rather than power-over. Katzenjammer 3 July 2005 07:20 (UTC)

Katz> "I think it would be nice, though, to see if we can agree a succinct way to describe how the sects differ to one another so that the portal page wouldn't be muddy."

I agree, sort of. The issue here, however, is not about how sects differ, but about how the differing sects define "anarchism." To me, the most logical, concise, and neutrally worded formulation of the definitional difference is:

{anti-statism} vs. {anti-statism and anti-capitalism}

RJ11 likes this formulation:

{individualist anarchism or collectivist anarchism} vs. {collectivist anarchism}

Katz likes:

{anti-government power-over} vs. {anti-government power-over and anti-non-democratic power-over}

In all three formulations I have the broader def first, i.e.

{anarchism broad-tent} vs. {anarchism narrow-tent}

Hogeye 3 July 2005 17:25 (UTC)

Definition of Anarchism

I really don't know how you, hogeye, can read the definition of anarchism and then still claim there's compatibility between capitalism and anarchism. "Without rule", yes! That's what anarchy is! The politician and statesmen are rulers. You know what else? The boss is the ruler, the patriarchal boyfriend is a ruler, the ceo of nike is a ruler, corporations are a set of rulers, capitalists are rulers! How can you not see this?? It's right in front of your eyes! The words "ruler" and "government" and "hierarchy" are NOT in any way shape or form totally and completely limited to the world of politicians, and they NEVER have been! Open up your eyes, smell the coffee, inject yourself with adrenaline, do something to wake yourself up from your stupor. --Fatal 3 July 2005 01:51 (UTC)

Socialists are rulers, when they force everybody into their collectivist, egalitarian schemes and expropriate property that they regard as "unfair" to be privately owned. *Dan* July 3, 2005 02:37 (UTC)

Actually not. In anarchist theory those who don't like living in an anarchistc society may go away and organise a society as they see fit. // Liftarn

Almost. In anarchist theory those who don't like a property or legal system may organise a society as they see fit. They need not "go away." That is one beauty of anarchism - the lack of territorial legal monopolies, aka States. Hogeye 5 July 2005 16:34 (UTC)

It only seems like "force" if you are a capitalist trying to hold on to your ill-gotten gains. --Bk0 3 July 2005 02:41 (UTC)

...which, incidentally, requires an external security apparatus to maintain, be it an overt state or some Rothbardist pseudo-state arrangement ("private" security corporations, etc). Monopoly of violence lives on. --Bk0

Fatal> "I really don't know how you, Hogeye, can read the definition of anarchism and then still claim there's compatibility between capitalism and anarchism. "Without rule", yes! That's what anarchy is! The politician and statesmen are rulers."

So far, we agree totally. Anti-statism clearly falls under anti-ruler.

Fatal> "You know what else? The boss is the ruler..."

But here anarcho-capitalists like me think you're off your rocker. A firm is a voluntary organization. You can opt out any time. Ergo, there is no rule. It is voluntary (in our terminology.) Bakunin expressed the importance of opting out (secession) quite well:

The internal reorganization of each country on the basis of the absolute freedom of individuals, of the productive associations, and of the communes. Necessity of recognizing the right of secession: every individual, every association, every commune, every region, every nation has the absolute right to selfdetermination, to associate or not to associate, to ally themselves with whomever they wish and repudiate their alliances without regard to so-called historic rights [rights consecrated by legal precedent] or the convenience of their neighbors. - Michael Bakunin, Revolutionary Catechism.

Anarcho-capitalists take this notion of opting out very seriously - as the acid test for voluntary association. (Though most would quote Herbert Spencer ("The Right to Ignore the State") rather than Bakunin!)

(It helped considerably, of course, that Bakunin lived in a time and place where there was a 'Wild East'. People had the ability to 'opt out' because they could bugger off to Siberia, build an izbushka, and, if they could avoid freezing to death, live off the land with the Tsar's implicit blessing. Harder to do that today. About 98% impossible, in fact. Katzenjammer 3 July 2005 07:52 (UTC) )

??? It's still easy to opt out of most organizations. Bakunin supported secession in principle. His idea was not in any way dependent on the availability of new frontiers. Hogeye 3 July 2005 16:30 (UTC)

Agreed that he supported it as a principle, and that it's still easy to opt out of most organizations--for anyone as nihilistic as he was. But for those, e.g., who have warm or at least responsible feelings for dependent animals such as cats and kids, the array of useful opting-out possibilities tends to collapse into a midden. Katzenjammer 3 July 2005 17:12 (UTC)

You appear to be agreeing that anyone can easily opt out of voluntary orgs like firms, but there are consequences to doing so - just as there are consequences to any action. I agree. Hogeye 4 July 2005 17:37 (UTC)

Fatal> "The words "ruler" and "government" and "hierarchy" are NOT in any way shape or form totally and completely limited to the world of politicians..."

The first two, "ruler" and "government," are. Anarcho-capitalists like me are basically neutral about hierarchies per se. Voluntary natural hierarchies are cool; imposed hierarchies are not. Nothing in anti-ruler implies an aversion to all hierarchies. Hogeye 3 July 2005 03:34 (UTC)

The idea that one can "opt out" of a business at any time does not excuse capitalism even the slightest. First of all, this is not entirely true. Second of all, yes, one could quit their job, but then what would that mean? Lose your home, lose your food, lose your safety, security. It means that your needs can only be met through illegal means. If it is illegal to exist outside of capitalism, what does this tell us about capitalism? It is coercive, the "freedom" to quit is a joke, and a bad one at that, given to workers by capitalists to give the illusion they have freedom. It is not freedom when the capitalist class controls all of society, it is not freedom when one is prevented from living, short of living comfortably, unless they submit themselves to an unfree system. Your arguments are exactly the same as those which say "homeless people are lazy, why don't they just get a job? They're always mcdonalds!" McDonalds doesn't pay the rent, mcdonalds doesn't pay the bills, mcdonalds can barely even pay for a month worth of food let alone anything else. Also, be admitting that many would want to quit their jobs, you are admitting that life under the rule of capitalists is NOT something people want. It would be frivolous to go into all the examples. You can't get money under capitalism (legally) unless you work. Without money you can't get anything. Capitalism is coercive and it forces you to work under it. --Fatal 3 July 2005 18:36 (UTC)

Fatal> "The idea that one can "opt out" of a business at any time does not excuse capitalism even the slightest."

But it does show that it's voluntary, which is the issue at hand.

Actually not since anarchism is opposed to all rulers (i.e. all forms of structured hirerachies). That it's "voluntary" changes nothing. you may "voluntary" sell yourself to slavery or "voluntary" stand in front of a bullet, but that doesn't mean that slavery and murder is OK. // Liftarn

Fallacy: Petito principi. The whole dispute is about whether anarchism, in its broadest sense, is opposed to States only, or opposed to both States and propertarianism/hierarchy. To anarcho-capitalists, voluntarily joining a group and taking directions from a leader is not being ruled. To an anarcho-socialist, it is. The concepts of aggression and rule depend on an underlying property system for meaning. Obviously, there are actions that ancaps consider non-aggressive that ansocs think are aggressive, and vice-versa. Hogeye 5 July 2005 16:41 (UTC)

Anarchists do not believe that one "voluntarily" joins a group to follow a leader in capitalism. Rather, they are coerced by a restrictive property system upheld by capitalists into joining a group and working at the whim of someone else for their survival, whether they want to join such groups or not, and whether they do in fact join such groups or not, the coercion is still present. "Voluntary" in this context is being used in a strange way by the ACs, a fascists could claim that their society is voluntary, you either voluntarily follow their leader, who happens to own all the land in that particular country, or you are thrown out (or sometimes killed) for trespassing. Kev 5 July 2005 18:48 (UTC)

Anarchists do not believe that one "voluntarily" joins a group to follow a leader in socialism.

I, and the vast majority of socialist anarchists, agree. Kev 6 July 2005 03:54 (UTC)

Rather, they are coerced by a restrictive property system upheld by socialists into joining a commune/syndicate and working at the whim of someone else for their survival

Name a single anarchist who has ever said that one person can be forced to labor against their will and you and I will have an agreement, otherwise this is just a silly attempt at rhetoric on your part. Oh, unless you mean anarcho-capitalists of course, many of them do believe that individuals can be put into debtors prison and forced to labor.

whether they want to join such groups or not, and whether they do in fact join such groups or not, the coercion is still present. (I love tu quoque.) Hogeye 5 July 2005 21:58 (UTC)

If an anarchist commune denies the use of resources to another commune or individual without taking into account their needs or allowing them to represent themselves, then you are correct. Now really, why can't you say the same about capitalism? Because your property entitlement claims allow the owner complete control, and others can be shut off without any regard to their desires or even needs. Because that kind of coercive domination is okay, its only the other kinds you don't like? I wonder why you so love coercion when it is done by one owner, and only object to it when it is done by many, perhaps you have control issues? Kev 6 July 2005 03:54 (UTC)

If anything is strange in your digression, it's your twisted view of reality.Luis rib 5 July 2005 18:53 (UTC)

Another deeply intellectual response. It will take me awhile to understand something so clearly to the point when I'm so used to being condescendingly dismissed by capitalists too in love with their theories to take a moment and think about the implications. Kev 5 July 2005 19:06 (UTC)

You're wrong, actually capitalist economists think a lot about the consequences and are the first to point out to problems and to propose solutions to them. Unfortunately, anarchist thinkers do not seem to think so far. Have you ever challeged your hypotheses? How will an anarchist society, for instance, prevent some people from gaining and seizing power? As you may remember, Hobbes analysed that situation, and came to the conclusion that anarchism (he didn't call it that, of course) would result in chaos, violence and despair. Unless you change human nature, you won't be able to create a peaceful anarchist society. Luis rib 5 July 2005 19:14 (UTC)

Gee, no, I've never even thought of questioning my beliefs, good thing you came along. People will prevent others from "seizing" power by way of mutual defense, voluntary disassociation, and by the creation of social norms that demphasize its importance and stress individual and community self-reliance. As for Hobbian analysis of human nature, I find it entirely lacking, and full of false presumptions as well, as any radical skeptic would. I'm not entirely sure what human nature is, but I find no compelling reasons to be convinced that Hobbes had a better grasp on it than I do. Finally, who said anything about a "peaceful" anarchist society? I mean, I would like it to be relatively peaceful, and there are a number of social institutions to help move toward that goal, but there will always (and to some degree should always) be conflict. Creating an armed police force to dominate all dissidents doesn't create peace, it just institutionalised this conflict in a particular way, a way that all anarchists abhor. Channeling that conflict toward outcomes positive or neutral to the society at large would be one way of dealing with it, but eliminating it altogether would be neither realistic nor necessarily desirable. Kev 6 July 2005 17:31 (UTC)

Fatal> "If it is illegal to exist outside of capitalism, what does this tell us about capitalism?"

But it is not illegal to exist outside of capitalism. Hogeye 3 July 2005 20:12 (UTC)

Actually, Fatal, the CEO of Nike (or any other corporation, for that matter) is NOT the ruler. The rulers are the shareholders. It is perfectly possible for workers to be shareholders - many corporations actually encourage that. It is even possible for workers to be the majority shareholders. In Europe (in the US i don't know) there is even a type of corporation called "société coopérative" (cooperative company) where all the shareholders are usually the workers - Switzerland's biggest distribution company Migros functions under that framework. In Germany, on the other hand, half of the board of directors are representatives from the workers by law. Thus your ruler-ruled paradigm doesn't correspond to practice. In reality - as always - things are much more complex than you care to admit.Luis rib 3 July 2005 21:15 (UTC)

You are refusing to admit reality. Shareholders don't decide to lay off thousands of workers, they don't decide to "develop" endangered woodland, they don't decide to cover up massive industrial accidents, they don't bribe politicians, they don't break strikes, etc ad naseaum. Despite capitalist dogma, shareholders are generally powerless and this is obvious to anyone willing to be honest. --Bk0 3 July 2005 21:38 (UTC)

Bk0> "Shareholders don't decide to lay off thousands of workers..."

Right. Shareholder do decide to lay off CEOs and management. The rest of you comment shows why limited liability is a good idea, i.e. shareholders generally don't make the criminal decisions that some managers have made, so the shareholders should not be liable. The management, the actual rights-violators, should. Hogeye 4 July 2005 17:32 (UTC)

Luis, I think you're being selective in your thinking. In the US--I would imagine it's broadly similar elsewhere, even if not quite so awful--85% of all shares are owned by the wealthiest 10% of the population. And, as Bk0 points out, the shareholders don't exercise executive control--senior management does. And who are they working for? The few who own the 85%, or the many who own the remaining 15%?

That's the real reality.

There are a few socialist corporations like the exemplary Mondragón Corporación Cooperativa (www.mcc.es) whose goal is to provide a comfortable living for many, not vast wealth for a privileged few, but until we reorganize worldwide economic life such that they are the only kind of corporation allowed anywhere, we're going to continue to be in trouble. Katzenjammer 3 July 2005 23:47 (UTC)

One flaw in such "gap" analysis is that the 10% who owned it 10 years ago is not the same 10% that own it today, and won't be the same 10% that own it ten years from now. IOW, one fallacy of static "gap" argument is that it totally ignores social mobility. It fools non-astute readers into thinking that the 10% is a caste rather than a highly transient group.

Another implicit assumption in the above is that there is something wrong with unequal distribution of goods (shares in this case.) This is called an end-state theory of distributive justice. Anarcho-capitalists like me do not hold an end-state theory - we hold an entitlement theory. IOW we evaluate distributive justice on the basis of history - whether the transactions leading up to the current distribution were just. Unlike end-staters, we don't naively look at a time-slice and judge solely from that. Hogeye 4 July 2005 17:32 (UTC)

Katzenjammer: you are saying that more than 20 million people (10% of 200 mio) actually own shares in the United States? That's far more than I expected!

Another point: shareholders' power may indeed be weak - a question that would necessitate a whole discussion of its own - but there is one thing that disgruntled shareholders can always do: sell. By selling enough, pressure will built on the CEO to resign. Thus bad CEOs are eventually kicked out through shareholder action. Indeed, the United States is the country with the highest CEO turnaround - which is probably a proof of its shareholder capitalism. Indeed, even iconic CEOs like Carly Fiorina (formerly HP) have to resign when they don't please shareholders. In the same vein: even those dotcoms that lied ultimately failed when shareholders lost confidence in their lofty promises. Only those dotcoms that actually didn't lie (too much) survived (like Amazon or eBay). Luis rib 4 July 2005 17:54 (UTC)

Here are definitions of Anarchism given by Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin, and Emma Goldman Three out of four define it an anti-statist but not necessarily anti-capitalist. There's also a link to that random list of dictionary defs.

True. If you take a single sentence by any of these people, and you use it to define all that anarchism is, then anarchism is not necessarily anti-capitalist. Of course, if you read a single book by any of those people, you would be very hard pressed to argue that any of them believe that capitalism is remotely compatible with anarchism. But you could play this trick with any issue and any individual. Want to claim that Marx hated communism? Point out a single sentence in which he admitted a fault in some part thereof and ignore the rest. Want to pretend that capitalism is compatible with anarchism? Point out only those definitions which support your case and ignore all contrary evidence, even if it means taking people totally out of context in the process. Kev 6 July 2005 00:41 (UTC)

Those are not random sentences. They are Proudhon's (Kropotkin's, Goldman's) explicit definitions. You are invited to read the works cited to verify this. Hogeye 6 July 2005 02:45 (UTC)

I didn't say they were random sentences. I said they were taken out of context, and they are. As to my reading the works cited, I've ready what is property, I've certain read Kropotkin's britannica entry, I've read most of Goldman's essays, but I don't specifically remember that one. I can't say as to bakunin, as his isn't cited. Can you say that you've read all of those works Hogeye? If so, please oh please tell me how you came away with the impression that any of those individuals believed that capitalism was compatible with anarchism. The only reason none of them stated that capitalists can't be anarchists specifically is that no one at the time was dumb enough to claim as much, and if their other statements on the matter don't entail said incompatibility, then no statement possibly could. Tomorrow Chomsky will die and fascists will be claiming that they are anarchists because he didn't happen to say explicitly that they aren't. Kev 6 July 2005 03:45 (UTC)

An End To the Ridiculous Argument About Famous Anarchists Not Defining Anarchism As Anti-Capitalist

And I quoth:

No one here has claimed that PP, EG, and PK were not anti-capitalist

The claim is: they defined anarchism as anti-statist, not as anti-capitalist. This is the third time Alba has demonstated a failure to grasp the difference between giving a definition and propounding one's philosophy. Luckily, PP, EG, and PK had a better grasp. Hogeye 02:06, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC) (emphasis added)

The vast majority of dictionaries, encyclopedias, and even anarchist luminaries (Kropotkin, Proudhon, Goldman...) define anarchism as anti-state but not necessarily anti-capitalist. See above for quotations, dictionary lists. Hogeye 4 July 2005 17:47 (UTC)

So you're saying that people who called themselves as anarchists, and thus subscribed to anarchism, and were adamantly anti-capitalist, did not themselves describe anarchism as anti-capitalist? What kind of weak, convoluted argument is that? Anyone with any sense of reality sees right through it. So far, you have not shown any evidence that anarchism, and what PP, EG, and PK believed in, are two different things. Oh, and as for your case about how they defined anarchism:

Emma Goldman: [3] To accomplish that unity, Anarchism has declared war on the pernicious influences which have so far prevented the harmonious blending of individual and social instincts, the individual and society. Religion, the dominion of the human mind; Property, the dominion of human needs; and Government, the dominion of human conduct, represent the stronghold of man's enslavement and all the horrors it entails. (emphasis added)

Proudhon: (please stop abusing this quotation!) [4]

"What are you, then?" — "I am an anarchist."

"Oh! I understand you; you speak satirically. This is a hit at the government." — "By no means. I have just given you my serious and well-considered profession of faith. Although a firm friend of order, I am (in the full force of the term) an anarchist. Listen to me."

(and after quite a bit of rambling about the development of civilization)

Thus, in a given society, the authority of man over man is inversely proportional to the stage of intellectual development which that society has reached; and the probable duration of that authority can be calculated from the more or less general desire for a true government, — that is, for a scientific government. And just as the right of force and the right of artifice retreat before the steady advance of justice, and must finally be extinguished in equality, so the sovereignty of the will yields to the sovereignty of the reason, and must at last be lost in scientific socialism. Property and royalty have been crumbling to pieces ever since the world began. As man seeks justice in equality, so society seeks order in anarchy.

Kropotkin:[5] As to their economical conceptions, the anarchists, in common with all socialists, of whom they constitute the left wing, maintain that the now prevailing system of private ownership in land, and our capitalist production for the sake of profits, represent a monopoly which runs against both the principles of justice and the dictates of utility. They are the main obstacle which prevents the successes of modern technics from being brought into the service of all, so as to produce general well-being. The anarchists consider the wage-system and capitalist production altogether as an obstacle to progress. But they point out also that the state was, and continues to be, the chief instrument for permitting the few to monopolize the land, and the capitalists to appropriate for themselves a quite disproportionate share of the yearly accumulated surplus of production. Consequently, while combating the present monopolization of land, and capitalism altogether, the anarchists combat with the same energy the state, as the main support of that system. Not this or that special form, but the state altogether, whether it be a monarchy or even a republic governed by means of the referendum.

If you continue to make this silly argument, in the face of overwhelming evidence, I am going to accuse you of intellectual dishonesty, or perhaps being so psychotic that you can't comprehend anything that would possibly contradict your own view of the world. --albamuth 6 July 2005 04:12 (UTC)

I have no real opinion on this matter in general, but I note that, if you accept the Emma Goldman quote above, anarchism must be defined as anti-state, anti-capitalist, and anti-religion. - Nat Krause 7 July 2005 04:51 (UTC)

Now that you've checked out their speechifying, why don't you look at their definitions? Hogeye 7 July 2005 05:25 (UTC)

Yet Another Stupid Poll

The definitional dispute about "anarchism" will never be settled, so long as there are both anarcho-socialist and anarcho-capitalist editors participating. True or false?

• True Hogeye 5 July 2005 17:01 (UTC)
• True. So I guess that means the answer is to kill all the {socialists | capitalists} (depending on your viewpoint)? *Dan* July 5, 2005 20:31 (UTC)

If "True" is the consensus, that allows us to immediately eliminate some suggested solutions. I.e. any solution involving agreement on the definition, such as one anarchism article with italicized disambiguation at the top. Perhaps it would eliminate all but these two possible solutions: 1) a neutral disambiguation page w/o article, or 2) unprotect and continue the edit wars.

There are more options than that. --albamuth 5 July 2005 22:17 (UTC)

• True CosmicV 5 July 2005 21:54 (UTC)
• False. Third party intervention or arbitration would help settle things. --albamuth 5 July 2005 22:12 (UTC)

Tell me, Alba, what is the common ground between not anti-capitalist and anti-capitalist? Do you really think that some moderator will come up with a definitional compromise that all will accept??? Hogeye 5 July 2005 22:27 (UTC)

There is no common ground. The dispute is not over finding common ground. The dispute is over the article, and how it defines anarchism. The dispute is over letting a tiny minority replace common usage terms with their neologisms. The dispute is over said group's intellectual honesty and their unyielding dogmatism. Third parties for mediation and/or arbitration are thus necessary. --albamuth 6 July 2005 03:35 (UTC)

• The dispute won't be settled, period. Anarchists have historically denied that other school of anarchism that they oppose are truly anarchism. For example, the 19th century American individualist anarchists versus the collectivist anarchists (communists and syndicalists). This whole idea of trying to arrive at a consensus is a joke. It's not going to happen. Unlock the article and let nature take its course. RJII 6 July 2005 01:31 (UTC)

You are mistaken. What evidence have you that individualist-anarchists and the other anarchists did not get along, collaborate, and generally work together? You are trying to recharacterize the individualists as being greatly at odds with the other anarchists when in fact the differences were trivial, in the context of a social movement. --albamuth 6 July 2005 03:38 (UTC)

"Anarchism is a word without meaning, unless it includes the liberty of the individual to control his product or whatever his product has brought him through exchange in a free market—that is, private property. Whoever denies private property is of necessity an Archist" -Benjamin Tucker, 19th century American individualist anarchist. Tucker and other individualists in the American tradition were, and continue to be, very much opposed to the collectivist tradition and very vocal about it. RJII 7 July 2005 02:27 (UTC)

• I'm forced to question why it seems other anarch schools believe that only their "brand" of anarchism is worthy of entry and being labeled the "official" anarchism, while anarcho-capitalism is perfectly willing to allow others to call themselves anarchists and state their own opinions. Which is closer to anarchism, I ask you?

MSTCrow July 6, 2005 05:38 (UTC)

No one is claiming any official title of anarchism from what I can see. Further, anarcho-capitalists have been had every opportunity to state their opinions both informally on the talk pages and formally on their own page and elsewhere in relevant pages. Finally, almost all the editors believe that this page should refer to anarcho-capitalism in some fashion, including a link to their article. The conflict is more a matter of having the anarcho-capitalists define and determine the status of the main anarchism page to reflect their own personal bias, over and above the views of all other anarchists and anarchist sub-groups, something not only in violation of wiki policy, but also not particularly "close to anarchism" imho. Kev 6 July 2005 07:05 (UTC)

Kev, the anarcho-socialists partisans are claiming that anarchism is necessarily anti-capitalist, and want the official article to repeat that lie. The anarcho-capitalists will not let them "determine the status of the main anarchism page to reflect their own personal bias." Hogeye 6 July 2005 15:23 (UTC)

Anarchism is necessarily anti-capitalist. But if you don't agree, then your position is also represented by way of the disambiguation warning, which directs all readers to other users of the word anarchism in the very first part of the article. To give a definition that allows for the inclusion of anarcho-capitalism is POV, to give the most common use of the term historically and in modern times, while still refering to your particular ideologies pet uses, is NPOV. Kev 6 July 2005 17:20 (UTC)

Anarchism is not necessarily anti-capitalist. But if you don't agree, then your position is also represented on the [anarchism article] by way of the disambiguation warning, which directs all readers to other users of the word anarchism in the very first part of the article. To give a definition that allows for the exclusion of anarcho-capitalism is POV; to give the most common use of the term etymologically and by the standard definition, while still refering to your particular ideology's pet uses, is NPOV. (Tu quoque!) Hogeye 6 July 2005 17:35 (UTC)

Using the definition of a minor sub-movement to overwrite the historical and modern usages of the word is not acceptable, this article should first and foremost deal with the usages of the word by most of the movement, and it only secondarily concerned with less significant claimants. This is the third time you have resorting to this idiotic tactic of simply repeating what I say. If you continue to behave like you are some belligerent child, I will refuse to attempt communication with you any longer, as you are obvious not interested in it. Kev 6 July 2005 17:41 (UTC)

Your ad hominem and straw man attacks are coming very close to disqualifying you as a responsible Wikipedia editor, Kev.

July 7, 2005 01:15 (UTC)

I have yet to argue against a position based on the individual presenting it. I have addressed the tendency of some individuals to engage in disruptive and rude behavior, but that is not an ad hominem. As for straw-man attacks, please name one, and I will happily remedy it, apologise for it, or give evidence that it is not a straw-man at all. Kev 7 July 2005 01:22 (UTC)

• TRUE All but one person think that there will never be concensus about the definition of anarchism.

I'm not involved in this debate, but I should point out that the above edit was made by Danneskjold (talk · contribs): I've blocked this user for being a probable sockpuppet of User:Hogeye (currently under a one-month block). I base my decision on the near-identical edits Danneskjold has made to this article. Any further suspected sockpuppets (either IPs or usernames) should be treated the same way. -- Hadal 04:42, 11 July 2005 (UTC)