Talk:Anarchism/Archive 41

Archive 35

←

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

Archive 43

→

Archive 45

Explanation

I am continuously returning the ancap section to the issues section because that is where the majority of people seemed most comfortable with it before DTC and Thatshot arrived this weekend and began dispupting this article when everyone seemed to finally be approaching some kind of consensus. Also, i am deleting the "Communism" section in the issues section because it was added without discussion and is POV in the sense that the vast majority or worldwide anarchists do not have a philosophical issue with anarcho-communism. Before the ancaps start attacking me with allegations of pinko commie conspiracy i would like to reiterate that i am NOT an anarchist communist but rather an anarchist-without-adjectives. Obviously ancap needs to be included here but in the appropriate place. Additionally, there is the issue of DTC being a suspected sockpuppet, though i don't know that one way or the other. Piece, Blockader 18:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The communism section was added in violation of WP:POINT. The accusations of communist conspiracy are indeed a bit strange, since I am not an anarcho-communist, or communist of any kind, either. I support you in this matter. --AaronS 18:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Well I just checked up on what you said and in the straw poll above. There were 2 in explicit support for it up there in the individualist section. 1 with implicit support. And 2 against; just you and Aaron. 1 more *for* is me. That makes four people wanting it up there and two against. So you're wrong that the majority of people want it out of the schools section. Also, you have no reason to delete the communism section because it's sourced. Why can't you just stick to the policies and not ignore information that is cited? There is like 10 sources in the article saying anarcho-capitalism is individualist anarchism. Please do not say the majority wants it out of the schools section because it simply isn't true. Most people accept cited information. You should too. That'sHot 18:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Most of the editors who would disagree with you are absent at the moment, probably because of the sorry state of affairs that you and others have introduced. I don't really blame them. The communist section is clearly a violation of WP:POINT, and may very well be a violation of WP:OR, too. --AaronS 18:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I was not referencing the poll from yesterday but rather the consensus of most of the present editors at the end of last week after Cjames and others began cleaning up the layout. I don't know why so many regular editors are absent, Ungovernable, Blah, Cjames, Christfurio, etc, but Aaron is right that they have not been around. Until they get back those present must continue to push this article to a fair and appropriate middle ground despite the POV pushing that is going on. The fact is, whether ancap is a form of anarchism is a debated issue. Some scholars and anarchists lean one way others lean another. that is why it belongs in the issues section rather than after the american indiv section. further, placing a "communism" section in the issues section was done in an inappropriate manner. Blockader 18:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Most scholars regard it as a form of anarchism, individualist anarchism to be precise. Therefore it belongs in the schools of anarchism section under individualist anarchism. If some scholars dispute it then just note that. But to segregate it as if the majority view is that it is not anarchism is POV. The weight of the evidence in scholarly sources says that it is a form of anarchism. The fringe view is that it is not. And no the communism section is not inappropriate. Obviously individualists have issues with communism, with many of them saying it is not a form of anarchism at all but a form of authority over the individual disguised as anarchism. The definitely deserves a section in issues. DTC 18:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

"Most scholars regard it as a form of anarchism, individualist anarchism to be precise." Tosh, and you know it. "Most scholars ancaps like to quote" perhaps. But bringing 50 cited works to the table is hardly impressive considering the thousands of texts written about anarchism and the fact that most of them are approaching useless. POV of the worst kind. --Marinus 02:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

So there is a 5th editor, DTC, that wants it in the schools section. So please stop the claims about us being in violation of consensus. Thank you. That'sHot 19:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

So you have a gerrymandered snap poll that is supposed to immidiately contradict a few years of established practice? Hardly good faith, no? --Marinus 03:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

And the strawpoll stood at 2 against and 1 discussion till I cast my (opposing) vote. This is ridiculous. --Marinus 03:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

They are sock puppets, and puppet master took a vacation. :-) -- Vision Thing -- 19:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

What is all this about AnCap being more of a problem than communism. Capitalism has always been under attack from anarchists, but as far as Bakunin goes communism is nothing of the better! If you look back through history, its the "big" writers of anarchism thats always been quoted, and they have never been quoted for anything who got anything to do with anarcho-capitalism. Communism on the other hand has been attacked without hesitation. Further Colin Ward, one scholar who knows more than most other people combined about anarchism are cited only for his discussion of the differences between Left and Right wing Libertarians, not his statement that anarcho-capitalism nevertheless has a place in the spectrum of anarchism. Also theres the quotation from Colin Ward thats quite wrong further down the text. The point of using sources rather than own perceptions are that maybe (and quite possibly) theres alot of people more trained for doing scholarly work than people in this forum. If theres a problem with having a Communism section it should be that its impossible to quote from anarchists through history a criticism of communism, but its not, its essential! --Fjulle 12:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Taking a break

I'm taking a break from these articles. There is far too much sock puppetry going on. Those involved might find it amusing, for whatever reason, or might believe that they're spreading the Truth, but it's actually quite silly. I've never understood why so many evangelicals were attracted to Wikipedia, as if people came to Wikipedia to do scholarly research, rather than the leisurely perusal of articles for their own enjoyment. But, people are strange. I had my fun with this article, but I feel no need to engage in the kinds of games that some people here, and their sock puppets, seem so fond of. Engaging in arguments for the sake of argument, or to keep track of points, and engaging in hot-headed Internet disputes, are two things that I grew out of at the end of high school. --AaronS 19:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

In your break, you might want to leaf through the stuff about personal attacks and assuming good faith. MrVoluntarist 19:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Snark, snark, snark. So full of venom. Get a life, child. Is that what you're talking about? --AaronS 19:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Aaron, please. MrVoluntarist 19:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I hope I don't find you peeping in the window at me one of these days. Your obsession with me, although flattering, is a bit creepy at times. I can't believe that, after all of these years, you still haven't gotten over my intellectual lambasting of you on ASC. I mean, really, I was in high school at the time -- it couldn't have been that bad. --AaronS 19:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of sockpuppetry, is Blockaddr taking a break too? DTC 19:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm done too, but I am certianly no ones sock puppet. If these ancaps want to POV push on here than so be it. They are just sad that they don't have a real movement or extant community. It really makes me sad but after Intangible threatened me with 3RR despite his cronies having violated the same rule ten-fold in the same time span (i assume he didn't threaten them) I really don't think i care to associate with certian people editing this page. Luckily, we have a powerful and diverse collective in Atlanta that will continue to do real and important work from a multitude of anarchist perspectives. I'm gonna go make some whiskey now, Blockader 19:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Good luck reversing the ever progressing trend toward complete global capitalism. And please have a drink on me. DTC 19:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

DTC, respect WP:AGF, WP:CIV and WP:NPA, please. --Marinus 03:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

LOL. Yes, my adorable little acolyte. And you're quite right, Blockader and I are sock puppets. I commute to Boston from Atlanta every day. It's a beautiful drive. --AaronS 19:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Lopsided article

Now now, children, play nice. Not to be rude but this is one of the most lopsided articles I've seen yet on Wikipedia. Absolutely leaning so far over to one side it may topple over onto the article directly to the left of it. Maybe we could clean it up by balancing it out a bit. Whiskey Rebellion 04:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Lopsided in what fashion? It's actually pretty good - certainly worth keeping/salvaging --Marinus 05:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Just a note, although I'm technically taking a break, I am sticking around for sock puppet patrol *cough*thewolfstar*cough*. --AaronS 13:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Marinus, this article is certainly worth keeping. I was not implying otherwise. Please know this. It just seems like there is so much Russian and European and not so much of Africa, South America or North America. Whiskey Rebellion 23:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, the Latin-American gap especially is a major shortcoming, but I think that we should try to devolve articles - Anarchism in the United States is an example of the application of a theory being removed from a discussion of the theory (and a fine article, barring the usual AnCap vandalism) --Marinus 00:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey Aaron, I see you've come down with a cough too! How surprising. *cough*sockpuppet*cough*[1] Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 23:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by AnCap vandalism, Marinus? Do you mean AnCaps vandalised this article? Whiskey Rebellion 02:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Pretty aggressive and conscious POV massaging - vandalism, in my books. Usually done by ill-lettered young men who badly slight the AnCap movement by their presence and unwillingness to have another POV exist. --Marinus 05:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey, everybody, I have an idea. Let's have a section on Thomas Jefferson. --AaronS 03:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Hows Thomas Jefferson got anything to do directly with anarchisme? I dont know, and i dont know much about him. Do you have some kind of source?--Fjulle 19:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

It was a joke. --AaronS 13:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay :) I dont know anyting about him anyways --Fjulle 11:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Changes

Would it be too much to ask that moving sections around be done in a separate edit from content changes? 68.98.158.194 04:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Considering that this is a controversial article, and that you show some knowledge of what's going on behind the scenes, could you care to log on? Anonymous edits are suspicious. If you can study the talk page it won't be too much trouble to create an account, would it? --Marinus 05:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Something I've been meaning to bring up

Many scholars have identified anarcho-capitalism as a form of individualist anarchism [...] Er, aren't there a lot of scholars who also say it isn't a form of anarchism? I don't happen to have a long list at this point, but perhaps we should do the same thing and have references for anarchists and scholars who refute it's place within anarchism. Someone willing to work on that? Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 08:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

There are just as many scholars who say that communist anarchism is not a type of anarchism. It's a downright contradiction in terms. And yet the dominant pov in this article is communist and collectivist. It's really a shame to destroy a wonderful concept like anarchism by confusing it with communism. Is there some reason for this domination and control? Whiskey Rebellion 09:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Is there some reason why you refuse to just stop coming back? We all know your a sock. Anyways, seeing as encarta seems to think anarcho-communism is a form of anarchism and devotes a lot of their article on anarchism to it, I think it's safe to say it's a recognized form of anarchism by neutral sources. The online American Encarta doesn't mention an-cap in the anarchism page, and the three page long online UK encarta gives it one sentence. You clearly have the minority viewpoint that few people will agree with (and just because you can create a bunch of sockpuppets doesn't solve that). Stop wasting our time. And I find it ironic that you supposedly like Woody Guthrie, you know he's a socialist, right? Sorta like how you really liked the socialist George Orwell? [2]. Let me guess, you don't buy that Guthrie was a socialist, huh? Oh, and I know that that was your bush/hitler image. I don't have to like you to like the image. Now go get yourself blocked already so we can continue working on this page without a bunch of sockpuppets. Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 09:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Was that long and considerably nasty rant directed at me, The Ungovernable Force? First, I don't have any idea what you are talking about. Second, I don't have any idea what you are talking about. Third, you should work on your anger and the way you attack people. You call me a sock. I've been called all sorts of things, but a sock wasn't one of them. Perhaps you are a set of drawers or an old sweatshirt. I'm wasting your time? Apologies for that! I know that Woody Guthrie was a socialist and what has that got to do with anything? And how did George Orwell get into the picture? I didn't edit the George Orwell article. What 'bush/hitler image' are you talking about? The Ungovernable Force, could it be that you are losing your grip on reality? Please don't attack me like this again. I have read the policies and personal attacks are expressly forbidden. Maybe you need to take a break from wiki for a while and then come back. Then you could possibly learn to talk to people with more civility. Please be nice. Thank you. Whiskey Rebellion 18:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, you're a brand new user who has never once been banned from wikipedia before. I guess it's just a coincidence that you have the exact same pov as that person, and seem to have all the characteristics of that user. My bad, I guess I should have just given you the benefit of the doubt. I mean, I almost put this template on your talk page. I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings new user. Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 21:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Whiskey may be a sockpuppet or he may not. I have no clue. But lets not assume that everyone that is pro-anarcho-capitalism or anti-communism is a sockpuppet. I have my suspects of anti anarcho-capitalists editors here that are sockpuppets. DTC 21:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

There are many anarcho-capitalist editors who many of us get along quite well with. I only accuse people who act like sock puppets of being sock puppets. Namely, you, That's Hot, and Thewolfstar, here. Hi, guys. --AaronS 23:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Why is (almost) everybody, (almost) all the time, talking more about who is or who is not a sockpuppet? Its almost always the same problem when people stop arguing reasonable in exchange for pointing out why you shouldnt trust one or the other. When its this far out, its allready to far out. You cannot save a discussion going against fallacies, when it first happens you might as well stop arguing.

What about a strategy which is more coherent than all this voting about this or that, meaning you really cant vote when anybody can make a alias on a different IP adress or behind a proxy and vote twice or thrice og whatever. What about fx getting somebody from the outside of the contest to look through the arguments and the sources? After all the majority might just as well be wrong as the minority, especially when it comes to pointing out why you cant trust someone or the other.--Fjulle 19:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that claims about sockpuppets are strategic. If you don't like what someone puts in an article, you claim he's a sockpuppet, hope others believe you, and agree with you that since he's a sockpuppet the information he put in the article should be deleted. It's kind of a shady way to play the game. It shouldn't matter whether anyone is a sockpuppet. Don't blame the messenger. The information stands on its own merit. DTC 01:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Most of us, who edit Wikipedia for fun and not to foment a revolution of pimply-faced libertarians, don't treat it like a competition, so strategy isn't really necessary. Regardless, as I and others have already pointed out, there are many self-avowed anarcho-capitalists who are great editors, and who have not had trouble editing this article. There is no "game" for most of us. We have real lives with real and much more interesting games. Calm down your inflammatory rhetoric; all this talk of conspiracy is just plain silly. --AaronS 02:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe i havnt described what i meant with a strategy well enough. I didnt mean that some people has a strategy concerning content changes, i meant that there doesnt seem to be one that doing the job. What would make sure this article would not be a POV playground? I think that voting is meaningless (as i wrote above), and that fx this whole anarcho-capitalist discussion should get outside comments to help clear it up. Before that should happen i guess theres a need of going through different scholars perspectives, as thats something which is rarely done throughout this article. I know for a fact that fx Colin Ward is being misrepressented in this discussion and in the article about anarcho-capitalism. Ive wrote several quotes from his Anarchism (AVSI) which could contribute to this discussion, and also ive stated that a quote from him in this discussion i quite wrong. --Fjulle 13:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I was responding to DTC, not you. But I would be interested in hearing what you have to say. --AaronS 13:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Are there a list with sources coming out of this whole situation about anarcho-capitalism? --Fjulle 11:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Communism section

Kill with fire. Neutral scholarly sources always recognize anarcho-communism as a form of anarchism. This is an extreme minority viewpoint. Besides, you guys keep saying that since neutral scholars say an-cap is anarcho capitalism, it should stay in, and you keep getting rid of the fact that most collectivists dispute it's place. How is this different (other than the fact that it's a minority view point, which gives it even less of a reason to be here)? Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 20:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see anybody getting rid of the fact that collectivist anarchists dispute that it's a form of anarchism? It's right there in the Capitalism section under the Communism section. DTC 20:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't notice that, but it keeps getting removed from the anarcho-capitalism section. Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 20:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Further, the fact that "communism" keeps being placed above capitalism in the issues section is ridiculous. far more scholars/anarchists dispute ancap than ancom. even if it were alphabetical it would still be after ancap. blatant POV pushing if you ask me. thats why i keep removing it. Blockader 23:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Ungovernable Force said, "Neutral scholarly sources always recognize anarcho-communism as a form of anarchism. ". Which neutral sources say this? Can you list some of them here? Thanks. Whiskey Rebellion 23:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I've read several (probably between 4 and 6) encyclopedia articles on anarchism (including an in depth political philosphies encyclopedia) and they all give a lot of consideration of anarcho-communism. The online US encarta article even says that anarchism is "basically anticapitalist". The online UK encarta article has a long section on anarcho-communism and has one sentence on an-cap within the Indiv anarch section, and that one sentence makes it sound like it might not really be anarchism. Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 23:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for answering my question. I have some thoughts on these answers, however, too. One thing is that encyclopedias are not the only source of information. And another thing. How come you refer to Encarta? Encarta is product of Microsoft. Microsoft is a huge corporation. And Microsoft is a very big supporter of George W. Bush. From your page, (I looked, please forgive me if impertinent), you don't like Bush. I don't understand. Why would you look to Encarta and Microsoft for information about anything never mind anarchism? Most likely they hate and fear anarchism. Whiskey Rebellion 00:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Jesus Christ Allmighty. Are you trying to get into WP:BJAODN. (I'm pretty sure I broke a WP policy somewhere with this comment, but bloody hell). I frankly don't think Encarta has enough agency to make stuff up. Why don't you find me a neutral source that gives half the coverage to AnCap that is given here, hmm? How about Encyclopedia Brittanica? Or Colliers, or Collins? Oh, wait, they don't... --Marinus 02:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Well, why would I look to what you say either, you hate and fear anarchism as well (since anarchism as far as I'm concerned requires the abolition of capitalism)? Encarta is viewed as a relatively neutral source, far more neutral than any you've presented. Of course, nothing is compeletely neutral, but most people would recognize an encyclopdedia as relatively neutral and scholarly. And of course they're not the only source of information. What do you want me to do, find something written by an anarchist? I could do that in an instant, but then you'd say "Oh, well they're a collectivist, of course they'd say that". This really isn't the issue though. The issue is that relatively neutral sources have always included anarcho-communism as a major part of anarchism. And I don't think Microsoft is a huge fan of the government considering all the trouble the courts have caused them (I could of course be wrong). This seems unimportant though. Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 02:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

You are ridiculous WhiskeyRebellion, or should i say Lingeron? When you are corrected based on facts you merely make insidious and inflammatory statements that make everyone here question your Good Faith. Blockader 16:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Archive40

I archived the talk page (at a mere 221kb) to Talk:Anarchism/Archive40. It seemed a good time to do so. --Marinus 03:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. FYI, I'm putting some of the more recent threads back on this page, since some of these issues may not be resolved. It's usually best to not archive a discussion that may still be active, and only archive the stuff that is higher up and long dead. Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 03:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

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

Now, Wikipedia is a consensus based operation. We need to work towards an agreement. There are a number of us (through the years) who are unenthusiastic about anarcho-capitalism's status within this article. We consider an-cap to be a fringe movement, as the overwhelming weight of the anarchist tradition shows. I myself believe that to believe anarchism can be non-socialistic shows a lack of knowledge of and appreciation for history - "anarchism" was synonymous with "socialism" up until one K Marx changed the rules relatively recently in political history. But that is my view - Wikipedia isn't my soapbox, nor is it for those who believe that the anarcho-capitalist movement is of (at least) equal bearing to the centuries of social anarchism (with its revolutions, mass movements and people for whom martyrism was more extreme than lacking a university tenancy). But, most importantly, Wikipedia is not Speaker's Corner - no arguments as to the merits of philosophies will take place here. No pamphleteering, no attacks on opposing theories. Each movement shall have it's WPspace where the details of it can be expounded at length, including its differences with other theories. I am sick to my back teeth of the disruptive POV pushing of this one minority. The anarcho-capitalism page doesn't suffer the type of disruption and outright vandalism this one does - that's because the rest of the anarchist tradition are perfectly happy to keep our disputes to the proper channels (an-cap's place in the Anarchism portal and especially its treatment in this article). I want this to end, I want a meaningful standard to be set which certainly won't make all of us happy but will serve Wikipedia in its interest as a storehouse for knowledge which allows the reader to come to his own conclusions without our clear statement of the facts in hand. So I prupose:

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

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

Until we have reached some sort of agreement, I ask that edits be held at a minimum. I've tweaked the article into a format I believe is provisionally broadly acceptable to all parties, except people who love quotefarming.

Sincerely yours, --Marinus 03:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

First off, thank you for taking the time to think up and, more importantly, lay-out a plan. Although I disagree that they should be given space merely because they are here on wikipedia, I do agree with your proposal. It is fair and balanced (lol, am I the only one who is thinking about Faux News?). I agree that including a section on why anarchists dislike state socialism/communism is a good idea--my main problem with the communism section was that it was clearly pushing a minority view within anarchism that doesn't have much place (as you agree). I also don't care if an-cap is placed in the schools, but it has to be very, very, very, very clear that most anarchists reject it's claim of being a form of anarchism, and as I stated above, we should find more neutral scholarly sources that also dispute it's place within the tradition, and make a big long reference like they did. And actually, the one small thing I might disagree with, is that it be given a section on par with American indiv anarchism. I think it should be a sub-sub-section of the American indiv anarchism sub-section. Other than that, great proposal. I back it 100%. Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 04:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

It can't be very clear? It must be very, very, very, clear? I don't think it's even a little clear. Whiskey Rebellion 04:37, 19 August 2006 (UTC) Oh, sorry, I forgot the last very. It has to be very, very, very, very clear. Whiskey Rebellion 04:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it must be very, very, very, very clear. Possibly even very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very clear. Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 04:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly. --Marinus 03:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Lol. (o) _ (o) Whiskey Rebellion 06:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Can I interpret your silence on the actual issues as consent to this proposal? Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 06:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Bunchofgrapes suggested that I stay away from this article because of all the controversy, but in all politeness I suppose I must answer. I don't care for it at all. It's still the same attitude that is reflected in the article itself. This was just stated by the proposer (Marianus, I think), that anarchism is socialism except that it isn't state socialism or something to that effect. I don't agree to that. The an-caps don't agree to that. The individualists don't agree to that. I don't think that giving the anti-communist anarchists a piddly little bit somewhere is fair at all. I'm sorry. This is how I feel. I'm not a capitalist or a communist anarchist and don't put any qualifications on my brand of anarchy. Anarchism or the concept of it has been around for a long, long time. Since the Greeks came up with it. It came long before the concept of socialism came. History shows, if anything, that freedom cannot exist with any sort of pressure from any authority, corporate or communist. On the other hand there have been other types of anrachy like in the U.S. or Africa that are barely mentioned here. As long as a group of editors hold control of the editing of anarchism nothing will ever change. Policy says not to do this. I just read it yesterday. Whiskey Rebellion 07:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

First, when did the Greeks come up with Anarchism? I ask in all seriousness because i have never heard that claim before. The word root may be greek but i thought that was a later development. Second, my problem with the "communism" section is that it references anarcho-communism as much as it references state communism, which are entirely different. "Some individualist anarchists, especially in the American tradition, have historically denied that anarcho-communism can be truly anarchistic. They believe that it is inherenrly authoritarian by submitting the individual to the authority of the community. Proudhon opposed the state-socialist Louis Blanc for these reasons; other notable exponents of this view are Benjamin Tucker as well as the anarcho-capitalists." What does Proudhon's rejection of a state socialist have to do with ancom? I would agree to this compromise though I don't think these ancaps will ever be satisfied till the entire idea of anarchism is coopted for their own purposes. I truly believe that a balanced portrayal of historical and contemporary anarchism would include ancap in the issues section but i guess balanced portrayal is too much to hope for here. Blockader 16:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I put in the reference to Proudhon, and I did so out of fairness: Proudhon was very, very suspicious of communism, and while the movement (the Blancists, who were an important movement till Marxism swallowed all state-socialists up whole) was state-socialist (and Proudhon had more than one problem with them) the language he uses doesn't differentiate between state-socialism and communism as an an-com would describe it. I think the book I read this in was (Richard Vernon's?) The Life and Thought of PJ Proudhon, but that was some years ago. The Anarchist FAQ also mentions this fact. --Marinus 03:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The fact that the word root is Greek points to the ancient concept of it. If people invented the word than the thoughts were present. There is a reference to Christian anarchism which shows that anarchist Christians believe that Jesus was an anarchist, and in the origins section it says something about Taoism, which is older yet than Christianity. I agree that the concept of anarchist communism is different than state communism. Obviously there is a difference between state capitalism and anarchist capitalism. It's looking more and more to me that this confusion from both sides is where the problem lies. I don't see the ancaps or individualists asking for anything more than an equal representation in this article. That equal representation is what is being denied. Then there is another thing that is not being allowed in here: The accurate history and development of anarchism. Freedom as a reality -- not just a concept -- began in the United States. The early U.S. anarchists and rebels are crucial to anarchism as a whole. Their beliefs and their bravery speak for themselves. And yet, astoundingly, they are not even mentioned in this article!!! I would love to see a balanced representation. Has that been suggested? If so that would be great.

Whiskey Rebellion

17:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, Lingeron. The problem with equal representation is that historically and contemporarily, anarchist movements and ideas as well as anarchists themselves have almost overwhelmingly been anti-capitalist. If you don't understand this then you do not have a clear picture of history/reality. I believe your concept of "balanced" is more than slightly skewed. Did the Greeks invent the word anarchism? I honestly thought that some scholar termed the phrase long after the fall of Hellinic civilization due to the fact that Greek and Latin were the primiry languages of scholars until last century. I don't know though. Lingeron, did freedom begin in the United States for slaves? For black people until 40 years ago? For American Indians? For women? Whose freedom are you referring to? If you are going to look at anarchism in a society then there are plenty of indigenous/aboriginal ones that come far closer to actual anarchist tenants then the United States.Blockader 18:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

That's actually tenets, if anybody cares. EbonyTotem 22:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Marinus' suggestion sounds good to me. DTC 20:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

What happened to "Only minor edits"? Also, if you are going to cut and paste from an older version, make sure that the result is still readable. Especially if that version is objectionable. --Marinus 03:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

My question refers to your edits on "Communism" in the "Issues in Anarchism" section.

Not sure what your complaint is. You changed the line that was sourced, but what you changed it to the source didn't say. The source said Proudhon opposed both state communism and utopian communism. ALso, you also said that the individualist anarchists opposed state communism but the sources were about them denying that anarcho-communism was a true form of anarchism. DTC 01:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The 'anarcho'-capitalism section under individualist anarchism doesn't mention the fact that it is usually not seen as anarchist, so I'm going to add this sentence: "Anarcho-capitalism, however, is not viewed as an anarchist philosophy by the majority of anarchists." I think that's fair, no? Also, as for the argument above, there are many words that are based on Greek words that weren't invented by the Greeks - take television, for example. 'Tele', meaning far, is added to vision. Yet the word only came about in the last century. Collins' Dictionary gives the etymology of anarchy as "16th Century: from Mediaeval Latin, from Greek, from 'anarkhos' without a ruler, from AN- (without) + 'arkh-' leader, from 'arkhein' to rule." So the word first came into being somewhere between 1500 and 1599, not in the time of the Greeks or Jesus. And, in its first published form (that I know of), 'An Enquiry Concerning Political Justice' by William Godwin, tends toward a socialist-style viewpoint. So the first anarchists (and, oh, 95% or more since then), was socialist/non-capitalist. Supersheep 11:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I think Godwin is considered closer to individualist anarchism. Godwin said "everything understood by the term co-operation is in some sense an evil." Yes Godwin opposed capitalism but he would also oppose mutualism and the anarchism of the American individualist anarchists if it was around in his time, because he was against markets altogether. He was also against communism because he supported private property. DTC 01:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but the early individualists were still socialists. Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 04:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

DTC, have a look at Book 8, Chapter 3 of Political Justice. It seems to me (admittedly from a brief reading) that he is opposed to the then current system of property holding and unequal distribution of property. While he obviously is no Communist, there are certain socialist undertones there. Also, someone reverted out my edits to the an-cap section, including the grammar changes. Please comment on the talk page if you are going to do this, and give a reason. If it's a source thing, say so, and I'll include a source for the Anarchist FAQ; here's the link now, as a matter of fact: http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secFcon.html. Of course, seeing as both edits were by IP addresses and not users, I doubt there will be anything here, but I shall add it again. Supersheep 07:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

infoshop.org's Anarchist FAQ is not an reliable source, it is highly pov propaganda written by socialist, please provide an reliable scholarly source, or i'll revert again.203.84.69.69 09:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually Plato uses the concept you might use the word anarchy as a name for in his discussion of the four types of degenerate states (degenerate compered to his utopia). This is taken from "The Classical Mind" written by W.T.Jones and stands like this: "These then, and such as these, are the features of a democracy, an agreeable form of anarchy with plenty of variety and an equality of a peculiar kind for equals and unequals alike. ...". Maybe what youre talking about is the english word anarchy compared to the greek anarkhos. I would say its to words, one concept, and the concept was used as well as the greek word who names it, also by others than Plato in the old greek city states. Ill go check my sources for that last statement, but iam worried its only available in danish without me looking away from my own books, so it might take some time. --Fjulle 08:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

An English dictionary is going to cite the first year it can find a word being used in English. Nobody's claiming that the English word anarchy is a different word from the French anarchie or the Latin anarchia or the Greek αναρχία. It's all the same word, and it goes back to ancient Greek. The words anarchist and anarchism are different from the word anarchy, were created more recently, and were not used with a connotation of approval, to describe anything positive, until the early 19th century, a few years after the word socialism was created. The assertion, “Anarchism or the concept of it has been around for a long, long time. Since the Greeks came up with it. It came long before the concept of socialism came,” is false. EbonyTotem 10:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually i was responding to the statement made by Supersheep not Whiskey Rebellion. Next time ill make sure its explicit which statement iam refering to. My point was that anarkhos isnt an word like television thats later been put together. On top of that Antiphon also used the term (http://www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Antiphon.html). --Fjulle 13:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Apologies. I was referring to the word anarchy in its technical sense - that is, political or philosophical anarchy - rather than the common sense - chaos, disorder, and so on - which I think is better translated as anomie. As far as I know, the Greek philosophers used the word in the latter sense, whereas the former is what we are talking about here. Supersheep 12:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Its seems like you might be right. The wikipedia article about this states that anarchy shouldnt be used as an synonym for (a non-individual) anomie today, whereas the old greeks plainly used it as something going against the current law(s). But then again Plato used it concerning democracy which where law in Athens at his time. Perhaps Plato didnt think of democracy as a state of law(s). --Fjulle 11:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Plato didn't like democracy one bit, because democracy was what got his precious Socrates killed. Plato's ideas for a state in the Republic would be best described as palaeo-fascist - hierarchical and straified, a measure of eugenics, and militaristic/mystical. Supersheep 12:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Questions?

Is the Catholic Workers Movement actually anarchist? It wasn't clear from their site but i don't know much about them otherwise.

Shouldn't there be some mention of the IWW in the anarcho-syndicalism section? While the group is not explicitly/officially an-synd, many or most of its members have been and are.

Maybe a short section on anarchism without adjectives? Don't know where it would go though or i would just write it and cite de cleyre.

Thats it. Blockader 18:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC) [] Error: {{Lang}}: no text (help)

Is everybody in agreement? I'll leave another week for comment, then we can move to make this suggestion "policy" for this article. --Marinus 02:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Last chance to comment - tomorrow, barring any major disagreement, I'll go through the article and make it fit the consensus described above. --GoodIntentions^talk 06:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Blockader's comments

Blockader said, "Lingeron, did freedom begin in the United States for slaves? For black people until 40 years ago? For American Indians? For women? Whose freedom are you referring to? If you are going to look at anarchism in a society then there are plenty of indigenous/aboriginal ones that come far closer to actual anarchist tenants then the United States."

I don't know what Lingeron means. Is that a Wikipedia term that I need to learn? As for the rest. NO. There was and still is no freedom for American Indians. As horrendous as this is, there probably never will be. Not in this plain of reality anyway. I don't personally believe there is freedom for blacks yet as I don't believe in the phony tricks our (US) government pulls. The prison industrial complex is testimony to this. Europe, the Dutch, French, etc, engaged heavily in the slave trade and slavery can be traced to the middle east, so what's your point on slavery? Women fought hard for equal rights and gained many of them. This is still a world run by filthy rich white men. (The whole world is run like this, not just the U.S.) At the same time, the American Revolution, though in many ways was a Bourguois revolution, was also fought by and for regular poor men who were royally pissed when they were badly abused by the very same wealthy (bastards) who promised them freedom. There was a second American revolution. There were also many actual statesmen who backed up and supported the rights of the every day schmuck like you and me. The American revolution was an unheard of event at the time. And although things were far from perfect a seed of freedom was planted, both here, and all over the world. Among other things, Blockader, you who accuse me of not understanding history, you might check this out:

"The Society for the Relief of Free Negroes Unlawfully Held in Bondage was the first American abolition society, formed April 14, 1775, in Philadelphia, primarily by Quakers who had a strong religious objection. It ceased to operate during the Revolution and the British occupation of Philadelphia; it was reorganized in 1784, with Benjamin Franklin as first president[4]. Benjamin Rush was a leader, as were many Quakers. African Slavery in America was one of the earliest calls for abolition; it appeared in the Pennsylvania Magazine and some scholars believe Thomas Paine wrote it." Abolitionism#Abolitionism_in_United_States Abolitionism#Notable_opponents_of_slavery

I do understand history. It is perhaps you who does not understand it. Please don't insult me. Thank you.

Whiskey Rebellion

21:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read Kropotkin's Mutual Aid and not respond to people highlighting questionable things in what you say with ill-informed baiting. Assume good faith, after all. --Marinus 03:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me? Ill-formed baiting? I believe it was Blockader who was doing the baiting and again, don't insult me and call what I say "ill-informed." I was told that I didn't understand history. Perhaps you should read American history. I tell you what. I'll read Kropotkin's Mutual Aid if you read some American history. Specifically, some American history that wasn't written by a communist. Yes and thanks for the suggestion of assuming good faith. You might do that also.

Why not just respond to what I say rather than trying to skirt around the issue with what actually is baiting?

Whiskey Rebellion

13:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea why you are ranting like you are and I wish you'd stop. I don't see an issue to address. --Marinus 02:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalism and individualist anarchism

DTC/RJII, you can't just delete my references and then claim that there is a consensus among academics as to whether or not anarcho-capitalism is a form of individualist anarchism. Scholars, as well as anarchists, disagree. As such, this article should not present the matter as if there is a consensus, and anarcho-capitalism certainly does not belong in the individualist anarchism section. It belongs under the issues section because, well, it's an issue in anarchism. Namely, the issue is: can anarcho-capitalism be considered anarchist; if so, is it a part of the anarchist tradition? To pretend that there is no debate surrounding these questions is quite preposterous. Further, simply reverting my edits (and deleting relevant information that had nothing to do with moving the section) without any discussion is childish, counterproductive, and disruptive. There's no point to it, because your reverts will simply be reverted back in due time. In the end, what we are presented with is a silly edit war, or game, that has really lost its novelty for most of us. While I understand that edit warring was one of RJII's preferred methods of editing (he said so himself), a great many of us do not consider Wikipedia to be a battleground. --AaronS 16:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC) For the time being, I've tagged the section with a {{POV-section}} tag for the above reasons. --AaronS 16:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

There is little debate among scholars on the matter. The consensus of scholars agree that it is one of several forms of anarchism. The story is different among anarchists because a large number of anarchists are opposed to capitalism, but even then they are defining capitalism in terms of a state. They think capitalism and the state are inseperable. So that really isnt even a criticism of anarcho-capitalism. Anarcho-capitalism is not capitalism as most anti-capitalist anarchists define it. With that said though, I have no problem with you mentioning that anarcho-communists say that ancap is not a form of anarchism. BUt scholarly opinion in what matters the most, and most scholars say that it is. DTC 17:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Most scholars don't have an opinion of the matter, because they do not even mention anarcho-capitalism in their assessment of anarchism, or only mention it as a side note. Those who do disagree. There is no consensus. --AaronS 17:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Not true at all. Any scholarly overview of anarchism mentions anarcho-capitalism. Of course you're not going to find it mentioned in much in texts written prior to say 1975 because it was still very new then. DTC 17:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Tosh and double-tosh. Cease and desist your POV malarky with all due speed. Please. --Marinus 02:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I Quote from Colin Ward's Anarchism, A Very Short Introduction, Oxford: "Some time later, in the 1970s, a series of books, from academics rather than activists, proclaimed a different style of American libetarianism. They where Robert Paul Wolff's In Defence of Anarchism; Robbert Nozick's Anarchy, State and Utopia; David Friedman's The Machinery of Freedom; and Murray Rothbard's For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto. This Phalanx of authors have provided the 'ideological superstructure' of the swing to the Right in federal and local politics in the United States, and in British politics for the aim of 'rolling back the frontiers of the State', which was actually a cloak for increased subservience to central decision-making." I would say that he gives, also beyound the quote, a fair picture of what is called anarcho-capitalism, but only within four pages of the 98 page introduction. With regard to the anarchist Left's critique of these academics he writes: "The libertarians of the Right have, nevertheless, a function in the spectrum of anarchist discussion. Every anarchist propagandist finds that the audience or readership is perplexed by the very idea that it might be possible to organize human life without government. That is why Kropotkin, as a libertarian of the Left, as we saw in Chapter 3, insisted that anarchist propagandists should identidy new forms of organization for those functions that the state noew fullfills through bureaucracy.". He gives his account of these libertarians of the right in his Chapter 7 called "The individualist response", and it seems to me that what these academics where trying to protect from government first and foremost where individual property, and because of this it is fitting to put an account of anarcho-capitalism in an individualist section. --Fjulle 16:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC) BTW This book was first published in 2004 --Fjulle 17:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Any reason why all of my changes to the section on anarcho-capitalism were removed in a manner that made it seem as if there were a consensus amongst scholars on the matter? Probably not. I'll stick them back in. --AaronS 13:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Please verify source

It says at the end of the anarcho-capitalism section: "It is not, however, viewed as an anarchist philosophy by the majority of anarchists, with anarcho-capitalists differing from individualist anarchists in the latter's strong mistrust of capitalism and advocacy for mutualism." The source given is "Colin Ward. Anarchism: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2004". Where in that does it say that? What is the quote? DTC 17:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The quote is:

"[Murray Rothbard is] the most aware of the actual anarchist tradition among the anarcho-capitalist apologists... [he is] aware of a tradition, but he is singularly unaware of the old proverb that freedom for the pike means death for the minnow... [individualist anarchists] differed from free-market liberals in their absolute mistrust of American capitalism, and in their emphasis on mutualism... [and were] busy social inventors exploring the potential of autonomy[, whereas] American 'libertarians'... inventiveness seems to be limited to providing an ideology for untrammelled market capitalism."

-AaronS 17:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

So "[individualist anarchists]" was put there by you? What does the author actually put there? DTC 18:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

"Bogey men." Seriously, though, I'll have to get my hands on the book, again. In the meantime, you'll just have to assume that I'm not one of the spooks. --AaronS 13:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Read it yourself and find out - it's easily verifiable. I can give you a dozen references that say the same thing, but you dismiss them all as POV because it was written by socialists. Almost all anarchists are socialists, which you deny because you don't think it's sourced, and you reject almost all sources on anarchism because it's written by socialists? Not very clear-thinking, if you ask me.--Marinus 02:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

If you think that's my position, then you're wrong. I welcome sources from socialists. In fact, several of the sources I presented saying that anarcho-capitalism is a form of individualist anarchism are from anti-capitalists. What I have a problem with it sourcing the famous anarchists themselves, unless they're writing in a scholarly context. For instance, Murray Rothbard shouldn't be accepted as a source for the article claiming that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism. Likewise, Benjamin Tucker shouldn't be accepted as a source for the article claiming that anarcho-communism is not a true form of anarchism. If a credentialed scholar just happens to be an anti-capitalist, I have no problem with using him as a source. I provided Ulrike Heider as a source who says "as much as I am opposed to anarcho-capitalism.."; he is able to be objective and says that anarcho-capitalism is a modern form of individualist anarchism. An anti-capitalist scholar saying that, I think, holds more wait than would a pro-capitalist scholar. If there are anti-capitalist scholars that say ancap is not anarchism, great. Add them to the article. But, of course, it might hold more weight if you found a pro-capitalist scholar that said it's not a form of anarchism. I supply and welcome scholarly sources from anti and pro capitalists. DTC 02:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

He is also just one source, one you are privileging. You can find 20 sources that agree with him, I can find 200 that don't. I can also, and this is critical, quote the majority consensus opinion amongst the community of practicing anarchists, which, BTW, this article is supposed to represent. You have at times explicitely revealed your POV imbalance, in talk pages and (heaven forbid) inside the articles itself - I don't particularily care for what you consider POV. --Marinus 02:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course you can quote the majority opinion from anarchists on what they think, if you can survey them all. But, you can't use the opinion from anarchists on whether a particular form of anarchism is true anarchism or not. You see, the majority of anarchists have no scholarly credibility. They're just people on street, or on the internet. Sources has to be reliable. This opinions presented in this article should not be held hostage to the POV of any particular set of anarchists, but to scholarly opinion. It is Wikipedia policy. DTC 02:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

While scholars, removed from the tradition (and, of course, without any personal politics at all) have their eyes open to the way things are? Are you privy to some revealed truth hidden from those who have studied the matter the closest? And if you say that Kropotkin or Bookchin or Chomsky have no scholarly credibility, you are obviously a twit. --Marinus 03:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

If they're writing in a scholarly context of course Kropotkin and others can be cited as seconday sources. For example, Kropotkin wrote the Anarchism entry for the 1911 Enclopedia Britannica. The antiquity of it presents some problems though. DTC 03:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

And Wikipedia is here exactly to give the majority opinion, not the opinion of the majority of people you like. --Marinus 03:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

No Wikipedia is not here to give the majority opinion. You don't understand Wikipedia if you think that. It is here to give the majority opinion of reliable sources. DTC 03:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

And your concept of a reliable source is POV. Instead of trying to strike opposing opinions from the map (and again I beg of you to work to agreement - I'm not trying to wipe an-cap from Wikipedia or even this article) we should attempt a clear, concise and neutral compilation of such views, as expressed by secondary sources. The Anarchist FAQ is an exemplary secondary source, but a polemic one. --Marinus 04:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

No, it is not a reliable sources. It is self-published and according to Wikipedia policy a self-published document is not a reliable sources. Anyone can self-publish and claim to be an expert on things. DTC 04:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It is also recognised as the source par excellence for anarchism by thousands upon thousands of anarchists. --Marinus 04:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I doubt it. Maybe it is, but that's not saying much. Wikipedia is not even a reliable source according to Wikipedia policy, but it's more reliable than that thing, becaues it has a policy against original research. Just because a bunch of people who use the internet and call themselves anarchists think the FAQ is a great source, doesn't mean a thing. It could very well just be dishing out B.S. to people who don't know any better. Or worse yet, written by those uneducated anarchists themselves. DTC 04:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

"I doubt it" - don't display your ignorance. You don't seem to show understanding of what I'm saying, and you treat the FAQ - something that has existed (and been criticised, verified and peer-reviewed) for many, many years, like a personal blog or a quick-fire pamphlet. Do a quick survey of practicing anarchists and tell me what they say to you regarding the FAQ. It's not only approved but pushed by Infoshop (that alone contradicts a number of your claims), as well as a plethora of anarchist movements, organisations, etc. It's even become an item of ridicule how slavishly many (especially new) anarchists follow the FAQ. --Marinus 04:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Peer reviewed by a bunch of uneducated self-proclaimed "anarchists" on the internet means nothing. It is not a reliable source. Stick to the policy if you want to work on Wikipedia. DTC 04:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Find me an anarchist who will reject the FAQ as a faulty representation of the field. Infoshop, one of the largest anarchist organisations online, advocates it. --Marinus 05:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

You still don't get it. It doesn't matter what some no-name anarchist says about anything. The only opinions that matter are those from reliable sources. From scholars. DTC 05:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

An_Anarchist_FAQ#Influence has something to say on the quality of the FAQ(citing sources) as well as saying that the FAQ has been accepted for publication. --Marinus 05:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so it has been given a little credibility from a couple published books or articles. And supposedly AK Press is going to publish it. That remains to be seen. Another problem with it is that it's liquid. It's always subject to change. Supposedly anyone with no qualifications can come along and put info in it. If you want, put it up for discussion in a Request for Comments. I doubt very much that the Wikipedia community would agree that it is a reliable source. I'll continue to challenge it. DTC 05:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The FAQ isn't a wiki, people don't come in and substantially change it. Instead a stable (and identified) community of editors handle new contributions. Also, stable versions exist (like those included with Debian distributions). Perhaps you can give me a reason, concidering the support that has been noted, why I shouldn't concider the FAQ as a source? Not unreservedly, of course, but give it enough credence to not wipe it off the map, like you want to do. --Marinus 06:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't written by professional researcher(s) writing with their field of expertise. The policy says that the exception to the rule against self-published sources is if "a professional researcher writing within his field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications, and they are writing under their own names, and not a pseudonym." DTC 06:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I should say, having read Ward's book, that it supports the view it references. It is also the view of (at least) the Encarta and Brittanica encyclopedia's, as well as historically the view of everybody worth mentioning in this regard that anarchism is essentially anti-capitalistic(except the an-caps).

Prove it. Provide a quote. The point is not whether most types of anarchism are opposed to capitalism. That's a given. We all know that. The point is whether anarcho-capitalism is a type of anarchism. Even if it's true that most anarchists are opposed to anarchism, that has nothing to do with whether anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism. DTC 05:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Edit this again substantially (and baselessly) changing the meaning of the article while we are busy discussing the point and I will move to have you banned as a disruptive POV pusher. --Marinus 04:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

You must be joking. You are the one doing most of the editing: [3] You say that you can edit but I can't? I'll edit whenever I want to edit. DTC 05:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Almost every one of my edits, as well as those of AaronS and tUF are to remove contentious content you introduce. We also do things like copyediting, improving style, maintaining references, all of which you gleefully ignore. And, as you know, to make a substantive edit to a section while we are discussing what the section should say is bad faith. --Marinus 05:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't introduce contentious content unless it's sourced. I also do copyediting, improving style, maintaining references. I'll edit the encyclopedia whenever I damn well please. You're editing it as well while we're discussing Don't hassle me for something you're doing yourself. DTC 05:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Our problem is exactly that you give undue weight to some sources and far too little to others (ie any that disagree with you). Anyway, I've got a newer version up, which keeps the meaning it had before this little altercation erupted, and addresses your concerns. Any problems? --Marinus 05:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

That is a completely untrue. I am open to any source that is reliable under Wikipedia policy. The problem is I have simply been providing more sources to show that it is a form of anarchism than you or anyone else has been providing to show that it is not. I think the reason for that is clear. Most scholars regard it as anarchism. In regard to what you just added, you are confusing "most anarchists" with most types of anarchism. Yes, anarcho-capitalism is the ONLY type of anarchism that supports capitalism. Why is that an issue? That's a given. You can't make a claim about what "most anarchists" think from the sources you're providing. Did someone conduct a poll of all anarchists? If not, can you at least find one reliable source that makes a claim about "most anarchists." DTC 05:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I gave you two: the Encarta and Brittanica encyclopaedic entries on the topic.

DTC, you violated WP:3RR, perhaps inadvertedly. Perhaps you'd like to correct your damage? --Marinus 05:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't violate the 3RR. I've been doing modifications, not reversions. DTC 06:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I recommend you read the policy on this - it's quite clear in that regard. You have reverted (through your edits) the section to a point before AaronS added a concrete statement concerning the contentiousness of an-cap being considered anarchistic. This also, might I add, goes against my proposal for this article that you gave your support to. --Marinus 06:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I know the policy and I didn't violate it. The source Aaron quoted did not say anything about "most anarchists." DTC 06:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

And I disagree with you on that regard. Well, both regards. And to prevent individuals single-handedly holding editing wars, WP:3RR exists, which you did violate, though it seems inadvertently. I'll ask again: will you repair your indiscretion? --Marinus 06:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't violate the 3RR. So, I'm not going to "repair" anything. You, on the other hand, have been edit warring and uncivil. DTC 06:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Strange. I thought I was trying to work towards an agreement. You have had some unreconciliable strange views, though, like trying to claim that despite making up one tenet of anarchism that an-caps are not in the minority of anarchists (if anybody can make that claim, it's anarcho-communism). But anyway. --Marinus 06:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Personally attacking someone by calling them a "twit" is not working toward an agreement. And condemning me for editing the article during a discussion while you're doing the same thing, is not working toward an agreement. I don't know if ancaps are the minority of anarchists. I think they're probably the majority in the United States. I'm not sure about other countries. So I don't want to make any claims who the majority is without reliable sources. But I intend to look for a source and I'll put one in when I find one. DTC 06:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Look, its all a simple matter of definitions. Anarchism is a philosophy that does and always has meant the opposition to hierarchical authority. This is the thing that unites all forms of anarchism, EXCEPT so called "anarcho-capitalism". Anarcho-capitalists oppose the government ruling the people, but ignore the hierarhical power relationship between a worker and a boss - the relationship of command and obedience that is the exact antithesis of anarchism i.e. the absence of rulers. Of course, the stock argument is that you can always change your job - which basically means, choose another ruler. We could reply by saying that you can always leave the country, so therefore if you don't like the government you have no right to oppose it, you should just leave the country - this is the logical conclusion of the anarcho-capitalists argument that dictatorial hierarchy is allright as long as it is "voluntary" i.e. you choose a boss rather than choosing to starve.

No sources are needed to prove that anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism. Anarchism does not mean you get to choose your ruler i.e. you can choose between bosses. It does not mean you choose your master, but that you have no master at all. First and foremost it is the opposition to hierarchical authority, which automatically disqualifies capitalism because capitalist workplaces are organised in a hierarchical fashion - with the boss giving orders and everyone else having to obey.

I agree with you in saying there isnt really any choice unless youre insane (eg. you would choose to starve), but you must understand this isnt a forum where people use arguments against eachother without looking to sources other than themselves. After all wikipedia is not here for one perspective, but for as many as there are ground for. Fx you might write: "John is anticapitalist and anarchist. John beleives anarchy and capitalism to be so far from eachother that they arent compatible." Well this is a perspective, and you might change John to anarcho-communist or whatever people holding that view. Also you could write that anarcho-capitalists consider anarchy and capitalisme compatible. Thats it, whats the big deal? You got both perspectives, then theres the arguments, write them also. The last thing about references or sources, as i see it, is that its a way of stating excactly who thinks what other then those who quotes them. What it takes to be an reliable source is a difficult question, but i think for starters lets use the guidelines those people who started this thinks the best (i havnt really read them all). If you think theres something wrong with them, state that (but this might not be the place to do this most efficiently). --Fjulle 00:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC) ps. What was it with somebody saying like "You can find 20 sources that agree with him, I can find 200 that don't" ... sound like somebody showing muscles! What about finding those 200 sources, that would be something!

Also i just took a look at the Anarchism (AVSI) by Colin Ward and the quote in the top of this discussion is quite wrong, as theres no line like this: "[individualist anarchists] differed from free-market liberals in their absolute mistrust of American capitalism, and in their emphasis on mutualism", between the line "[he is] aware of a tradition, but he is singularly unaware of the old proverb that freedom for the pike means death for the minnow" and "[and were] busy social inventors exploring the potential of autonomy[, whereas] American 'libertarians'". Its simply not there. Might be that its somewhere else, as i havnt memorized the whole book. If i find it ill quote it, but until then i think the best thing to do is not taking the quote into account at all. On top of that the whole quote is made up of pieces that is intimately connected with other pieces in the book which is not quoted at all. Fx this one "The libertarians of the Right have, nevertheless, a function in the spectrum of anarchist discussion. Every anarchist propagandist finds that the audience or readership is perplexed by the very idea that it might be possible to organize human life without government. That is why Kropotkin, as a libertarian of the Left, as we saw in Chapter 3, insisted that anarchist propagandists should identidy new forms of organization for those functions that the state noew fullfills through bureaucracy." This whole quote actually doesnt repressent what Colin Ward thinks as far as his book is concerned i would say. --Fjulle 00:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Style in this article

Keeping with Wikipedia's conception of good style, can we avoid he-says-she-says discussion inside the article? Claims and counterclaims and the like. We are here to provide clear, neutral, concise information as much as possible, not a blow-for-blow. I know that we're probably to a man political trainspotters, but Wikipedia isn't where we indulge in discussing the minutae of personal disagreements among theorists. Quotefarms are a definite no-no: they are not only ugly but also subtly influence the POV of the article. We should strive to not have a single quote in the article proper, especially not where there are a near-infinite number of opinions on anarchism, within the movement and without. Most of them are terrible. I'd also appreciate it if we can leave blatantly POV (and false) statements concerning consensus out of the article. Thanks --Marinus 02:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Could we also strike the use of the word "however" from this article? However hard that might be... --Marinus 04:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The Anarchist FAQ as a source

I myself consider the Anarchist FAQ (wrongly linked with Infoshop - they only host it, it's older than and independent from Infoshop) an excellent source - beautifully referenced, mind-bogglingly comprehensive, well-argued, even-handed, etc. It also, and this is of great importance, nicely documents the majority consensus opinion amongst anarchists. It isn't the work of a single expert but the collective creation of a group of practicing anarchists, with input from hundreds and the approval of thousands upon thousands of anarchists. Reasons we shouldn't just rewrite the core of the FAQ here are: (1)it's too long (2)it would deprive us of hours of delightful arguments (3) it is polemical (or, as we say on Wikipedia, POV). So I say editors should be welcome to use it as a reference without taking over the polemical tone (for instance, it wouldn't be very nice of us to mirror the FAQs view on anarcho-capitalism, which can be summarised as "kill with fire, salt the earth it stood on, burn effigies of it forever more, use as a bogeyman to scare generations of children into collective action") but we should feel welcome to refer to its quite impressive arguments (and reams of citations) when making statements in this article. Any disagreement? --Marinus 02:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Anyone can write a FAQ and claim to be an expert on anarchism. That's like a group of us getting together and writing a Anarchist FAQ and posting it on the web and then referencing it here. It would have no credibility. Wikipedia has a policy for reliable sources. DTC 02:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand how the Anarchist FAQ came about. I recommend you take a look at it, or even just my above comment, again. Your comment, I shouldn't need to say, is simply false, the first sentence a platitude, the second and third plainly false and the fourth a non-sequitor. --Marinus 02:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I know how it came about. People on the internet arguing over anarcho-capitalism. The managers of the FAQ transcribe the arguments from forums and such over to the FAQ and put their own two cents in. It's not valid as a reliable source at all. DTC 02:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Why not? It's referenced to the roof. I don't deny that it's polemic. I question your ability to evaluate evidence. --Marinus 03:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

First of all because it's not a reliable source according to policy. See WP:Reliable_sources. Secondly, the writer/editor(s) provide their own interpretations of the writings of anarchists. It might be a good place to go look for quotes from the writings of famous anarchists, but their interpretations of anarchist writings is not reliable. It just regular people on the internet who call themselves anarchists. What credibility does that give them? What qualifications to they have to interpret the sources? That's the reasoning behind the Wikipedia policy on reliable sources. DTC 03:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, I think it's a reliable source. I think it should be our primary source. The part which solidifies my faith in it is that it's factual views are independently held by other secondary sources (like every recognised encyclopaedic entry I've seen on the matter). Pray tell how it falls short? --Marinus 03:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It is not a reliable source. Reliable source is a matter of definition. Read the policy. If you think it has views held by reliable sources then why don't you use those sources? DTC 03:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I do. But it seems that you are able to raise an objection, but unable to qualify it. DTC, with every comment you make my patience for you decreases: if you are going to make accusations, you should be able to back them up. I do not see how the Anarchist FAQ fails as a reliable factual source. I ask you to explain it to me, you insist that it simply isn't and that I'm ignorant. Not very nice at all. Will you work towards an agreement? --Marinus 03:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

If you're losing your patience, that's not my problem. I gave you the link for the reliable source policy. Apparently you didn't read it. It says "A self-published source is a published source that has not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking, or where no one stands between the writer and the act of publication. It includes personal websites, and books published by vanity presses. Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. Exceptions to this may be when a well-known, professional researcher writing within his field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications, and they are writing under their own names, and not a pseudonym....Personal websites, blogs, and other self-published or vanity publications should not be used as secondary sources. That is, they should not be used as sources of information about a person or topic other than the owner of the website, or author of the book. The reason personal websites are not used as secondary sources — and as primary sources only with great caution and not as a sole source if the subject is controversial — is that they are usually created by unknown individuals who have no one checking their work. They may be uninformed, misled, pushing an agenda, sloppy, relying on rumor and suspicion, or even insane; or they may be intelligent, careful people sharing their knowledge with the world. Only with independent verification by other sources not holding the same POV is it possible to determine the difference..." DTC 03:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

You're calling the Anarchist FAQ a personal webpage? Unbelievable. The source policy makes allowance for online secondary sources, which it is. --Marinus 04:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm calling it a self-published document. The writer(s) publish it themselves, meaning they compile the document and circulate it. Self-published sources are not allowed as sources on Wikipedia. The only exception is "well-known, professional researcher writing within his field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications, and they are writing under their own names, and not a pseudonym." DTC 04:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

As you should well know, "self-published" refers to one-man-and-his-dog outfits, pamphlets and the like, not the collective effort of dozens with input from hudnreds, approved by thousands and thousands and offered by many, many organisations as a primer to a field. It passes all the conciderations for a reliable source - it isn't perfect, but it sure as hell is reliable. It backs up every claim, it has undergone extensive peer review amongst practicing anarchist (who it represents!). Your objections are silly. --Marinus 04:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

No, self-published does not mean one person. It means it was published by the writers. It wasn't submitted to an independent journal or publishing house who make the decision whether it's credible enough to be published. And "peer review" among "practicing anarchists" is useless if those practicing anarchist have no academic qualifications or esteemed reputation to interpret the work of famous anarchists. Wikipedia policy is very clear that it is not a reliable source. DTC 04:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

And allowance for such souces are made. It has been independently verified, unless you want to deny the same of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (published by Stanford). I'm also specifically excluding the interpretations, but want to use the FAQ as a comprehensive overview of primary sources, for which purpose it is sourced to high heaven, easily verifiable (and verified by everybody that matters).--Marinus 04:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

An article in a self-published The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy would be a reliable source if the writer of the article is known. The policy says, "Note that unsigned Encyclopædia Britannica, World Book, and Encarta articles are written by staff, who may not be experts, and the articles may therefore not have the same level of credibility, but they are regarded as reliable sources for Wikipedia's purposes." The policy makes an exception for the major encyclopedias but, as you can see, you should exercise caution if the article is unsigned. There are no exceptions for FAQ's. The Anachist FAQ is self-published and not permissible as a source on Wikipedia. DTC 05:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Does anybody else share DTC's view, or are they those of a vocal, disruptive minority? --Marinus 04:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems that most objections of DTC's has shown to have no real basis in reality: An Anarchist FAQ#Influence. --Marinus 05:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

According the WP:Reliable_sources the only exception for self-published sources is if "a well-known, professional researcher writing within his field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications, and they are writing under their own names, and not a pseudonym." Various junior anarchist from around the internet writing a FAQ is not well-known professional researchers. DTC 06:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, the Anarchist FAQ is ten years old, and has been edited by numerous anarchists. Secondly, the entirety of its arguments are based upon those of the famous anarchists. Thridly, and most importantly, the FAQ is being published as a book next year, by a reputable publisher. Therefore, it is obviously a proper book and its use as a source is obviously valid. Supersheep 12:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I personally disagree with using the "FAQ" as a major source. I have writen the authors and publishers of the "FAQ" numerous times with questions and corrections, and requests for sources (plenty of the accusations and assertions are unsourced) always to no avail. The fact that it is "respected" by plenty of dilitante college "anarchists" doesn't make it any more reputable than whatever pamphlet happens to be widely circulated currently. I, however, do recognize that it's a great resource for finding sources and quotations, however the actual FAQ itself should not be referenced as a reputable source because it's makes liberal (in degree, not political 'alignment') interpretations of the sources, and also fails to take into account sources which are contrary to the agenda of its authors and supporters. —Two-Bit Sprite 14:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you could give an example or two, because I have yet to come across any such examples in the FAQ? (Please do not interpret this as a personal attack - merely that I have only read part of the FAQ) Nonetheless, the FAQ is being published, so it seems to me that it now fits into the category of a good source. Supersheep 14:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

At this point in time, I tend to agree with Sprite. Until the FAQ gets edited and published, I don't think that it can be used as a neutral reference. Editors who view the FAQ as a good source should use it as a conglomeration of good sources; in other words, as Sprite suggests, it can be a wellspring of good references, both primary and secondary. --AaronS 14:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Here is an example. Do you see any sources allowed in that FAQ that say anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism? Obviously not, since their whole intent is to perpetrate a lie that anarcho-capitalism is not anarchism. An informative FAQ would include sources from both sides. There are a multitude of sources from scholars that say anarcho-capitalism is anarchism. That'sHot 15:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

There's also the fact that it pulls Rothbard way out of context in a lot of cases. I.e. it attempts to strongly imply that Rothbard thinks that the land stolen from the native americans is legitimate, which he specifically refutes. Another example: the quote "Now what should be the reply of the libertarian rebels to this pert challenge? If they are consistent utilitarians, they must bow to this subterfuge, and resign themselves to living under a regime no less despotic than the one they had been battling for so long. Perhaps, indeed, more despotic, for now the king and his relatives can claim for themselves the libertarians' very principle of the absolute right of private property, an absoluteness which they might not have dared to claim before." [Op. Cit., pp. 54-5] is meant to imply that Rothbard believes in this Randian "libertarian" view, which is not true at all; they intentionally confuse Rothbardianism with Randianism for the sake of erecting a straw man. I have contacted the authors about this before, with no response. — Two-Bit Sprite 15:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, it seems like more people are in favour of not using the FAQ, so I will accede there. Still, it's very frustrating to know something (that proper anarchists don't consider anarcho-capitalism anarchism) and not be able to prove it... Grrrr!!!! On reflection, the whole anarchist schools of thought needs a bit of a workover - not knowledgeable enough to do it, though... Supersheep 17:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is about presenting what is verifiable, not about presenting what is true. That said, the FAQ can still be used as a source supporting the claim that many anarchists do not consider anarcho-capitalism to be a form of anarchism, although it would be good if it could be supplemented with something else. --AaronS 17:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

This talk is nonsense. If we can't use writings by ordinary people then you are outlawing a huge amount of anarchist writers, most of which are not published or accademics. There are a huge amount of pamphlets and essays written by ordinary people. Many anarchist writers whop are "published scholars" were not published in their lifetime. Of all people, anarchists should ignore the divide between those the establishment chooses to call scholars and ordinary anarchists who's views are as valid as anyone elses, whether or not a company has chosen to publish them.

Well then you just have to collect every single written word from every single person who called him og herself an anarchist. Otherwise it wouldnt be fair right? It sounds impossible. If somebody said something, why then not just quote him og her (or maybe a couple more), and stop at that, not needing to quote 1001 other people who say excactly the same. After all this isnt a place for the majority of anarchists, but for everybody, that meaning all kinds of perspectives should be repressented (for and against). About the anarcho-capitalists and anticapitalists, shouldnt it be enough to write that some anticapitalist anarchists think that anarcho-capitalists arent anarchists while other thinks they could be called anarchists, and then quote each perspective once og twice (or...). To say the many or the majority is to go well beyond the limits of reality with regard to the history of this idea called anarchism. Its too diverse to talk in that way. Using X thinks Y or some thinks Y (with quotes from more than one ofcourse) is watertight. Otherwise it should take more than just saying "most anarchists believe X". --Fjulle 00:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

indiv anarchism and profit

Marinus, why did you remove this: "It is important to note though they though profit was unnatural and exploitative, they supported the right to profit. They would not interfere with it by coercion. Tucker pointed out, "In defending the right to take usury, we do not defend the right of usury." He simply believed that usury (profit) would disappear by increased competition if the state stopped interfering with the economy." Tucker is saying there that he defends the legal right to profit, but does not defend the moral rightness of profit. The 19th century individualist opposed using coercion. They believed that the state is what made profit possible by reducing competion by protecting the banking monopoly. DTC 03:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Because those facts had already been stated in the section, because it's claim-counterclaim and because that section is already too long. --Marinus 03:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Rothbard pic

Can someone please explain why the Rothbard pic is such an eye sore that it must be removed? —Two-Bit Sprite 14:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I simply have aesthetic reasons, but if you disagree, that's fine with me. I don't really mind one way or the other at this point. --AaronS 14:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Well... we'll call it a compromise... I let you hide the anarcho-capitalism section way down in the issues section, and you let me put the pic there... deal? :) —Two-Bit Sprite 14:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Fine with me. You can even make it 5000px, if that's the case. :D --AaronS 14:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

That just won't do. Too many sources say anarcho-capitalism is anarchism. Any contemporary mainstream overview of anarchism is going to agree that anarcho-capitalism is one of the many forms of anarchism. That'sHot 14:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Too many sources don't mention it, or contradict you. Please stop pretending that there is a consensus on the matter. --AaronS 15:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can tell there is a consensus on the matter among scholars. There are a whole string of sources in that section saying that it is a form of individualist anarchism. All you and other opponents can come up with is one or two sources saying that it's not. And those are from anti-capitalists. Not that that's not a legitimate source, but it doesn't hold as much weight as a more neutral party saying that it's not anarchism. The anarcho-capitalists have provided sources from netural parties as well as sources from anti-capitalists that say anarcho-capitalism is one of the many forms of anrachism. That'sHot 15:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Removing a pic because someone doesn't like it? It's becoming more and more evident to me that there is something really corrupt going on here. And the fact that this corruption runs deep is clear by the overpowering domination happening here. This is an encyclopedia article not a place to air one's personal feelings about anything.

Whiskey Rebellion

15:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Thewolfstar, if you keep making disruptive and counterproductive comments like this, I'll take the time to present the case for your sock puppetry. I really don't like relying on silly administrative channels, which is why I'm being patient with you, but, so far, you haven't really provided me with any reason to. --AaronS 15:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Whiskey, don't let him intimidate you. That'sHot 15:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not intimidation. I'm giving her a chance. She's been banned from Wikipedia so many times that, maybe, she has learned how to play nicely with others. --AaronS 16:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

You are right lingeron, there is a terrible communist wikipedia conspiracy dedicated to corrupting the image of all six existing anarcho-capitalists. damn, we must have a mole! also, whiskey rebellion is obviously lingeron/shannon and should also be earmarked (sic) as a sock. Blockader 15:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Edit warring

That'sHot, please stop edit warring. There is no point to it. No matter how many times you revert my edits, someone, including me, will just put them back, and vice versa. Instead of edit warring, which is disruptive, perhaps you could explain how there can possibly be a consensus about anarcho-capitalism being a form of individualist anarchism when there is explicit disagreement, even amongst anarcho-capitalists, on the matter. --AaronS 16:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

That's the funniest thing I've heard all day. You're telling someone else to stop "edit warring" but you're edit warring. You say there's not point in reverting things but you're reverting things as well. Why don't you listen to your own advice and let everyone else do something pointless? As far an anarchism being anarchism, there is not one anarcho-capitalists who disagrees so I don't know what you're talking about. Rothbard said he wanted to call his philosophy as "individualist anarchism" but was afraid it would be confused with Tucker's individualist anarchism so called it "anarcho-capitalism." That doesn't mean it's not a form of individualist anarchism. Most scholars agree that it is a form of individualist anarchism. You've provided no sources that says it's not. All you can do is provide sources showing that early individualist anarchists were opposed to capitalism (profit) but that's not in dispute. The scholars who say anarcho-capitalism is a form of individualist anarchist know that early individualists were opposed to capitalism (and communism) but say that anarcho-capitalism is a capitalist form of individualist anarchism. The people that have been providing sources in support of anarcho-capitalism being included as anarchism are giving sources not simply from those in support of anarcho-capitalism but those opposed to it and those neutral in the matter. There are a whole slew of sources. All you can do is provide one or two sources from anti-capitalists saying that it is not real anarchism. The consensus of sources from scholars is that anarcho-capitalism is one of many types of anarchism. That'sHot 16:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I have provided sources, namely Anarchism: A Very Short Introduction, part of Oxford University Press' well-known "Very Short Introduction" series. The author categorically denies that anarcho-capitalism is a form of individualist anarchism, and strongly criticizes any such claim. There are also a great many assessments of anarchism that do not even mention anarcho-capitalism, or brush it off, or mention it merely as a side note. Your response, thus far, has merely been to contend that these sources are not comprehensive enough. That's begging the question, because you're assuming, as the very basis of your argument, your conclusion. Consensus is unanimity, and there is nothing even resembling unanimity on this issue. --AaronS 16:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Your source does not say that. It says that the early individualist anarchists didn't trust capitalism. That's not in dispute. Your source doesn't say that anarcho-capitalism is not a modern form of individualist anarchism. Also keep in mind that in looking for sources you should find more neutral sources. Colin Ward is an anti-capitalist anarchist, so while it may be a legitimate source, it doesn't hold as much weight as a more neutral source. That'sHot 16:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

His politics don't matter when he's writing for such a well-respected series, and being published by such a universally-respected press like Oxford University Press. These books are the kinds of handy references that are being used by students and being included in course syllabi in universities all around the world. If his editors believed that his politics were getting in the way, they wouldn't have published it (this is why a book published by Oxford University Press can be cited in an academic paper, whereas Wikipedia cannot). The source does deny that anarcho-capitalism is a form of individualist anarchism, heavily critiquing any such argument, and labeling those who make it "apologists." Regardless, the burden of proof is on you. All anybody needs to do is show you a source that makes no such claim; it does not need to explicitly deny it. A textbook on biology that makes no mention of Intelligent Design does not imply that Intelligent Design is a good theory simply because it does not explicitly say that it is a bad theory. Further, it does not mean that the textbook is not comprehensive enough -- I've already shown you where that logic fails. Anybody who has studied the philosophy of biology knows that scientists refused to even discuss Intelligent Design because they believed that that would imply that it was worth discussing. --AaronS 16:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Did you not read what I wrote? I said he is a legitimate source. I just said that his opinion has to be taken with a grain of salt because he's an anti-capitalist anarchist. But aside from that, he is not saying that anarcho-capitalism is not anarchism. I saw the quote you provided above. He is saying that the early individualist anarchists opposed capitalism. That doesn't mean that to be an individualist anarchist you have to oppose capitalism. I don't see him saying any such thing. Maybe you can find a better quote. Also keep in mind that you have to overcome a lot of sources saying that it is. One or two sources does not make a lack of conensus. There are huge number of sources (including from neutral sources and anti-capitalists) that anarcho-capitalism is anarchism. That'sHot 16:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I did read what your wrote, so I don't understand the need for condescension. In fact, I responded to what you wrote, indicating that his politics don't matter in assessing this particular work of his, since it's published by a highly-reputable press that has strong incentive, in order to maintain its reputation for excellence, to make sure that what it publishes is scholarly. I don't know how much more explicit this can be:

"[Murray Rothbard is] the most aware of the actual anarchist tradition among the anarcho-capitalist apologists... [he is] aware of a tradition, but he is singularly unaware of the old proverb that freedom for the pike means death for the minnow... [individualist anarchists] differed from free-market liberals in their absolute mistrust of American capitalism, and in their emphasis on mutualism... [and were] busy social inventors exploring the potential of autonomy[, whereas] American 'libertarians'... inventiveness seems to be limited to providing an ideology for untrammelled market capitalism." (emphasis added)

In this section, Ward denies the anarchist pedigree of anarcho-capitalism, and especially criticizes and contradicts the claim that it is a form of individualist anarchism. He claims that such an argument displays a lack of knowledge with regard to the tradition and history of anarchism. Please stop mincing words, here. Aside from this source, there are many sources that either (a) do not say that anarcho-capitalism is a form of individualist anarchism or (b) deny that any such thing is the case. --AaronS 17:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Pedigree??? You don't have to have "pedigree" to be an anarchist. If Colin Ward argues that anarcho-capitalist don't have "pedigree" that's another issue. Obviously they are the only anarchists that support free market capitalism. They have no "pedigree" in that respect. So what? That doesn't make them not anarchists. Pedigree is not a requirement of being an anarchist. That'sHot 17:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Pedigree is a seperate issue. Anyway, Rothbard was influenced by Tucker and Spooner. I would say that that is "pedigree." I don't know what else is meant by pedigree. But I agree. You don't have to be influenced by any anarchists to be an anarchist. What anarchist was Josiah Warren influenced by? Where is his pedigree? DTC 17:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

"Anarchist" is not a simple adjective, it's a word that describes someone who supports "anarchism," which is a pretty well-defined political philosophy. If you're going to claim that something is a part of that philosophy, then you need to show how. Again, you're mincing words. Ward is quite explicit in his opinion with regard to anarcho-capitalism. He contends that it is nothing more than unobstructed free-market capitalism with a fancy name, having nothing to do with anarchism the political philosophy. He suggests that those who argue that it does fall under the anarchist tradition lack an understanding or awareness of the anarchist tradition. Some of your sources disagree with him. This is why I argue that there is no consensus, but rather disagreement, on the matter. Do you disagree? --AaronS 17:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

There is obvious disagreement on the ancap issue and that is why the topic belongs in the "issues" section. very few anarchists, contemporary or historical, have supported capitalism and therefore the idea of anarcho-capitalism is in contention. some people(where?) apparently subscribe to the philosophy and so it needs to be included here, but only in the issues section. on the other hand, after conferring with members of Capital Terminus collective in ATL i do think that the section on "communism" warrants a spot in the issues section but it should be made to include a preamble or some statement acknowledging that most anarchists don't take serious issue with the idea of anarchist communism. the weight of history bears this out and sources shouldn't be too hard to find. alas, i do not have easy access to a good library any longer and am therefore limited to the books i own for now. pieceBlockader 17:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The idea of anarcho-capitalism being a true form of anarchism is in contention among anarchists, yes, but not among scholarly opinion. Most scholars consider it a form of anarchism. This is an encyclopedia. "Most anarchists" cannot be used as a source for whether ancap is anarchism. We have to use scholarly sources. Saying that all communist anarchists say that anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism is fine. But don't hold this article hostage to that opinion. What matters is not whether communist anarchists think about the issue but what scholars think (unless a scholar happens to be an anarco-communist). DTC 17:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It is in contention amongst scholars, as well, as I have shown a number of times. The politics of a scholar do not matter, if the scholar's work is being published by a reputable source. If it's self-published, published by an ideological thinktank, or what-have-you, then that's a different story -- it's just the scholar's personal opinion. --AaronS 17:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Tradition??? There is no requirement that to be an anarchist that you have to be traditional. I don't think anyone is arguing that ararcho-capitalism is traditional. If he is arguing that "those who argue that it does fall under the anarchist tradition lack an understanding or awareness of the anarchist tradition" that is not the same thing as claiming that anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism. That'sHot 17:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, actually, it is. Now you're just missing the substance of my arguments. --AaronS 17:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

No actually it is not. Anarcho-capitalists themselves acknowledge that they split from the tradition of anti-capitalism. But that doesn't make them non anarchists. If anything anarchists should not be worried about is being non-traditional. I don't see anything anarchist about sticking with tradition. Your argument is that to be an anarchist you have to be a conservative. Your sources says that anarcho-capitalists differ from other anarchists by supporting capitalism (profit actually) but it does not argue that anarcho-capitalism is not anarchism. At least not from the quote you gave. If you have another quote, feel free to provide it. That'sHot 18:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Offshoots or Related Ideologies

Perhaps a compromise can be reached at allowing a small subsection of anarcho-capitalism in the schools section, and then also having a Anarchism and Anarcho-capitalism in the issues section. While it is true that anarcho-capitalism is an issue in anarchism, it is also a school, however much it is refuted. For example, most christians I know reject "christian science" as a form of christianity, yet it is still listed in Christian denomination... Just a thought, I'm not going to participate in any edit wars, I'm just thinking out loud hoping to add to the debate. —Two-Bit Sprite 17:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Edit conflict response (boy your mind's busy!): Your addition to the debate is much appreciated, as is your spirit of compromise. I know that the religion analogy is often made -- I have made it myself -- but I'm not sure how far it goes, really. For instance, it is not as if there is scholarly academic debate regarding whether or not Christian Scientists are really Christians. That's a matter that is left to the field of the Church. Some better analogies might involve more academic subjects. For instance, the article on evolution makes no mention of Intelligent Design. See the article's talk page, where they debate the matter, as well as the "evolution is just a theory" schtick. Evolution is part of the evolution series, whereas Intelligent Design is part of the creationism series. And yet, both theories claim to be a scientific theory that explains how current species came to exist. --AaronS 17:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the evolution analogy is tenuous... the evolution article is about the theory of evolution, not the general theory of origins; your analogy would be a better fit to if someone were trying to add anarcho-capitalism to the republicanism article, as they are two seperate political theories competeing for mind-share, much as evolution and intelligent design are. —Two-Bit Sprite 17:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

That's true. I was trying to think of that analogy but couldn't quite formulate it, as my brain is fried. I was thinking something along the lines of adding "People's Democratic Republic of China" to "List of democracies" or "List of republics," simply because it has "democratic" and "republic" in its name, and claims to be a democratic republic. --AaronS 17:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Or maybe, even better, we can have an offshoots section, or related ideologies section which would list anarcho-capitalism, and maybe even communist anarchism (not sure if there is enough consensus for this one though). —Two-Bit Sprite 17:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Or (and maybe this is a stretch) we could change the whole Schools section into Philosophies claiming to be anarchists or Schools of thought related to anarchism... then it wouldn't be questionable where ancap would go, they'd all go together, each also with thier respective criticisms... ? Again, I'm just throwing out some ideas. —Two-Bit Sprite 17:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

These are all great ideas, and I'll need some time to think about it. Again, thanks for being open-minded and contributing in a very good way to the discussion. --AaronS 17:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, one possibility might be a redirect: (1) anarchism, a group of political philosophies that reject all forms of authority, including capitalism; (2) anarcho-capitalism, a political philosophy that rejects the state, but embraces capitalism --AaronS 17:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the idea of a disambiguation page has been discussed before, but it's probably too deep in the archives for me to bother digging up, but I might be open to the idea. —Two-Bit Sprite 18:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. How is that going to solve anything? There is still the consensus of scholarly opinion that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism. Even if were 50/50 that would still warrant putting anarcho-capitalism in the Anarchism article. DTC 18:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Acutally, when looking at it again, the current introduction I think helps guide our decision. It says "Anarchism is the name of a political philosophy, or a generic term for a group of more-or-less related political philosophies" (emp. mine). I think this spells out well that the article is about philosophies that have a relationship to the concept of anarchism, tenuous or not. So I think the option of changing the title of the Anarchist schools of thought section to something more open would be the best solution, and then having a Debates within anarchism section go into depth about the rejection on ancap by other anarchists. —Two-Bit Sprite 18:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Of your ideas i like the first one best. a small subsection in the "schools" part that intimates the existence and contentiousness of ancap with the existing longer section moved into the issues section. since anarcho-communism is one of the earlist and most predominant types of anarchism (dont attack me with your red scare bullshit, i am not an ancom) i doubt you will find many other than ancaps who would support moving it to issues. Blockader 17:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Before you jump the gun and assume I am like RJII or any of them, I have never resorted to accusations of being part of some kind of "communist conspiracy" or any of the crap. Now that we've resolved that :) ... I am ok with not putting ancom in the issues section, as I said, I would only support it if there was consensus for it since I have seen the issue come up on these talk pages before about ancom, etc. —Two-Bit Sprite 18:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I was addressing twobit there but a redirect might also be appropriate. Added- i wasn't referring to you specifically at all with those paras but rather other editors who have repeatedly made such accusations after reading posts. sorry for the misund. Blockader 17:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding a redirect, it might be best for anarchism to direct a user to this article with a disambiguation link at the top. --AaronS 17:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Ridiculous. That will never work, because the consensus of sholarly opinion is that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism. How would you keep ancap out of the Anarchism article? I and others would be putting it in. DTC 18:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

also, the "anarchism in china" article is ridiculous and has no citations. there is a reasonable article entitled "chinese anarchism" though. a delete and redirect would probaly be appropriate there. Blockader 18:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The consensus of scholarly opinion, DTC? Maybe scholarship by ancaps and their supporters, but that doesn't really count, does it? I think the best solution of all would be to put a couple of lines in the body of the indivualist section with a link to the article. That's my two bits. Supersheep 19:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your two bits but that's not the case. The sources in this article saying anarcho-capitalism is an individualist form of anarchism are from a variety of pursuasions. As far as I know there is only one pro-capitalist in list of sources. Several sources are socialist/anti-capitalists. The overwhelming number of contemporary scholarly sources say anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism. The other side of this dispute is only able to come up with very few if any sources that say anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism and they are only from anti-capitalist anarchists. So they're the ones you should be directing your "two bits" to. DTC 20:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Y'see, I don't have access to any of these books, so I can't tell. And I'm not trying to say that ancap isn't anarchism (even though it isn't to any anarchist). I'm merely trying to say that most anarchists don't see it as such... Which is undoubtedly true. Actually, based on its current revision, I'm fine with it - my main problem was that folk kept removing the line I added saying the above. Supersheep 20:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, one minor point - the sentence "Anarcho-capitalism is not viewed as an anarchist philosophy by the majority of anarchists, with anarcho-capitalists differing from individualist anarchists in the latter's strong mistrust of capitalism and advocacy for mutualism" should be moved to the beginning of the paragraph, or alternatively the lead should be moved to the end - keep the bits together so it looks better. I think it should replace the second sentence of the paragraph (anti-capitalist tend to dsipute it) and then stick a 'however,' in after the comma in the sentence. I would change it myself, but you're editing away there, so I don't wanna get in your way. Supersheep 20:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Could we make the "Recent developments" section a sub-section of "School", called "Recently developed schools" or something, and include anarcho-capitalism there? The way in which anarcho-capitalism claims an afinity to classical anarchist theory, without being directly a development of it, seems somewhat similar to post-left anarchism (although post-left has ties to the anarchist movement that a-c lacks). VoluntarySlave 04:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalism isn't a recent development. It's from around at least 1949/1950. "Rothbard himself relates that in the winter of 1949/50, in the course of a conversation with some left-wing students, he realised that it was impossible for him to support the free market in all fields and at the same time be in favour of a State police force, “my whole position was inconsistent [...], there were only two logical possibilities: socialism, or anarchism. Since it was out of the question for me to become a socialist, I found myself pushed by the irresistible logic of the case, a private property anarchist, or, as I would later dub it, an anarcho-capitalist” (Crocetta, Roberta Modugno, The anarcho-capitalist political theory of Murray N. Rothbard in its historical and intellectual context) DTC 04:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC) By the way, what do you mean "ties to the anarchist movement"? What would it mean to have ties to the anarchist movement? DTC 04:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm having real, real trouble to take That's Hot and DTC seriously. Read the talk archives, please - any one, since this has been a continual topic of controversy and the issue is discussed at length in every one. Also, read the Encyclopedia Britanica article on this same subject, one written by an expert, in the single most respected secondary source in the world. It does not mention anarcho-capitalism once. If you continue to push your minority view to this absurd degree I will have you in front of the Arbitration Council and the only possible result will be your banning for disrupting Wikipedia. It's happened before. For god's sake, work towards agreement. --Marinus 09:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Here is the anarchism article from the Columbia encyclopedia (hosted elsewhere) - not a single mention of anarcho-capitalism --Marinus 09:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Here's a goodie American Encyclopaedia of Conservative Thought specifically mentions Rothbard and his anti-statist opinions, but as an anarchist trend in non-anarchist politics, nor does it identify anarcho-capitalism. Strange, that. Lots about socialist anarchism, thought --Marinus 10:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Encarta doesn't know anything about anarcho-capitalism, but you already knew that. If there's a consensus on anything (amongst credited, well-known secondary sources - Wikipedia's favourite source, by the way) it seems to be different from the one you're claiming. --Marinus 10:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

That's funny. My MS Encarta Encyclopedia mentions anarco-capitalism and says it is a modern form of individualist anarchism: [4] And it's written by an expert. About the Encyclopedia Britannica I guess it's just not very thorough. On what basis do you claim I am pushing a minority point of view? More sources have been presented saying that it is anarchism than it is not. As far as I can tell, you're pushing the minority point of view. You can threaten me with arbitration all day long, but you don't scare me one bit. This is how Wikipedia works. Things have to be sourced. And if they are sourced, don't ignore the sources. DTC 17:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I remember that RJII used to misquote that source all the time. Levy does not say that anarcho-capitalism is a modern form of individualist anarchism. That's just your interpretation of what his words imply. Further, it's begging the question to say that, if a source does not mention anarcho-capitalism, it must not be thorough, because you're assuming, at the outset, that anarcho-capitalism is significant or worthy of mention. We'v been over this a number of times. --AaronS 20:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Significance of anarcho-capitalism

Few editors were stating that anarcho-capitalism has a small number of followers in comparison with other forms of anarchism. However, according to Alexa rating (I know it's not perfect, but it's the best there is) much bragged about infoshop.org is ranked as 84 000, strike-the-root.com (e-zine written from libertarian/market anarchist perspective) 104 000, mises.org 21 000, and lewrockwell.com 8 000 (less is better). -- Vision Thing -- 18:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Did you do a seperate search for each infoshop domain? There's one for every country they are active in. The British domain alone should significantly increase the numbers, never mind the ones in Latin America (France also has a good number of active anarchist organisations). --Marinus 10:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you provide some evidence for that? -- Vision Thing -- 17:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The Internet is no indicator. I have a neutral source that says that anarcho-capitalism's "small home base is in the United States." I'll provide it later, as soon as I get out of this sales conference. --AaronS 14:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why you dismiss Internet results so easily. Over one billion people in the world use Internet. Also, Internet is often used on Wikipedia to determine notability. -- Vision Thing -- 17:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Systemic bias, for one. The use of the Internet to determine notability is contentious, even on Wikipedia. In real life, the Internet is never used to determine real-world notability without supplemental information, unless we're simply talking about an Internet phenomenon. --AaronS 17:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Internet is used on Wikipedia as a useful rule of a thumb. I'm not saying it's an ultimate evidence, but it's one indicator. What is especially useful about it is that everyone can check it. -- Vision Thing -- 16:08, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we should be aiming for some kind of 'proportional representation', personally... I think fair representation should be our aim, which is why I propose renaming the Schools section to something more inclusive. What are you thoughts on this? Maybe someone should fromulate a straw poll to present all major options. I've never set one up before, so I'll leave that to someone more experienced, but it might give us all a better understanding of how we should focus our efforts. —Two-Bit Sprite 18:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

As long as we have to say either 'it is anarchism' or 'it is not anarchism' then this edit-war will go on. So yeah, rename it. Jacob Haller 18:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I put some information at the top of the Schools section. I paraphrased the source which says: ""The anarchist schools of thought have only one point in common, ---the abolition of the State as an instititution of compulsion, ---and all sects emphasize their points of difference." (Kropotkine, Petr Alekseevich. Anarchism: A Collection of Revolutionary Writings, Courier Dover Publications (2002), p. 5) DTC 19:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, DTC, that doesn't seem too bad. Of course, there will have to be a qualification that some schools of thought are more contentious than others (ancap and ancom, AFAIK). Maybe we could try and divide the schools in two - those which are accepted as anarchist by all and those which cause contention? Supersheep 20:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't feel this is appropriate, as I'm sure one could go quote mining to implicate any of the forms of anarchism of not meeting this or that percieved requirement for being considered "anarchism". I think it's best to lump them all together and list them under one broad banner of movements/ideologies which can be called "anarchistic" — preferably alphebetically or chronologically so as to not bicker about which anarchism is most "important" or "relevant", etc... —Two-Bit Sprite 21:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with twobit on that one. i think that the section on ancap as it stands now makes it pretty clear that it is in contention. the problem will be keeping the ancap section from being buggered with too much over time i think. i believe it should actually be in the issues section but renaming the section something like Anarchist Ideologies or something equally inclusive might placate most folks here. creating some stability here would be nice. Blockader 21:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree now - the edit was made after I wrote that but before my next talk contribution. There's only one problem with it, which I outlined above, and that's merely stylistic. Supersheep 22:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

For real, y'all look at the "anarchism in china" article in the links bar. Blockader 21:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, it's basically crap. The Chinese Anarchism page is the one that should be in that place. Should it be deleted, or what? Supersheep 22:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

DTC, why did you change that line I moved to the top? It was in the article when you edited it, and yet you cut it when I put it where it was suitable. Why? All I'm trying to say is that most anarchists (not scholars) do not view anarcho-capitalism as anarchism, not that it is not anarchism. Do you disagree with this, or is there some other problem? Supersheep 13:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I have added a citation needed tag to the statement, and made it clear that this is nothing to do with scholars. Hopefully that's OK. Supersheep 13:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if most anarchists (non-scholars) do not believe it is a form of anarchism. I know they don't like anarcho-capitalism, but that's because they're mostly communists. But if you found a source saying they don't think it is anarchism that's great. People around here need to start finding sources, like I've been doing instead of just throwing claims around that may or may not be true. DTC 17:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Please, of course most anarchists world-wide and in the US "don't like" anarcho-capitalism- that is a fact obvious if you ever choose to actually associate with real-life (not internent) anarchists. there are no ancap organizations, groups, collectives, etc (except on the internet) and among the hundreds of anarchists i know, primarily in the southeast, all kinds of anarchism are represented save anarcho-capitalism. Most anarchists are not "communists," as you claim, but most are socialists of some kind or another (socialism for your information being the inverse of capitalism while communism is one form of socialism) and therefore inherently opposed to capitalism in any form. You will not find sources to cite claiming that most anarchists are anti-capitalist becuase most anarchists and scholars, historical and contemporay, take that fact for granted. No matter how much you would like to, the history and actuality of anarchism cannot be coopted for your laissez faire beliefs simply because you desire it to be so. Blockader 17:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

That's not what I said. I know that they are anti-capitalist. But is different from them claiming anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism. They could simply see it as a form anarchism that they oppose. DTC 17:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I would have to agree with that most anarachists don't see ancap as a form of anarchism. They have no common history and very few common interests. Most haven't even med an ancap since they only exists on the net and are not visible in real life. // Liftarn

That goes for all individualist anarchism in general, anarcho-capitalist or not. Probably most anarchists have never heard of Josiah Warren, Benjamin Tucker, or Lysander Spooner and have always thought of anarchism in terms of opposition to private property. I'm sure they are surprised to hear of anarchism that supports a market economy and private property, with police, prisons, etc. when they get on the internet (or crack open a book). "Anarchism does not exclude prisons, officials, military, or other symbols of force. It merely demands that non-invasive men shall not be made the victims of such force. Anarchism is not the reign of love, but the reign of justice." -Benjamin Tucker DTC 18:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

True, i had not heard of any of the ancap theorists before the net. but i think it safe to assume that accompanying most anarchist's surprise "to hear of anarchism that supports a market economy and private property, with police, prisons, etc." is a general feeling that such a system is not a valid from of anarchism as anarhist philosophies seek both freedom and equality, freedom being inconsistent with police and prisons and equality being inconsistent with markets and private property. you are right, though, anarchism is about justice, including economic justice, and that is precisely why most anarchists would not hold ancap as valid. i do think it deserves a place here though. Blockader 18:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

All the anarchists I know (personally and online) view ancap as not being anarchist. But I think the main reason we're having trouble finding sources for ancap not being seen as anarchist is because most anarchists see it as too obvious to mention. I'm trying Red and Black Revolution at the minute, and I'll talk to a mate and see if the WSM has run anything on that. We could use them as a couple of first sources and expand upon it. Supersheep 20:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The reason I changed many to some in the first sentence is because we now have as many people saying it is not anarchist as say it is. Also, who are the anti-capitalist authors who claim it is anarchist? Supersheep 23:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, I cannot find anything anywhere that says that Peter Marshall, John Clark, Peter Sabatini, or Brian Morris are anti-capitalist. Although they may well be, there is nowhere that says they are. So, this should be further explained/cited/whatever, as it specifically states anti-capitalist. Supersheep 11:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Marinus's sources

Marinus, I'd like to verify the sources you've put in the article but you haven't provided any page numbers. Please provide more thorough sourcing. Before you claim I'm baised or start threatening me with arbitration like you did a short while ago,if you look back I actually removed a source that was claimed to say that anarcho-capitalism was individualist anarchism. I obtained that book, looked it up and it didn't say that so i removed the source. I'm checking up sources on both sides. I don't want Wikipedia to give out false information.

I need page numbers and quotes for John Clark, Noam Chomsky, David Weick, and Brian Morris.

For what I could find:

• Peter Marshall. I don't think your Peter Marshall sources is good. I think it's pretty clear Marshall is regarding anarcho-capitalism is a form of individualist anarchism: "The phenomenon of anarcho-capitalism is not however new. With the demise of Benjamin Tucker's journal _Liberty_ in 1907, American individualist anarchism lost its principal voice; but its strain of libertarianism continued to re-emerge occassionally in the offerings of isolated thinkers." He simply notes that it's different from "traditional" individualist anarchism and might be best called by another name: "traditional individualist anarchists and that anarcho-capitalists "might be best called right-wing libertarians than anarchists."

• Albert Meltzer. He says that a philosophy has to be communist in order to be true anarchism: "It is only possible to conceive of Anarchism in a form in which it is free, communistic, and offering no economic necessity for repression or countering it. Common sense shows that any capitalist society might dispense with a "State" (in the American sense of the word) but it could not dispense with organised Government, or a privatised form of it, if there were people amassing money and others working to amass it for them. The philosophy of "anarcho-capitalism" dreamed up by the "libertarian" New Right, has nothing to do with Anarchism as known by the Anarchist movement proper." So, his position is that all individualist anarchism is not real anarchism. He does explicitly single out anarcho-capitalism so it is a good source.

• Peter Sabatini. Here is communist that opposes private defense services. "Within Libertarianism, Rothbard represents a minority perspective that actually argues for the total elimination of the state. However Rothbard's claim as an anarchist is quickly voided when it is shown that he only wants an end to the public state. In its place he allows countless private states, with each person supplying their own police force, army, and law, or else purchasing these services from capitalist vendors." He does explicitly refers to Rothbard. However, it's just an article somebody sent in to Anarchy magazine, so I don't consider it very reliable. But I'll probably allow it since you have so few sources. It appears he's an amateur and not very knowledgable about anarchism, as he doesn't seem to know that Benjamin Tucker also supports supports policy, army, and law.

I need page numbers and quotes for John Clark, Noam Chomsky, David Weick, and Brian Morris or they'll have to be removed. In the future please source the information properly, with page number, publishers, etc. 19:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The Chomsky qoute is good as i have read that article in "Chomksy on Anarchism" and remember him discussion the illegitamcy of ancap as bonafide anarchism. My mom has that book at the moment but i will call her tonight and see about a page number. yes, my mom is an anarchist. not sure about the others but i seriously doubt Marinus would fabricate sources so please allow adequete time for him to respond to this before you take action as he is not consistently here. also, please sign in. Blockader 19:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it was someone who was signed in and hit an extra tilde by mistake. Also, nameless one (DTC maybe?), I think Meltzer is saying what Sabatini says - that ancap simply sets up multiple private states. Marhsall may not be the best source on that quote, I'll grant that. Also, one or two of the sources in footnote 40 need pages citing too. (A minor issue though.) I'm also going to put the sources from #41 in a bulleted list, for neatness. Supersheep 20:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I have now given proper (other than not having page numbers, as I don't have these to hand obviously) citations for all the sources in #41. I can't get into Red and Black to see if they have anything on ancap. Will talk to my friend and see if he has any sources whenever I can. Supersheep 20:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Should have said that I have cited all except the Sabatini and Morris articles, as I cannot find books/journals for these. Supersheep 22:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I took the sources from the Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism article. Page numbers et al are preferable but not necessary. In cases where a general trend of the piece rather than a specific claim is made, page numbers are not to be included (See here. All that is necessary is that the claims be verifiable. The ones on the list that I have read agree with that interpretation - i have verified them. Unfortunately I don't have them on hand, otherwise I would have done what you asked for. The proper response to references you consider imperfect is to improve them, not remove them. WP policy is to include such sources and allow for other editors to improve them ( See here). If you remove these sources, DTC, I will move to have you banned from Wikipedia for aggressively distorting POV. --Marinus 04:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, one thing I don't like is threats. I am therefore going to remove your false sources. I can file an arbitration case against you for threatening me for doing what a good editor is supposed to do..verifying sources. I thought I'd give you some time to get your act together but your belligerence leaves me no choice but to remove your bad sources. DTC 04:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll give you a chance to reconsider your action. It's unfortunate that this disagreement becomes so heated. But the policy is clear: you can't remove sources only because the page numbers aren't given. It's still verifiable. Let us attempt to make a more reconciliatory, less grudgeful attempt at crafting a useful article. --Marinus 05:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

That remark, Marianus, "If you remove these sources, DTC, I will move to have you banned from Wikipedia for aggressively distorting POV", is an exceptionally mean and nasty one. You could get brought up on personal attacks for that and more. The irony here is that you are the one that is pov pushing. If DTC does file an arbitration case against you I will support him. Whiskey Rebellion 05:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

If you want this issue up for arbitration, do so. If it is shown that I have been mistaken, I will apologise. --Marinus 05:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, DTC, I ask you to reconsider. Let's all take a moment to reflect on the wisdom of such antagonistic action. --Marinus 05:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you think you scare me? You don't. You may be used to bullying people to get what you want but it's not going to work on me. By the way, I looked through the books and I don't see it mentioned that anarcho-capitalism is not anarchism. You need to provide a page number and quote so what you say can be verified. I will continue to remove your sources unless they can be verified. You said yourself that you got your sources from another article. In other words you didn't read the books.DTC 05:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalism is anarchism. And threatening to ban someone from editing is real antagonistic. Whiskey Rebellion 05:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

For a third time I am going to ask you to not remove these sources, since it would not be in accordance with WP policy. I am not trying to scare you: I am trying to prevent a distorted picture of anarchism enter Wikipedia. --Marinus 05:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

No. I will remove any source that doesn't back up what it's supposed to back up. DTC 05:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I have read the Chomsky, Marshall, Ruoom and Ward books on that list, though I can't give you page numbers right now. They do, however, say what they are claimed to say. --Marinus 05:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The burden is on you. Provide the page numbers and quotes. I can provide you a page number, quote, and even a scanned copy of any source I provide. I have immediate access to thousands of books. You need to back up your claims. DTC 05:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I repeat, DTC - a lack of page numbers is not sufficient reason to remove sources. For one, I highly, highly doubt that only a particular section of a book entitled (from memory) "Libertarianism: Bogus Anarchy" or "Libertarianism as Conservativism" is relevant to the question of whether an-cap can be considered anarchistic. Your ability to back your sources is laudable, which is why I haven't contested them: I have contested the weight given them, but that's something else. --Marinus 05:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Policy says the only time page numbers are "not required when a citation accompanies a general description of a book or article, or when a book or article, as a whole, is being used to exemplify a particular point of view." Your saying that the source makes a specific claims, that anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism. Everybody knows anti-capitalist anarchists oppose capitalism, but many anti-capitalist scholars still say anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism. I have sources to attest to that. You need to provide a page number and/or quote if you make a claim that someone says anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism. Otherwise there is no way to verify your claim without reading the entire book and looking for a specific sentence without even knowing how it is worded to know what you're looking for. DTC 05:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

You are either misrepresenting or misunderstanding WP policy WP:CITE#When_you_add_content and WP:CITE#Page_numbers. I recommend you reread them and give the matter some thought. I'll come back to this tomorrow. --Marinus 06:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I am going to do a few other, unrelated edits, ask some advice and sleep on the matter. I am deeply upset by the actions of DTC in this regard, and would very, very much like to see his striking of the sources reversed. I can not see a justification for them. But I don't want to be rash. I'll see what the developements are tomorrow and act as I then see fit. --Marinus 05:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

A quote from WP:CITE#Page_numbers: "Page numbers are not required when a citation accompanies a general description of a book or article, or when a book or article, as a whole, is being used to exemplify a particular point of view." This is an example of the second case, to the best of my knowledge. As such, I will restore the sources. And I ask everyone to please calm down. There is no need to start a war, when we've been almost at agreement. Supersheep 10:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

A Source for Anarchists

Finally I managed to track down a source that says most anarchists don't view anarcho-capitalists as anarchists - it's in the Peter Marshall book. Chapter 36, the section on ancap. Here's a link [5], but I can't give a page number, so whoever might have this book (DTC, I think you do?) could you please look up a page reference for the last paragraph? Supersheep 11:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

That's fine. Chapter 36 is good enough, as it's copies of that chapter are on the net for anyone that wants to check it out. DTC 16:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you provide a quote? It seems that I can't find the part where he is talking about most anarchists. -- Vision Thing -- 17:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

It's the last paragraph in that link, which I will reproduce here: "As such, anarcho-capitalism overlooks the egalitarian implications of traditional individualist anarchists like Spooner and Tucker. In fact, few anarchists would accept 'anarcho-capitalists' into the anarchist camp since they do not share a concern for economic equality and social justice. Their self-interested, calculating market men would be incapable of practising voluntary co-operation and mutual aid. Anarcho-capitalists, even if they do reject the State, might therefore best be called right-wing libertarians rather than anarchists.[15]" If I find any other suitable things, I'll add them too. A page reference would be nice if it's not too much trouble - it just looks more encyclopedic. Also, I've removed the words "and anarchists" from the sentence "However, other scholars and anarchists do not believe it is a legitimate form of anarchism" because it's redundant with the sentence following after, which allows us to give a separate reference. Supersheep 09:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks.-- Vision Thing -- 15:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Sources

A Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy, Goodin and Pettit, eds., (1996) says that anarcho-capitalism's "small home base is in the United States," (235) and that "it is wrong literally to define anarchism in terms of 'hostility to the state'" as "that is not a feature of anarchism but rather a contingent and consequential one." (218) Also, this source has been used by some editors to show that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism. In a 27 page essay by Richard Sylvan, the book only mentions anarcho-capitalism in one small paragraph, quickly brushing it off as unrealistic due to "market failure," and then goes on to discuss in great detail anarchism that has "market regulation." With that in consideration, it is pretty clear that this source does not count towards anarcho-capitalism's significance. Regarding anarcho-capitalism as a form of anarchism, it should be noted that this essay is not a historical or general overview of anarchism, but an argument for anarchist "pluralism"; in other words, it does not really consider anarchism in terms of its history, traditions, or writers, but rather proposes a new way to look at it. In that sense, if it is to be used as a reference in defining anarchism in terms of history, tradition, and the like -- and it really shouldn't, because it never explicitly does so -- this caveat must be in place. Sylvan is a scholar, and Blackwell is a good publisher, so far as I know, but this is an essay which presents an argument for pluralism in anarchism, not a general overview of anarchist theory.

The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, 2d Ed., Robert Audi, ed., (1999) claims that anarchists maintain that no coercive institutions are ever justified (719) and that anarchism "inspired the anarcho-syndicalism movement, Makhno and his followers, the Spanish Anarchists during the Spanish Civil War, and the anarchist gauchistes during the 1968 'May Events' in France." (719) This text presents anarchism as an anti-authoritarian philosophy that rejects all forms of coercion, including the state and capitalism. There is no mention of Rothbard or anarcho-capitalism.

Anarchism: A Very Short Introduction, by Colin Ward, (2004) substantiates many of the previously uncited views of some of the editors, here:

"There are, unsurprisingly, several traditions of individualist anarchism, one of them deriving from the 'conscious egoism' of the German writer Max Stirner (1806-56), and another from a remarkable series of 19th-century American figures who argued that in protecting our own autonomy and associating with others for common advantages, we are promoting the good of all. These thinkers differed from free-market liberals in their absolute mistrust of American capitalism, and in their emphasis on mutualism. In the late 20th century the world 'libertarian', which people holding such a viewpoint had previously used as an alternative to the word 'anarchist', was appropriated by a new group of American thinkers, who are discussed in Chapter 7." (2-3)

In Chapter 7:

"...in the 1970s, a series of books, from academics rather than activists, proclaimed a different style of American libertarianism... This phalanx of authors have provided the 'ideological superstructure' of the swing to the Right in federal and local politics in the United States, and in British politics for the aim of 'rolling back the frontiers of the State', which was actually a cloak for increased subservience to central decision-making... Peter Marshall sees the economist Murray Rothbard as the most aware of the anarcho-capitalist apologists... Rothbard is aware of a tradition, but he is singularly unaware of the old proverb that freedom for the pike means death for the minnow... Most anarchists would see this as a rather pathetic evasion of the issues raised by the anarchist criticism of American society, and would prefer to commemorate a far richer heritage of dissent in the United States, exemplified by a long series of well-remembered propagandists, from Thoreau in one generation and Emma Goldman in another, down to Paul Goodman... The 19th-century American individualists were busy creating communes, cooperatives, alternative schools, local currencies, and schemes for mutual banking. They were busy social inventors... The American 'libertarians' of the 20th century are academics rather than social activists, and their inventiveness seems to be limited to providing an ideology for untrammelled market capitalism." (66-9)

Thus we have the following arguments: (1) anarcho-capitalism is a form of libertarianism, not anarchism; (2) it exists mainly in academic circles; (3) individualist anarchism shares with the rest of anarchism a tradition in social activism, which anarcho-capitalism lacks; and so on. The fact that anarcho-capitalism's proponents are mainly academics is an important one, since there will be a systemic bias in scholarly opinion. Ward writes that it was the American libertarians who made discussion of anti-statism acceptable amongst academics, so it's clear that they do not discuss and did not discuss anarchism in great detail or with much attention. --AaronS 13:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Your source doesn't that anarcho-capitalism is not anarchism. Look closely. "Libertarianism" is another word for individualist anarchism: "In the late 20th century the world 'libertarian', which people holding such a viewpoint had previously used as an alternative to the word 'anarchist', was appropriated by a new group of American thinkers, who are discussed in Chapter 7" Then, "in the 1970s, a series of books, from academics rather than activists, proclaimed a different style of American libertarianism." He is saying that the newer form of individualist anarchism, which supported capitalism chose to use the word "libertarian" as well. About being academic, I thought we all knew that. It's philosophical anarchism, not a social movement. DTC 14:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

You're misreading it. He notes that "libertarian" was previously used interchangeably with "anarchist," but became something different when it was appropriated by the American libertarians, or anarcho-capitalists. --AaronS 14:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

No, he is saying that 19th century individualist anarchists and anarcho-capitalists are both libertarians. But the anarcho-capitalist form of libertarianism supports capitalism. "Libertarian" is a synonym for individualist anarchism. It has always been so. DTC 14:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Nope. He writes at the beginning of Chapter 7: "For a century, anarchists have used the word 'libertarian' as a synonym for 'anarchist', both as a noun and an adjective. The celebrated anarchist journal Le Libertaire was founded in 1895. However, much more recently the word has been appropriated by various American free-market philosophers - David Friedman, Robert Nozick, Murray Rothbard, and Robert Paul Wolff - so it is necessary to examine the modern individualist 'libertarian' response from the standpoint of the anarchist tradition." (62) For the remainder of the chapter, he refers to individualist anarchists as individualist anarchists, and anarcho-capitalists as American "libertarians" (using scarequotes). I don't know how it can be any clearer. --AaronS 14:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Nowhere does he say that if you're a libertarian that you're not an anarchist. Nowhere that you've provided does he say anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism. He is using the quotes because anarcho-capitalists call themselves libertarians. DTC 14:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

DTC, this is preposterous. There's really no way one can mince words or misinterpret this source in order to make Ward seem as if he is not rejecting anarcho-capitalism's alleged anarchist pedigree. I'm trying to figure out how your logic is proceeding, but it just seems like a non sequitor. Of course he doesn't say that libertarians are not anarchists. He explicitly says that anarcho-capitalists appropriated the term in the 20th century, so he won't use it to describe anarchists. He makes it clear that, when he is referring to someone like Tucker, he is referring to an individualist anarchists, whereas, when he is referring to someone like Rothbard, he is referring to a 20th century American "libertarian" (the scarequotes are his, not mine). I really can't take your objection seriously. It's an impossible stretch. --AaronS 15:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course he is saying that they lack pedigree. They're the only ones that oppose capitalism. But saying that a particular form of anarchism lacks pedigree, in the sense of not opposing profit-capitalism. You don't have to have "pedigree" to be an anarchist. He is not using "scare quotes." He is putting quotes around "libertarian" because anarcho-capitalists call themselves libertarian. It's clear to me that he thinks it's a newer form of libertarianism, that is, a newer form of individualist anarchism that unlike 19th century individualist anarchism does not reject profit-capitalism. He says "19th century American individualist" for a reason. The reason is because anarcho-capitalists are 20th century individualists. DTC 15:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you should actually read the source. If he's not using scare quotes, then why does he refer to 19th century American libertarians and 20th century American 'libertarians'? Only anarcho-capitalists call themselves libertarians? Hardly. Then why would scare quotes be reserved for them only? Your argument holds no water. What Ward is saying is that anarcho-capitalism is libertarianism, in the sense of Rothbard, and not anarchism. They are individualists, but not individualists anarchists. To paraphrase him, in the beginning of the chapter he says that, while anarchists have often called themselves libertarians, since a bunch of American economists in the 20th century appropriated the term (perhaps you should look up the verb "appropriate" in the dictionary, and see what it means -- it's not a compliment), he's going to use the term with several caveats. --AaronS 15:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Why do you think people put quote marks around something? It's because they're using someone else's words. He is saying that 19th century individualists are libertarians too: "There are, unsurprisingly, several traditions of individualist anarchism...In the late 20th century the world 'libertarian', which people holding such a viewpoint had previously used as an alternative to the word 'anarchist', was appropriated by a new group of American thinkers...in the 1970s, a series of books, from academics rather than activists, proclaimed a DIFFERENT STYLE OF AMERICAN LIBERTARIANISM." Why do you think he refers to the 19th century individualists as "19th century individualist anarchists" instead of simply "individualist anarchists." Obviously because he considers Rothbard an individualist anarchists that unlike the 19th century individulists, does not oppose profit-capitalism and is purely academic. DTC 15:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC) And once again, pointing out that anarcho-capitalists are different in some particular way(s) from all other types of anarchists is not the same thing as saying they're not anarchists. Anarcho-capitalists themselves point out that they're different from the 19th century individualists by not opposing profit/capitalism, but they still consider themselves anarchists. Ward is not saying anything that anarcho-capitalists don't agree with. DTC 15:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, DTC, but your interpretation just assumes too much. Like I said, Ward explicitly states that anarcho-capitalists appropriated the term "libertarianism" from anarchists. To appropriate is to take exclusive possession of something or to take or make use of [something] without authority or right.[6] It's not a neutral verb; it carries with it explicit baggage. You're reading whatever you want into Ward's words without considering the chapter or the book as a whole, and without even really considering the obvious implications of them, tout court. Rothbard proclaimed a different style of American libertarianism, not anarchism. In that chapter, Ward makes it very clear, in the beginning, that he will be using "libertarian" to refer to right-wing free market capitalists, and "individualist" or "individualist anarchist" or "anarchist individualist" to refer to either the 19th century anarchist libertarians or 20th century individualist anarchists. I don't know how I can make this any clearer for you. He does not call them "19th century individualist anarchists." He either calls them individualist anarchists, anarchist individualists, 19th century American individualists, or 19th century individualists. He does this to distinguish them from 20th century individualists and libertarians. Obviously, anarcho-capitalist are individualists and libertarians. He never uses the term "anarchist" to describe them, however, because he has already made it clear that he believes that their claim to the term is tenuous. This is why he surrounds "libertarian" with scare quotes whenever he refers to them, but does not when he refers to anarchist libertarians. He's not quoting anybody, and it's silly to suggest so. If you are going through such acrobatics to interpret this source in a completely contradictory fashion, then I seriously question your ability to accurately interpret other sources. --AaronS 17:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

From the same dictionary you're referencing, "appropriate" means "to take exclusive possession of" under the number (1) definition. But there other meanings. "To take or make use of [something] without authority or right" is another meaning under number (3). I believe Ward is using the word in the first sense. He says the Rothbardian school of thought has taken exclusive possesion of the term "libertarian." That is pretty much true. Nobody uses "libertarian" as a synonym for anarchism in general anymore. When you say "libertarian" you think of capitalist anarchists. He doesn't say that they wrongly use the term. That is proved by the fact that he says Rothbard's philosophy is a "different style of American libertarianism." Ward is just taking the standard mainstream view that anarcho-capitalism is a newer form of individualist anarchism (libertarianism), that unlike 19th century individualist it does not oppose profit capitalism. You're only seeing what you want to see by believe he's putting in hidden meanings with "scare quotes" etc. If he wanted to say anarcho-capitalism was not a form of anarchism he would just come right out and say it. DTC 17:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

1. Anarchists have used the word 'libertarian' as a synonym for 'anarchist'. (62)

2. More recently, the word has been appropriated by various American free-market philosophers. (62)

3. The anarchist individualist current, ranging from the 19th to 20th century, includes a long series of American activists and innovators: Josiah Warren, Lysander Spooner, Stephen Pearl Andrews, Benjamin R. Tucker, Henry David Thoreau, Ammon Hennacy, and Dorothy Day. (63-6)

4. In the 1970s, the term 'libertarian' was appropriated by a few academics (62, 66) who were mostly unaware of the anarchist tradition and who were apologists for free-market capitalism (67).

5. The inventiveness of these 'libertarians' is limited to providing an ideology for untrammelled market capitalism (69).

His final two paragraphs:

"The 19th-century American individualists were busy creating communes, cooperatives, alternative schools, local currencies, and schemes for mutual banking. They were busy social inventors exploring the potential of autonomy, including women's liberation and black equality. Their experience, in the social climate of America, illustrates Martin Buber's insistence, cited in Chapter 3, on the inverse relationship between the social principle and the political principle. The practice of autonomy generates the experience that enlarges the possibility of success. Or as the American anarchist David Wieck expressed it: 'The habit of direct action is, perhaps, identical with the habit of being free, prepared to live responsibly in a free society.'

"The American 'libertarians' of the 20th century are academics rather than social activists, and their inventiveness seems to be limited to providing an ideology for untrammelled market capitalism." (69)

That's how the chapter ends. Ward is responding to the anarcho-capitalists by questioning their authenticity; he distinguishes them from both 19th century and 20th century anarchist individualists. When referring to anarchists, he uses terms like "individualist anarchist," "anarchist individualist," and simply "anarchist." When referring to anarcho-capitalists, he only uses the terms "Right libertarian," "libertarians of the Right," and "'libertarians'" (with scare quotes).

There's no way you can twist it, DTC. This book is highly critical of anarcho-capitalism and anarcho-capitalism's claim to the label of anarchism. --AaronS 17:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

This quote makes it obvious that whoever wrote this book has no clue whatsoever what anarchism is. "it is wrong literally to define anarchism in terms of 'hostility to the state'" as "that is not a feature of anarchism but rather a contingent and consequential one." An anarchist without hositility to the state doesn't exist. That fact rather speaks for itself. And contingent on what? What is an anarchist's hositlity to the state supposed to be contingent on? It's a real certainty that anarchist's are extremely hostile to the state. You just proved, AaronS, that the sources you are using are not talking about anarchy at all, but something else. It sounds like a ploy to spread, not anarchy, but another dictatorship. Whiskey Rebellion 15:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Well in a sense that's true. Anarcho-capitalists oppose the state as a consequence of opposing aggressive coercion. They don't oppose the state simply because it's the state. DTC 15:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Anarchists in general oppose the aggressive coercion and corrupt self-serving of any non-libertarian government. The word state itself implies a controlling form of government. Naturally any rebels, and no less anarchists, will oppose the state! States tend to be dictatorships, not? Whiskey Rebellion 16:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that some anarchists would probably be fine with a completely benevolent and perfect utopian dictatorship. They just don't think that it's possible. --AaronS 17:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Whiskeyreb, i believe you are misinterpreting the quote and how aaron is using it there. aaron is saying that that source, which is currently being used to support your view rather than his, is not approriate. you just confirmed that, thankyou. i am sorry for how this discussion has devolved in the last 12 hours. first, many of the sources used to cite the claim that "Anarcho-capitalism is often referred to as a form of individualist anarchism lying outside the anti-capitalistic, socialistic mass-movement mainstream of political anarchism, mainly by academics(footnote 41)," which i think is an appropriate statement, also do not include page numbers. No one is deleting those sources because we are not POV pushing. Incidentily, the Noam Chomsky reference from "Notes on Anarchism" is good and is found on page 127 of "Chomsky on Anarchism." He writes, "the consistent anarchist is a socialist." Therefore, one of the most prominent modern anarchists is stating that non-contradictory anarchists are socialist, ie anti-capitalist. That is how Marinus was using the quote, I think totally appropriately, and it at least should be added back in. there are other instances in that book where he admonishes adcap and libertarianism but having someone on the other end of a phoneline find them was not working very well (and was long distance). Blockader 16:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

@AaronS He is also using quotes to say 'conscious egoism' of Max Stirner. By the standard you are applying, wouldn't that mean that Ward doesn't think that Stirner's philosophy isn't real 'conscious egoism'? Also, statement that anarcho-capitalism has "small home base is in the United States" doesn't mean anything if he doesn't say how big is the base of other versions of anarchism in the US. -- Vision Thing -- 17:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

If he were comparing the "conscious egoism" of Max Stirner to the conscious egoism (without scare quotes) of Joe Schmoe, then your analogy would work. But he isn't. He's comparing the libertarianism of 19th century anarchists to the "libertarianism" of Rothbard. Only a willfully tone-deaf or shoddy reading of this chapter could produce any of the conclusions that DTC suggests. --AaronS 17:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Right, he believes 19th century individualists were libertarians and Rothbard is a libertarian. He says explicitly that anarcho-capitalism "is different style of American libertarianism." If the 19th century individualist philosophy was a form of libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism is a form of libertarianism. Anarcho-capitalism is one of the "several traditions of individualist anarchism." DTC 18:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

That would be correct if he did not also say that anarcho-capitalists are singularly unaware of the anarchist tradition, individualist or not. What you present is a logical fallacy. If A are C and B are C, it does not follow that B are A. --AaronS 18:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

What does being unaware of a tradition have to do with anything? You don't have to be aware of a tradition to be an anarchist. To claim otherwise is ludicrous. It is not a logical fallacy. If 19th century individualist anarchists are libertarians and anarcho-capitalists are libertarians, and if libertarianism is another word for anarchism, then 19th century individualist anarchists and anarcho-capitalists are both anarchists. The only possible thing he could mean by the quotes around "libertarian" are that anarcho-capitalists are not real libertarians, but only if you look at it out of context. Because is proven wrong by his statement that it's a "different form of libertarianism." DTC 18:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

You attempted to claim that Ward argues that anarcho-capitalism is one of the "several traditions of individualist anarchism." I showed you that he explicitly says that Rothbard and "anarcho-capitalist apologists" are actually unaware of the traditions. Libertarianism is indeed another word for anarchism, which is why Ward surrounds the word with scare quotes when he refers to anarcho-capitalism. The fact that he calls it a different form of libertarianism shows that he does not believe that it is anarchist libertarianism. To read Ward as implying that anarcho-capitalism happily fits right in under the umbrella of individualist anarchism is to be seriously mistaken. --AaronS 18:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, what does being aware of traditions have to do with being an anarchist? A person can decide to be an anarchist one day without ever having read any anarchist philosophy. Nobody that I know of claims that being unaware of a tradition means you're not an anarchist. Ward is certainly not making that claim. If libertarianism is another word for anarchism, then if anarcho-capitalism is "a different form of libertarianism", then anarcho-capitalism is a different form of anarchism. DTC 18:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Can we stop going around in circles? You are the one that claimed that anarcho-capitalism was a part of the anarchist tradition. Ward says that it isn't. Libertarianism is not another word for anarchism. "Libertarian" is another word for "anarchist." There is a difference. It comes from the French libértaire, which does have the same meaning as anarchiste. The equivalent of "libertarianism" in French, however, is libéralisme, which has nothing to do with anarchisme. Ward argues that libertarian is another word for anarchist, but that the term has been appropriated by anarcho-capitalists. When you appropriate something, you make an exclusive claim to it. The anarcho-capitalists appropriated the term "libertarian," so that it could no longer be used to refer to anarchists -- only anarcho-capitalists. Thus your syllogism fails, and it is a fallacy. Ward's use of scare quotes around "libertarian" when he refers to anarcho-capitalists shows how he thinks that this appropriation was unjustified, which is why he is not merely using the first definition of appropriation, but both. --AaronS 18:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

You're asking ME if we can stop going around in circles? Look at what you just did. Just above you said "libertarianism is indeed another word for anarchism." Now you say "libertarianism is not another word for anarchism." Now that's going around in circles. Ward says anarcho-capitalism is a "different form of libertarianism" from the 19th century form. Obviousy he is using the term "libertarianism" to refer to the philosophy of the 19th century individualists. So your strange claim that "libertarian" can mean anarchist, but libertarianism cannot mean anarchists is just ridiculous. DTC 18:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

DTC, he begins the chapter by saying that the terms are interchangeable. But then he says that "libertarian" has been appropriated by anarcho-capitalists, which he disagrees with. I'm sorry, but that's just how it is. --AaronS 18:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

He may not like that they appropriated the term for themselves, but he doesn't dispute that they are libertarians. And he uses the term "libertarianism" to mean anarchism. He says it's a "different form of libertarianism" meaning a different form of anarchism. DTC 19:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Look a bit more closely at what I wrote. A is F. B is A. Therefore, B is F. This works if the variables always refer to the same thing. When Rothbard appropriated the term "libertarian," it no longer referred to the same thing. The syllogism fails. --AaronS 19:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Good try, but Ward still uses the word in the original sense, to refer to anarchism in general. If he says anarcho-capitailsm is "a differnet form of libertarianism" then what is the other kind of libertarianism, to him? It's the 19th century philosophy. He's simply not allowing the term to be used to refer solely to anarcho-capitalism but to all form of anarchism. DTC 19:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, different from the libertarianism of the 19th century. But we already know that. He never uses "libertarian" to describe a 20th century anarchist. He uses "anarchist individualist." DTC, there is no way that you can twist this source to suggest that Ward is implying that anarcho-capitalism is a new form of individualist anarchism. That's just intellectually and academically bankrupt. --AaronS 19:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes he does. If he says anarcho-capitalism is a "different form of libertarianism" than the 19th century individualists, then obviously he thinks that 19th century individualists are libertarians. I'm not twisting anything at all. You're just trying to find hidden meanings that are not there. If someone wants to say anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism they will just come out and say it. DTC 19:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

No, DTC, you're not getting it. Try, for a moment, to imagine that you might possibly be incorrect. It opens up innumerable opportunities for intellectual growth and learning. Then, consider this. Ward writes: "In the late 20th century the word 'libertarian', which people holding such a viewpoint [the individualist anarchist viewpoint] had previously used as an alternative to the word 'anarchist', was appropriated by a new group of American thinkers." (2, emphasis mine) 'Previously' is an adverb indicating that the verb that it is describing occurs in the past, but no longer occurs in the present. If I "previously" ate chicken, but now eat fish, it means that I no longer eat chicken. If "libertarian" was "previously" used as an alternative label for individualist anarchism, but has now been appropriated by a new group of thinkers, then it is no longer used as an alternative label for individualist anarchism.

Ward dedicates Chapter 7 to analyzing this further. He opens it by repeating his earlier position. Anarchists have used the word 'libertarian' as a synonym for 'anarchist', but 'libertarian' has "more recently" been appropriated by anarcho-capitalists (62). But when did this happen, might you ask? Why, in the 1970s! Before then, 'libertarian' was a synonym for 'anarchist'. Then, 'libertarian' was appropriated by Murray Rothbard to describe his ideology. Now it refers to his ideology, not any kind of anarchism. If it still referred to anarchism, then it would not be appropriated, it would be shared. Is this really so hard? I might add that this rather simple logical exercise does not involve reading any hidden messages. It involves the comprehension of clear and obvious ones. It's called reading comprehension. --AaronS 20:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I know that he says it was "previously" used to refer to anarchism in general. But he chooses to continue using it the old way. He's old school and doesn't want to sell the term out. Again, it is obvious, because he refers to anarcho-capitalism as "a different form of libertarianism" than that of the "19th century figures." I think it's pretty obvious that he's including it as one of the "several traditions of individualist anarchism." He heads off a paragraph sayin g that there are "several traditions of individualist anarchism" then mentions the "19th century figures," Max Stirner's "conscious egoism" and then finally anarcho-capitalism at the end of that short paragraph. DTC 20:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC) By the way, I think it's pretty funny that we're putting so much effort in working on one sentence, when that sentence probably will be deleted in entirety within the next few weeks or even days. But such is the nature of the futility of Wikipedia. DTC 20:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

We must be reading a different book. In my book, on page 2, Ward says that there exist several traditions of individualist anarchism, derived from Stirner and the 19th century individualists. He never says that anarcho-capitalism is different from the "19th century figures," because individualist anarchism is something that has always existed, but is derived from the 19th century figures. The thinkers from which individualist anarchism is derived differ from free-market liberals in their distrust of capitalism and support of mutualism. He then goes on to say that "libertarian" was later appropriated by anarcho-capitalists. He mentions anarcho-capitalism (obliquely) at the end of the paragraph, but only to say that it does not fall under this tradition.

I think that you've stretched your argument as far as it can go, DTC, and it's quite obvious that it doesn't achieve what you're aiming at. You're absolutely missing the plain logic of my interpretation, which really has nothing to do with assuming that Ward is just "old school" and doesn't want to "sell out." --AaronS 20:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

And yes, Wikipedia is often quite silly and pointless. That's why it's perfect for passing time. :-D --AaronS 20:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

No he is not saying there are several traditions "derived" from Stirner and the individualists. He just says "There are, suprisingly, several traditions of individualist anarchism." He doesn't say anything is "derived" from them. 19th century American individualist anarchism wasn't derived from any other form of anarchism. It was form of anarchism native to America that arose spontaneously. What are the several forms? They include the 19th century American form, Stirner's egoism, and anarcho-capitalism. He doesn't say that there are traditions of individualist anarchism that are "derived" from individualist anarchism. That makes no sense. DTC 20:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

DTC, i don't think it appropriate to add "according to colin ward" because there is already a citation which accomplishes this, just as there is through the rest of the article. Or shall we go through and start adding "according to so and so" to every other sentence? he is a mainstream and published scholar of anarchism and continuously adding "according to" marginalizes his importance. we are not doing that to your sources are we? POV? 69.55.170.23 19:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I know what you're saying and I was thinking that too. But, he's making a point about the term "libertarian" than I haven't seen made by others. I agree with what Ward is saying. It just seems like "different form of libertarianism" should be in quotes and Colin Ward's name mentioned in order to prevent any confusion. I guess I could go either way on that. DTC 19:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC) That's funny that you think it might be POV. To me, backing up a statement with the name of a respected scholar would give a statement more weight. I don't know if he's respected or not. I guess if he's not then it wouldn't be very good to put his name. DTC 19:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

He is respected among socialist anarchists and among academic circles in general, i don't imagine that ancaps respect him particularly. That and because no other refernces are getting an "according to" preface is why i put POV with a question mark. In Chomsky on Anarchism he makes nearly identical points regarding libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism, but as i already mentioned my mom couldn't find it so that citation will have to wait till i get the book back or find another copy. UGA library proly has it but i don't really feel like goin up there at the moment. Also, that the term libertarian was copted by the American Libertarian Party is general knowledge in the sense that the term originally applied to libertarian socialists in the 19th and 20th centuries, many of whom were anarchists. i will back this up momentarily. A section on former anarchists could be interesting though before it is added we should compile a list here to see if there is enough people fitting to even make a section on it. Most anarchists I know are anarchists for life but it would be interesting to explore famous ex-anars. Piece, Blockader 19:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why anarcho-capitalists wouldn't respect his scholarship. I think they would agree with everything he's saying there. DTC 19:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I think your most recent edit is a good compromise. Can you agree Aaron? Also, if you go the Libertarian Socialism or the Libertarianism page you will find reference to the term libertarian being coopted from the left. For example, anarcho-communists originally (and seldomly still do) called themselves libertarian communists but that fell away as libertarianism became a more right-wing concept. Also i found another online article in which Chomsky denegrates ancap. just type his name and anarcho-capitalism into google. i think we have enough on both sides though anyhow. Blockader 20:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Robert Anton Wilson

I don't think RAW belongs in the cultural phenomena section. In an interview with Utopia USA he states, when asked about government, ";...I’d like to see it limited. I’d like to see it pushed back to the level of the Constitution, what we usually call Jeffersonian democracy." Later he states, "I tend to shy away from the word anarchist, because most people think it means bomb throwing. And a lot of people who consider themselves anarchists seem to think that too. But I can’t use libertarian, because the people who got their grip on that word are even less rational by my standards. I guess "decentralist" is the word I’d have to pick out for myself. Decentralist grassroots Jeffersonian something or other. Does anyone have a source where he does identify himself as an anarchist or are is his inclusion based on general anti-authoritarian (but obviously not anarchist if he agrees with a Jeffersonian democracy) sentiment? Blockader 17:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Here is an interview from Starship magazine where he says, "I am not an anarchist anymore." He says he's a minarchist libertarian. [7] DTC 18:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC) That gives me an idea. There should be an "ex-anarchists" category. DTC 18:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Bob is far from an ex-anarchist, I did his Non-Euclidian Politics course at the start of the year and he still strongly identifies himself in the tradition of the individualist-mutualist anarchism of Proudhon, Tucker and Spooner (restated in his latest book "email to the universe"). However, he also puts himself across as a pragmatist and stridently anti-dogma. I'd argue that he sees anarchism as the ultimate goal, but, in the current climate, seeks to reduce the power of what he calls Tsarist Occupied Government. A major part of this has been his campaigns for the constitutional rights of the states (particularly on medical marijuana). Trying to define Bob's politics in normal terms is, however, always going to be like trying to catch an eel. He's a philosopher, not an ideologue. Donnacha 17:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Communism DOES NOT Equal Socialism WhiskeyRebellion

Communism is one form of Socialist organization. Please do not confuse the two as the same and then inject this misgiving into the article. Blockader 18:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, Blockader, what is the difference between the two, then? Whiskey Rebellion 20:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Read the articles. Are you really serious? Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 23:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Ward, again

DTC wrote: Believe me, it's mutual. I don't trust your ability to examine the sources. I don't think you have enough background knowledge on the history of individualist anarchism to interpret what he's talking about. If he wanted to say that anarcho-capitalism was not a form of anarchism he would have come out and said it. There is no need for looking for hidden meanings and "scare quotes." Unless what you claim a source is saying is obvious then it probably shouldn't be used. I am more strict on myself for sources that I post here. If it doesn't say point blank that "anarcho-capitalism is a form of individualist anarchism" or "anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism" or something similarly explicit I don't put it in as a source. There is no way anyone can claim any sources I post don't say that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism without appearing to be illiterate or insane. So few scholars say that anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism that I think you're grasping for straws by seeing what you want to see. Those who are saying anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism is the anti-capitalist anarchist celebrities (and the no-name anarchists on the internet), which is a trivial point because of course that's what they think. That's why they chose anarcho-communism (or some other collectivist form) over anarcho-capitalism. DTC 15:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

My interpretation uses plain logic and a basic understanding of the English language. As you have just admitted, probably unwittingly, your interpretation requires "background knowledge," i.e. preconceived prejudices, which is all your background knowledge constitutes, since you are not a scholar. One need not be a scholar to pick up and understand a book called Anarchism: A Very Short Introduction, whose stated purpose is to introduce laymen to the subject of anarchism. Even so, being in real life the author of a thesis and a research assistant, whose main academic interests have centered around philosophy of all kinds, I'm quite qualified enough to read a book about a subject and gain a good understanding of that subject without having had any previous knowledge of that subject. Then again, so is anybody with the ability to read a book.

That said, your interpretation of Ward's book -- that he argues that anarcho-capitalism is a form of individualist anarchism -- relies on one dubious interpretation of one small paragraph located at the very beginning of the book. This is that paragraph in full, again:

There are, unsurprisingly, several traditions of individualist anarchism, one of them deriving from the 'conscious egoism' of the German writer Max Stirner (1806-56), and another from a remarkable series of 19th-century American figures who argued that in protecting our own autonomy and associating with others for common advantages, we are promoting the good of all. These thinkers differed from free-market liberals in their absolute mistrust of American capitalism, and in their emphasis on mutualism. In the late 20th century the world 'libertarian', which people holding such a viewpoint had previously used as an alternative to the word 'anarchist', was appropriated by a new group of American thinkers, who are discussed in Chapter 7. (2-3)

In this paragraph, Ward establishes the following: (1) that there are several traditions of individualist anarchism; (2) that one is derived from Stirner; (3) that another is derived from 19th-century American individualists; (4) that all of these thinkers differed from free-market liberals; (5) that the term 'libertarian' was previously used as an alternative to 'anarchist'; and (6) that the term 'libertarian' was appropriated by anarcho-capitalists in the late 20th century, and therefore no longer means the same thing. These are the points that any person, commanding a basic understanding of the English language, and achieving a level of reading comprehension above that of a small child, will garner from this small paragraph.

Your argument, thus far, has been that, since Ward mentions anarcho-capitalism in close proximity to his discussion of individualist anarchism, and since he never explicitly makes the statement, verbatim, "Anarcho-capitalism is not a form of individualist anarchism," he must believe that anarcho-capitalism is a form of individualist anarchism. There are two problems with this. First, if Ward does not explicitly deny anarcho-capitalism's place in individualist anarchism, it would not logically follow that he endorses it. Indeed, mere silence on the matter is damning for your argument. Second, the proximity of a word on a piece of paper to another word on that very same piece of paper does not an actual relation make.

My argument, on the contrary, has merely relied on the above-outlined points, as well as a basic understanding of the English language, including the words "differ," "previously," and "appropriate." This very simple understanding of the passage is further substantiated by the rest of the book, which your interpretation ignores. I outlined the arguments that he presents in Chapter 7 in earlier discussions. To paraphrase, he writes that 'libertarian' once meant the same thing as 'anarchist', but has "more recently" been appropriated by anarcho-capitalists (62). Throughout the chapter, he distinguishes between several anarchist individualists of the 19th and 20th centuries, not one of which who could be called an anarcho-capitalist, and the self-avowed American "'libertarian'" academics of the late 20th century. His discussion of anarcho-capitalism is reserved solely to a descriditing of it and a denial of its place in anarchism and individualist anarchism.

Considering the several faults of your argument, and considering that my reading of Ward relies on nothing more than an understanding of the words that he uses and a logical interpretation of his arguments, as well as a consideration of his book as a whole, your argument fails, and mine stands in its place. --AaronS 16:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I would not use Ward as a source for anarcho-capitalism being a form of individualist anarchism. The reason is because he doesn't say it in an explicit statement. I like explicit sources. I do see him as including anarcho-capitalism as one of the "several traditions of individualist anarchism." You statement that there are several traditions "derived" from individualist anarchism make no sense at all. Ward is not saying anything was "derived" from 19th century individualist anarchism of the American variety or the Stirner variety. If there was a kind of individualist anarchism "derived" from those philosophies, what are they??? Individualist anarchism just is. It makes no sense to say that individualist anarchism was derived from individualist anarchism. Ward never says that anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism. He says that anarcho-capitalism is not traditional, because it doesn't oppose capitalism. Look, if it has to take so much argumentation to convince someone it says what you think it says, then obviously it's a bad source. For any source I post here all I have to do is point you to an explicit statement "anarcho-capitalism is a form of individualist anarchism." DTC 16:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Ward writes: There are, unsurprisingly, several traditions of individualist anarchism, one of them deriving from the 'conscious egoism' of the German writer Max Stirner (1806-56), and another from a remarkable series of 19th-century American figures. So, now your argument is that, although Ward said this, he did not really say it, or did not really mean it, because it does not match up with your own views, or, as you like to call them, "background knowledge." A simple reading of the passage, i.e. one that does not rely on "background knowledge," would take into consideration Ward's use of the present-tense conjugation of the verb "to be" in the statement "There are... several traditions of individualist anarchism," contemplate, briefly, his use of the verb "to derive," and then make the connection that Ward suggests that present individualist anarchism is derived from 19th century individualists and Stirner. One might then continue reading the rest of the paragraph and the rest of the book, and note that he suggests, in a very clear way, that anarcho-capitalism is not a part of this tradition, but is rather quite distinct, and that further discussion substantiates this initial interpretation.

It might take a lot of argumentation to convince you, but that's just because you don't want to believe it, and I'm being nice and patient and giving you the benefit of understanding it. Anybody else, without "background knowledge," would rather easily comprehend what Ward is saying, without much reflection at all. The fact that you have actually made me rather embarrassingly lay out the very basic premises of his arguments for you in the clearest terms possible counts against your neutral comprehension of sources that contradict your "background knowledge," not against this source. --AaronS 17:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The "background knowledge" I'm referring to is the common understanding among historians that anarcho-capitalism is a form of individualist anarchism. He doesn't say point blank "anarcho-capitalism is a form of individualist anarchism" but he includes it in the paragraph which says there are "several traditions of individualist anarchism." If you knew that most scholars considered it individualist anarchism, you would have picked that right up. DTC 17:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

See my note regarding the proximity of words on a page. If Ward's discussion of anarcho-capitalism was not reserved solely to discrediting it or denying its place in anarchism and individualist anarchism, then your hunch might be correct. But, that's not the case. --AaronS 17:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

This is your sentence in the article right now: " Colin Ward, in his book for Oxford University Press' Introductions series, argues that it is a "different form of libertarianism" than the kind held by current individualist anarchists, as well as the kind posited by the 19th century American figures and Max Stirner, from which the modern form is derived. The term "libertarian," he notes, was appropriated by anarcho-capitalists in the late 20th century to refer to their own philosophy." What does it mean? What do you mean by "from which the modern form is derived"? What modern form? If someone is an individualist anarchist of the Tucker type, then it's not a modern form. It's the classic form. Ward is not saying anything about anything being "derived". That sentence has got to go.DTC 17:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

There are several kinds of individualist anarchists, both modern and classic. You're right, it should read "modern forms," not "modern form." --AaronS 17:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

What is the modern form of individualist anarchism that was derived from, say Tucker's individualist anarchism? If someone is an individualist anarchist of the kind Tucker was, then it's not a modern form of individualist anarchism but the classic form. What modern form of individualist anarchism are you talking about? DTC 17:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not here to defend Ward, just to lay out what it is that he's saying. This discussion is over, as far as I am concerned. --AaronS 17:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

See? You had no point. Ward doesn't say that there is a kind of individualist anarchism derived from 19th century individualist anarchism. Someone today that is an anti-capitalist individualist anarchist does not have a modern form of individualist anarchism. He is a traditional individualist anarchist. The only modern form of individualist anarchism is anarcho-capitalism, which Ward points out is very untraditional. I know your position is that you have to follow tradition to be an anarchist. But Ward never says that. That position would be absurd, anyway. He just points out that anarcho-capitalist do not follow tradition. Maybe your POV that you have to follow tradition to be an anarchist is what's throwing you off. DTC 17:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

No. Not only are you caricaturing my arguments, which is really poor form, and putting words in my mouth, but you're also begging the question. Since you believe, so firmly, that anarcho-capitalism is a modern form of individualist anarchism, you assume that Ward must be referring to anarcho-capitalism when he suggests that there are modern forms of individualist anarchism that are derived from classical forms. Ward never says that anarcho-capitalism is untraditional. He says that anarcho-capitalists like Rothbard appropriated the term 'libertarian' from anarchists in order to provide an ideology for untrammelled market capitalism.

Unfortunately for your argument, there is no reason to assume that Ward is referring to anarcho-capitalism. Indeed, there is every reason to assume that he most certainly is not. There are individualist anarchists today who do not explicitly follow Tucker or Stirner, who call themselves individualists anarchists, and who deny that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism, let alone individualist anarchism.

Again, it is quite clear that your interpretation relies on a great many assumptions. --AaronS 17:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes Ward says anarcho-capitalists are for untrammelled market capitalism. But he's not saying because of this they aren't anarchists. He's not saying they're not anarchist. He's saying because of this they are unlike the 19th century individualist anarchists. There is no reason why someone who supports untrammeled capitalism can't be an anarchist. And, no, any individualist anarchist today who opposes capitalism is a traditional individualist anarchist. It wouldn't be a "modern form of individualist anarchism." How many anti-capitalist individualist anarchists are there today? The number is really small in comparison to anarcho-capitalists. Anyway, never does he say any form of anarchism is derived from the 19th century form. And, he never says that anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism. DTC 17:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I want to challenge you on a statement you made. You said that there are individualist anarchists today who deny that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism. Name one. That would be news to me. DTC 18:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

None of your interpretations rely on the text. The rely on your preconceived prejudices as to what constitutes anarchism. This discussion is over, especially if you're simply going to continue begging the question. I've already explained to you, over and over again, that if anarcho-capitalists have appropriated the term "libertarian" in such a way that it can no longer be used to refer to anarchists of any kind, then anarcho-capitalists must be libertarians, not anarchists. This is Ward, not my "background knowledge," talking. --AaronS 19:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes they appropriated the world libertarian to themselves. That doesn't meant that they're not anarchists. It just means they took the term to refer to their own philosophy. Ward himself considers both 19th century individualists and anarcho-capitalists to be libertarians, which is proved when he says anarcho-capitalism "is a different form of libertarianism" than that of the 19th century libertarians. Ward uses libertarian and anarchist interchangeably, like most elderly scholars who have been studying American anarchism since many years ago. He doesn't think the term should refer solely to them, obviously, so he continues to use it to refer to all anarchists. If he wanted to say anarcho-capitalist are not anarchists then all he had to say was "anarcho-capitalists are not real anarchists" or "anarcho-capitalists are not real libertarians." There is no need for him to talk in veiled language. Find a better source. That just doesn't do it. DTC 20:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

He doesn't talk in veiled language. What he is saying is as clear as day. It's just not what you want to hear. I'm done giving you a lesson in reading comprehension. --AaronS 21:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

DTC: "How many anti-capitalist individualist anarchists are there today? The number is really small in comparison to anarcho-capitalists." This is a meaningless statement. How would you know? Furthermore, if Ward didnt think anarcho-capitalists where individual anarchists, why then put them in "the individual response" chapter without explicitely denying their place as individual anarchists or anarchists in generel. It seems to me that Ward tries to walk a thin line, between explaining the anarcho-capitalist's differences from other anarchists without making it clear that those differences are enough for them not to be anarchists though they are seemingly great. --Fjulle 14:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC) Furthermore he states that "The libertarians of the Right have, nevertheless, a function in the spectrum of anarchist discussion." On page 67. Its clear to me that he doesnt want to say anarcho-capitalism isnt a form of anarchism because its got its function in anarchist discussions. It doesnt get more explicit than this. --Fjulle 14:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I think we can safely remove him from the sources that say anarcho-capitalism is not anarchism, then. AaronS is reading things into Ward that just aren't there. Most serious scholars will not say anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism because it's POV and takes credibility away from them as scholars. Saying that anarcho-capitalism is anti-tradition is fine, but going beyond that to say it is not a form of anarchism is going out on a ledge. DTC 16:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

No, the source stays. I never included it as a source saying that anarcho-capitalism was not a form of anarchism, despite the fact that Ward makes that clear when he says that anarcho-capitalism appropriated the label "libertarian" from the anarchists, and never refers to them as anarchists. Further, it substantiates the argument that many have been making that there is disagreement amongst scholars and anarchists. Ward highlights that disagreement. Finally, any source that does not explicitly state that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism or a form of individualist anarchism counts against the argument that they are, as far as logic is concerned. --AaronS 16:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The source is in two places. It's in the first place as a source that anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism. You then added it again later for the end of the paragraph for something else. I'm deleting it as a source for the first statement, not your claim. Finally, If you think logic tells you that "any source that does not explicitly state that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism or a form of individualist anarchism counts against the argument that they are" then you can't know much about logic. That's totally unacceptable. DTC 17:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Eh... I'm getting rather tired of explaining simple things to you, but if you make a positive claim like that, and I show you sources that do not substantiate your claim, then that counts against your claim. --AaronS 17:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

It looks like you misunderstand. I already stated earlier that I would NOT use Ward as a source for anarcho-capitalism being a form of individualist anarchism, because it's not explicit. I would expect that you would want the same kind of explicitness from a source that I claim that says it is a form of anarchism. DTC 17:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I understand full well what you meant. Let me break it down for you: You claim that there is a consensus amongst scholars that A is F, and I claim that you're wrong. It is up to you to show me that you are right. You must show sources that claim, explicitly, or quite obviously, that A is F. To reject your argument, I merely need to show sources that claim that there is disagreement, or that discuss F in detail without even mentioning A. You seem to be operating under the false assumption that I am making a positive claim regarding A or F. I am not. --AaronS 17:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we're using a different meaning of "conensus." On Wikipedia when we says there is a "consensus" we don't mean universal agreement. We mean that at least a super-majority agrees. If 20 sources say anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism and 3 say it's not, I would say that it is a consensus that scholars do consider it a form of anarchism. Those 3 sources would represent an extreme minority opinion and should not be represented any more than as being so. DTC 17:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

That use is for talk page discussions. In the real world, consensus means universal agreement. There is not universal agreement. Further, it needs to be stated that anarcho-capitalism was invented by academics and is discussed mainly by academics. Whether or not this presents a systemic bias is left for the reader to decide, as I am unfamiliar with any work discussing this particular topic.

Furthermore, although I know you love to repeat the refrain of "fringe, fringe, fringe" with regard to claims that anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism or individualist anarchism, the fact of the matter is that none of us will ever exhaust the sources, meaning that those kinds of claims cannot be made, because they are not obvious. You'd need to back up such a claim with a few scholarly sources indicating as much. --AaronS 17:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The academics are really all that matters. If an anti-capitalist anarchist says anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism what weight does that hold on Wikipedia? None at all, unless he's a published scholar. And not that a published scholar who is an anti-capitalist is not a legitimate source, but fact that he's an anti-capitalist anarchist lessens his weight as a source. Everybody knows that anarchists have a long history of denigrating the forms of anarchism that others hold as say that their own is the real anarchism. Now if you can find sources from pro-capitalists that says anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism then may be on to something. But a piddling of anti-capitalist anarchists who say that anarcho-capitalism is not anarchism really doesn't mean much. Notice that included in the sources saying that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism are sources from scholars who are anti-capitalist anarchists. Now those are sources that hold a lot of weight because you can't claim they are tainted by bias. I'm not stating in the article that the claim that anarcho-capitalism is not anarchism is fringe so I don't know what you're complaint is. That's obvious to anyone who sees the sources. DTC 17:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

No, real academics and real scholars don't sit around whispering about each other's politics and whether or not so-and-so is a socialist or libertarian, because real academics and real scholars have to be reviewed by other real academics and real scholars and published in real journals or by real academic publishing houses. A person's politics, so long as they are being published by a reputably neutral and academically excellent publisher, do not matter. Since you seem to be ignoring my points, as usual, and strangely discussing a rather peculiar sliding scale of scholarly clout based upon personal politics (as if there exist scholars who are apolitical), I'm not sure how to reply. --AaronS 18:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The only sources verified to say anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism is the one from Noam Chomsky (I didn't verify it but Blockader did and I'm taking his word for it), Peter Sabatini (who apparently is just some unknown guy who wrote something and sent it into Anarchy magazine, and Albert Meltzer (who is anti-individuliast who also says Tucker was not an anarchist and Proudhon was not an anarchist). Those sources are laughable. DTC 18:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

You can continue to discuss matters altogether irrelevant if that is what pleases you, but, again, I'm not sure how to respond. --AaronS 18:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to delete the sources that can't be verified. No pages numbers, etc. How are you going to respond to that? DTC 18:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

What a funny proposition and question. Anyway, that kind of behavior would probably be perceived as being a bit rude. I would rather that you ask whoever supplied those sources to supplement them with accurate page numbers, and to assume good faith in the meantime. --AaronS 18:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it would be rude at all. I already put a notice up several days ago asking for verification and page numbers. I've given it a good amount of time I think. Blockader was able to verify Chomsky. I verified Sabatini and Meltzer. I was just letting you know that I'll be deleting the others. DTC 18:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I think that you were being a little snark. But we can pretend otherwise. All in the spirit of truth, right? --AaronS 18:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

No, your logic is flawed. Since anarcho-capitalism fits in most definitions of anarchism, burden of proof is on those who claim that it's not a form of anarchism. -- Vision Thing -- 19:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid that's not the case. --AaronS 19:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you substantiate that statement? -- Vision Thing -- 19:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure. In a debate, and in most cases of logic, the burden of proof is on the person making the affirmative claim.[8] --AaronS 19:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I know what burden of proof is. I'm saying that burden on proof is not on those who claim that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism, because anarcho-capitalism is anarchism according to definition of anarchism. By analogy, it's like you claim that I'm not a human. It's enough that I provide evidence that I fit into definition of human, and then burden of proof is on you to prove that I'm not a human. Once I provided the proof that I'm human by definition, burden of proof shifts on you. -- Vision Thing -- 19:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

That's a poor analogy, for the following reasons: (1) it has not been established, independently of providing sources, that anarcho-capitalism is anarchism according to the definition of anarchism; and (2) the obviousness of your humanity is much more difficult to call into question than the controversial claim that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism or individualist anarchism. Your argument doesn't really make sense. --AaronS 20:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

According to MW, anarchism is: "a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups". Is anarcho-capitalism a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups? Since answer is yes, then, by definition, anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism.

As for analogy, instead of human we can take anything else. Object isn't important. -- Vision Thing -- 20:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to peruse the talk page archives, because we've already been over, ad nauseum, the inadequacy of dictionary definitions. And, quite to the contrary, by very definition, the subject of an analogy is very important. --AaronS 20:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not interested in digging through this talk page archives. Anyway, argument stands. Since it's anarchism by definition, other side must provide evidences (and by Wikipedia standards, that are verifiable scholarly sources) that it's not if it can. -- Vision Thing -- 20:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, isn't it easy to just stamp your feet and cross your arms? --AaronS 20:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

That's what you have done by directing me to the archives (and there are exactly 40 of them). -- Vision Thing -- 18:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Look, there are about 3 or 4 anti-capitalist anarchists who say that anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism, such as Noam Chomski (Meltzer says all forms of individualist anarchism are not legitimate anarchism), but the majority of scholars do consider it anarchism . There are 5 or 6 individualist anarchists, such as Benjamin Tucker, that say anarcho-communism is not a form of anarchism but the majority of scholars consider it a form of anarchism. Why are you picking on anarcho-capitalism? Why don't you not apply the same standard to anarcho-communism? DTC 20:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

What excactly does make Chomski a deceant source about anarchism? Isnt he a psychologist? Has he gotten anything on this topic published? Just curious --Fjulle 21:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

What you propose is that anarcho-capitalism is anarchism by definition. That means you make some kind of analytic statement like this one: "All bachelors are unmarried", which means that the predicate are allready existing in the subject per definition. The problem about anarchism and anarcho-capitalism is that theres also other possible predicates like fx anarcho-communism. It wouldnt be a problem if anarcho-communism and anarcho-capitalism didnt in any way contradict eachother, but alas they do, especially about the right to private property. In analogy with the "All bachelors are unmarried" you would make a sentence like this: "All bachelors are unmarried and all bachelors are married" or "Anarchism is about going against and for private proporty", which is absurd. Luckily theres no way you would ever find enough deceant sources agreeing with you. --Fjulle 21:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC) Offcourse you could mean that anarchism equals anarcho-capitalism, but i dont think thats your point, is it? Because thats even oder! Why call it anarcho-capitalism if its just anarchism, and why have people ever used the concept anarchism in the first place since its anarcho-capitalism... --Fjulle 21:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Just because anarcho-capitalism and anarcho-communism oppose each other in certain areas that doesn't mean that they can't have anything in common (like being forms of anarchism). For instance, both are political theories. -- Vision Thing -- 18:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, so a possible definition on anarchism is that its a political theory, and that does mean they are both anarchism's, but then to is every other political theory, which is also absurd. If you can find two kinds of definitions on anarchism, fx anarcho-communisme and anCap, they mustn be, in any way, contradictory for there to be a definition. And theres a contradiction, on private property. All this means one or the other's the definition, not both. This makes an definition impossible on wikipedia and here its not, fundamentally, a matter of definitions, its a matter of perspective, and theres no problem in having two contradictory perspectives on one topic in wikipedia, thats the whole point (As far as iam concerned). --Fjulle 21:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Id like to add a couple of points from Ward about anarcho-capitalism. The first's his point about their solution to social and political problems in US. There are none or they are regarded by most anarchist as a "pathetic evasion of the issues raised by the anarchist criticism of American society". Also id like the point about some writers and their books from this tradition: "Robert Paul Wolff's In Defence of Anarchism; Robbert Nozick's Anarchy, State and Utopia; David Friedman's The Machinery of Freedom; and Murray Rothbard's For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto. This Phalanx of authors have provided the 'ideological superstructure' of the swing to the Right in federal and local politics in the United States, and in British politics for the aim of 'rolling back the frontiers of the State', which was actually a cloak for increased subservience to central decision-making."--Fjulle 10:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

communism and socialism

These excerpts are from Communism:

Communism is an ideology that seeks to establish a future classless, stateless social organization, based upon common ownership of the means of production and the absence of private property. It can be classified as a branch of the broader socialist movement. Communism also refers to a variety of political movements which claim the establishment of such a social organization as their ultimate goal.

Karl Marx held that society could not be transformed from the capitalist mode of production to the communist mode of production all at once, but required a state transitional period which Marx described as the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.

Marx and Engels Like other socialists, Marx and Engels sought an end to capitalism and the systems which they perceived to be responsible for the exploitation of workers. But whereas earlier socialists often favored longer-term social reform, Marx and Engels believed that popular revolution was all but inevitable, and the only path to socialism.

The word "'communist'" itself was coined in 1840 by Goodwyn Barmby, after the French word communisme, while discussing the egalitarianism associated with Gracchus Babeuf, one of the most radical participants in the 1789 French Revolution, and the Abbé Constant. A correspondent of Engels, Goodwyn Barmby himself founded the London Communist Propaganda Society in 1841. "Utopian socialism", a term itself coined by Marx in contrast with "scientific socialism" (a term coined by Engels), designed all utopian writings and foundation of settlements by writers such as Robert Owen, Charles Fourier, and Saint-Simon.

So like I said, "What's the difference?" Whiskey Rebellion 20:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I can't believe i am actually having this discussion with someone who supposes to edit any wikipedia articles on politics! I not attacking you, i am just surprised. All you have to do is go the wikipedia article on socialism and read the definition. It states that socialism, " refers a broad array of doctrines or political movements that envisage a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to social control." There are many forms of political philosophies that make up the general idea of socialism, which is generally considered to be the opposite of capitalism. Communism is one type of socialism, and "marxist" state communism was indeed the most visable of these types for much of the 20th century. Other types of socialism include platform, liberatarian (of which traditional anarchism is a part), democratic, christian, etc. The wikipedia article on communism states that " It can be classified as a branch of the broader socialist movement." Equating socialism and communism is similiar to equating a republic and a democracy. a republic is one type of democracy alongside with many others. it is a subset essentially. Then too there is the difference between big C Communism and little c communism which i will leave to you, with your new found understanding of political classifications, to discern. hope this clarifies something, Blockader 20:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Communism is the extremist form of socialism, as in Kropotkin. I guess you could say the least extreme form of socialism would be the 19th century individualists like Benjamin Tucker. It's just one step away from capitalism. Though, Tucker's philosophy wouldn't be called "socialism" by the modern definition of the term because he is for private ownership of the means of production. I guess the fact that he has a labor theory of value which says that profit is exploitation is what may justify calling him a socialist. DTC 21:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I might say that primitivism is the most extreme form of socialism. then communism, collectivism, mutualism, syndicalism, and social democracy (evolutionary), being examples that trend respectively towards the middle (granted while remaining still very far left in relation to current atmospheres). Blockader 21:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

What? I didn't hear one word that made any sense, Blockader. It sounds like a run-around, do a ballet dance around the issue to me. In the communism article the words socialism and communism are used interchangeably over and over and again. And to say that "primitivism is the most extreme form of socialism" is downright egotistical. The socialists act like they invented the whole world the way they like to take credit for everything. Now they're claiming some sort of ownership over the beginnings of human society. This is all just too much. Everyone knows there is no real difference between communism and socialism. And also, the idea of socialist-libertarianism is off-the-wall. It's sort of like making a Totalitrian Freedom Party. Whiskey Rebellion 22:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

What? I didn't hear one word that made any sense Whiskey Rebellion. "Everyone knows there is no real difference between communism and socialism"--O RLY? Can you cite that, because I know a whole lot of verifiable sources, not to mention myself, who would strongly disagree. And btw, libertarian was originally used to refer to a branch of socialism, so the idea of libertarian socialism really isn't contradictory at all. Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 23:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow, Whiskeyreb, wow. Have you ever taken a course in political science? or read a book on the subject? You really should because its hard for most of us here to tell whether you in good faith but ignorant and ineducated or whether you suffer from extreme bias and are therefore malignantly pushing POV in this article. Also, i was refering to the modern primitivism movement not the early stages in the development of human "civilization."Blockader 15:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

This user is just a sock of Thewolfstar/Lingeron. Compare this with this. Same stuff. Same old deal. Same disruption. I think that everybody deserves several chances, but if she's just going to be doing the same old stuff, then I begin to lose patience. I do, however, appreciate the fact that she is now much less disruptive. --AaronS 15:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

surrendering to disruptors

Editors of this page seem to be devoting disproportionate amounts of energy to debating indefinitely blocked users RJII and Thewolfstar.

The preceding unsigned comment brought to you by 64.122.41.167 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The other preceding unsigned comment brought to you by Whiskey Rebellion (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 23:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Hah! Got me there. Sorry, forgot to sign.

And in response, editors of this page seem to be devoting an awful lot of time having to defend the fact that anarcho-capitalism is a type of anarchism, fend off witch-hunters, and some of us, to argue why there is more likely, no such thing as communist-anarchism. Also, I never got an answer to why this article, although an all-purpose article on anarchism, devotes itself so thoroughly to European and Russian anarchism and dismisses as unimportant any other sort. Whiskey Rebellion 23:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Um, I think you have gotten numerous answers as to why. But just in case you missed it, because many sources (including most encyclopedias) devote very little attention if any on anarcho-capitalism. They do often have information on historical individualist anarchism (and so do we), which is pretty much dead nowadays, and which is still an anti-capitalist ideology. All I can to you thinking there's no such thing as anarcho-communism is that you probably shouldn't be on this page then, at least not until you've read from some reliable and neutral sources, as opposed to wherever else it is you are getting your information. Numerous examples have been cited, and it's not my fault that you either A)Didn't look at them, B) Forgot them or C) Purposefully disregarded them. Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 00:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

That was a wonderfully unfriendly and condescending comment, Ungovernable Force. Thank you so much. Isn't it funny? I can say the same thing to you concerning ignoring things. I'm saying this for the third time now: How come I never got any response to why European and Russian anarchy are the most discussed types of anarchism? Like what I said (way up there), and likewise got no response to, a strong and inspiring seed of freedom was born in the U.S. and yet dominating editors of this article consistently dimiss it as irrelevant. This is a tad outrageous, is it not? Then again these same editors are all America-haters. Is this what you call neutral, Ungovernable? Can you address what I just said rather than attacking me personally, please. Thanks. Whiskey Rebellion 00:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I already answered your question. You seem to have missed it, yet again. Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 01:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I concur. --Marinus 06:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Then again these same editors are all America-haters. - Whiskey, could you please retract this statement? It should be obvious why. --Marinus 06:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I really can see no why to preserve the integrity of this article other than removing the disruptive editors. Am I alone in this? --Marinus 06:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

No you're not alone, but it's pretty difficult to get it done. Unless you can prove to the satisfaction of the admins and general community that these users are socks of banned users, then it won't happen. Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 06:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Whiskey is fond of personal attack (by the way, this can serve as a warning, Whiskey, even if one isn't necessary) but he isn't the one I'm most worried about. I think it's pretty apparent that DTC is aggressively manipulating sources in a way that has gotten other users banned before. There is also the 3RR violations. Not the simplest case, but one that is clear upon reflection. --Marinus 06:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Why are you not able to work with others? Why do you have to start making threats of banning, etc in order to use Wikipedia? You provided false sources for your claims which you just happened to find in another article. They were never verified. You need to realize that Wikipedia needs verifiable information. You can't just stick a source in an article and hope it says what you want it to say. DTC 06:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

But that is exactly what you have done. My discussion with you regarding Ward's Anarchism has shown me that you are willingly incapable of understanding a source that contradicts your firmly-held beliefs regarding anarcho-capitalism. The semantical acrobatics and disregard for plain logic that you demonstrate when a source does not say what you want it to say are reason enough, at least for me, to be suspicious of your other cited claims without having examined them myself. --AaronS 13:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

DTC, there is a difference between verified and verifiable, WP demands the latter. I've read some of those books: they claim what they are stated to claim. You are assuming bad faith by stating that the original person using those sources (and myself, by re-using them) are lying about what's inside them. You've also claimed to have read all of them, and that none of them ever say what they are claimed to. This has later shown to be false in some cases. This is a plainly ridiculous statement in the case of other books. In some (like the Chomsky one on anarchy) either I am lying or you. I know I'm not, so that leaves things clear. It is exceptionally hard for me to assume good faith on your part, and the only reason I haven't gone through with my threat yet is because I want to make sure that I am not treating you unfairly. As for my working with others, I recommend you look at my cases in WP:MEDCAB. --Marinus 06:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Have you seen me call you a liar? Have you seen me accuse you of bad faith? Have you seen me lodge threats of arbitrations cases against you? No. The only think I am accusing you of is being neglectful. I don't think you have bad faith. I think you are a loose cannon. I checked up on some of the sources you provided and I don't agree that they say that anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism. Some of them do, and that's why I am not deleting them. Did you even notice that I didn't delete the Chomsky source in my recent edit? That is because someone here verified it and provided a page number. All I am doing is verifying the sources. I have absolutely no bad faith in this. You need to provide page numbers and/or quotes for whole books so that someone can verify that a writer is making the specific claim that you say they're making. DTC 06:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

"Did you even notice that I didn't delete the Chomsky source in my recent edit? That is because someone here verified it and provided a page number." [timestamped 06:39 25/8 by my clock] But earlier: "By the way, I looked through the books and I don't see it mentioned that anarcho-capitalism is not anarchism." [timestamped 05:19 24/8 by my clock]. Doesn't this strike you as a bit suspicious? The claim was bad enough, but now you are reversed on it and don't seem to care much. --Marinus 06:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Look for yourself: [9] See? I left the Chomsky source. That is because Blockader verified the source: [10] I and others have been working peacefully to verify the sources. Why can't you? Look a couple sections above under "A Source for Anarchists." There someone verified a source and I agreed it was good. Do you see bad faith there? I even provided a link to one of the anti-anarcho-capitalist sources, which you deleted in your reversion. Obviously the problem is you're assuming bad faith that's just not there. Take a step back. Consider that just maybe I don't have bad faith and see how things proceed. I am not a dishonest person. Please do not accuse me of lying anymore. DTC 06:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC) I'll give the sources you've added a little more time, but unless I or someone else can verify them (in the cases of books, with page numbers) then they have to be removed. I understand that you may have read books from authors who were opposed to anarcho-capitalism but that doesn't equate with claiming it's not a form of anarchism. For instance, the Ulrike Heider source I added; he says he is opposed to anarcho-capitalism but he says that it's a form of anarchism. DTC 07:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm pointing out where you definitely claimed that the books do not state anarcho-capitalism is not anarchistic. Here it is again [in Marinus's sources]:

By the way, I looked through the books and I don't see it mentioned that anarcho-capitalism is not anarchism.

What do you say to that? --Marinus 07:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I say it looks like you're not familiar with the english language. Saying that I don't see it mentioned in a book is not the same thing as saying "that the books do not state that anarcho-capitalism is not anarchistic" (your words). I am saying I can't find it in the book, so I'd like a page number to help narrow down the search. That's the purpose of putting page numbers in citations, so people can go back and verify the claim. DTC 07:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

A personal attack used to dodge a question? This is not going very well. I doubt very strongly that you can even look at a book like Libertarianism: Bogus Anarchy (title from memory) and not see the central argument: that anarcho-capitalism can't be anarchistic. And it would take an extremely shoddy reading of the sections on capitalism (clearly marked) not to see this same argument made in, say, A Very Short Introduction to Anarchism. I think it was a strikingly dishonest claim to make, and it is for statements like these that I want you banned. Can you explain to me how I've misread you? I'd prefer a non-controntational solution to our disagreements. --Marinus 07:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you just looking for a fight? I don't understand you. Look above under "Marinus's sources" above. I said that that Sabatini's "Libertarianism: Bogus Anarchy" was a legitimate source. By the way, it's not a book. I disagree on Colin Ward's book "A Very Short Introduction to Anarchism"; it says it is a capitalist form of individualist anarchism. DTC 07:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

No, it does not. That interpretation requires a logical leap of faith that focuses in on one dubious interpretation of one paragraph and ignores the rest of the book. This is why I do not trust you to objectively examine sources. --AaronS 13:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Believe me, it's mutual. I don't trust your ability to examine the sources. I don't think you have enough background knowledge on the history of individualist anarchism to interpret what he's talking about. If he wanted to say that anarcho-capitalism was not a form of anarchism he would have come out and said it. There is no need for looking for hidden meanings and "scare quotes." Unless what you claim a source is saying is obvious then it probably shouldn't be used. I am more strict on myself for sources that I post here. If it doesn't say point blank that "anarcho-capitalism is a form of individualist anarchism" or "anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism" or something similarly explicit I don't put it in as a source. There is no way anyone can claim any sources I post don't say that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism without appearing to be illiterate or insane. So few scholars say that anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism that I think you're grasping for straws by seeing what you want to see. Those who are saying anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism is the anti-capitalist anarchist celebrities (and the no-name anarchists on the internet), which is a trivial point because of course that's what they think. That's why they chose anarcho-communism (or some other collectivist form) over anarcho-capitalism. DTC 15:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

You still haven't answered my question: how do you respond to your earlier claim (which did include the Sabatini) that these books don't reflect the views? And the fact that you have reversed yourself is not in your credit, btw. --Marinus 07:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I never said that Sabatini's Libertarianism: Bogus Anarchy didn't say anarcho-capitalism was not a form of anarchism. I said it did. It's right there in plain english above in the "Marinus's Sources" section. You need to stop accusing me of things that I'm not doing and things that I haven't said. I haven't reversed myself on anything. DTC 07:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC) You owe me an apology, dude. All these claims of lying, bad faith, accusing me of saying things I didn't say, and threats against me are really uncalled for. DTC 08:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, this is just scary! --Fjulle 14:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

A cited source

I have been accused of not citing my sources on this talk page. So here is an excellent source that says what I have been saying, and it says it so well. Please read this - it hits the nail on the head:

The Common Goal of Anarchism Whiskey Rebellion 03:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Anarchism.net is no better than the anarchist FAQ in terms of being a reliable and neutral source, and it's probably worse since the FAQ is at least going to be published relatively soon. And I'm sorry, but I almost stopped reading after the first paragraph, but I did stop half-way through. "Usually it seems it is very important to them to show their distance to whomever is an anarchist but does not share the exact beliefs" (emphasis in original). Um, no, that's not true, most anarchists I know have no problem associating and even working with anarchists of other stripes. Heck, most of the anarchists I've met refuse to classify themselves strongly in any one tradition because it's not viewed as important. I don't give a damn if someones an anarcho-commie, syndicalist, primmie, post-leftist or whatever (I even work with democratic socialists and progressives at my school, but that's a bit more tentative). I've only met one Christian anarchist, but I had a nice conversation with him. The only exceptions are "anarcho"-capitalists and "anarcho"-nationalists, neither of which I've ever met in the real world. I also think trying to come up with the "One Right Way" to organize and fix things is ridiculous, believing instead on letting it develop as it goes. And I too get upset when sydicalists and commies and other anarchists get into flame wars on the net, because I think that's also ridiculous. But so is allying with capitalists, who are considered just as bad as the state for the traditional anarchist movement. I wouldn't team up with neo-nazis just because we want to get rid of economic globalization, would I? (BTW, has anyone seen that crappy movie The Anarchist Cookbook?). No, because I despise their other ideas just as much as as I support that one common goal. So why would I support an "anarchist" if they wanted to perpetuate one of the major institutions next to the state that kills and oppresses people the world over? Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 06:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not as kind to the primitivists as you are. And yes, that is a terrible source. --Marinus 06:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, seeing as I have some primitivist leanings, it's hard for me not to be kind to them ;) Actually, I can understand not liking some of them though, because a number of them seem a bit whacko and fundamentalist about their beliefs. I just think they have some ideas that should be explored and that might be true. But even if they are, I think the only way to get to that point, barring a major ecological melt-down (which would probably just lead to "anarchy" in the sense of violent chaos as opposed to peaceful hunting and gathering), would be for a libertarian socialist revolution, guided by a strong environmental ethic, which most modern anarchists have. Then from there, voluntarily decreasing birth rates, getting rid of advanced technology, decentralizing to a very small scale and rewilding would be necessary to make the transition, which would probably take a long time to fully complete. I'm not convinced that we couldn't do permaculture though, and possibly even have some advanced, though radically different, earth-friendly technologies. I think we'd need to wait and get past step-one though before spending too much time debating that. I think permaculture could easily be enough though. Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 08:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Who cares about what Per Bylund has to say about anything? --AaronS 13:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

First, that article is not very good, though i agree with some of the general message. Second, Whiskeyreb/Lingeron, the article confirms what all of us have been saying about communisn and socialism being different when it talks about disagreemenst between, "...communist anarchists against socialist anarchists against syndicalist anarchists against Christian anarchists against environmentalist anarchists..." Therefore, the article you are championing to support your views actually refutes some of them in the sense that it recognizes that socialism is not equatable to communism. Thirdly, the article makes patently false statements such as, "Of course, collectivism-influenced anarchists reckon capitalism, the market, money and such things as technology or contracts are “coercive structures” and thus need to be abolished to." Actually, collectivist anarchists and mutualist anarchists do not seek the abolishment of money and very few anarchists (namely primitivists) dispute the benefits of most technology. The article makes generalizations which are not accurate. For example, it misunderstands the position of most individualists, who are still anti-capitalist anarchists, when it identifies them as otherwise. Conversely, I agree with the statement, "But while discussing the anarchist society, anarchists often make the same mistake as statists: making up a plan for how an anarchist society would be like, and aim to accomplish this society." Essentially, this is a poorly researched, poorly written, and, most importantly, unsigned article that would not be suitable for use in an academic history paper and should therefore not be included in an encyclopedia. thankyouverymuch, Blockader 15:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean individualists are social anarchists? That's impossible by definition. The two main branches are individualist anarchist and social anarchist. DTC 15:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh shit, thats a stupid typo. it was supposed to say "anti-capitalist." thanks for pointing that out, you now how it is when your on a tangent. i will correct, Blockader 15:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh ok. I still disagree with that though. But I guess you're going on the assumption that anarcho-capitalism is not an individualist form of anarchism. DTC 15:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC) Never mind. I see you said "most individualists." DTC 15:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, all, for your wonderful responses. But all (except DTC) any of you did was; 1. entirely miss the point of the article and 2. prove the author's point.

Since I have to cite everything I say on this talk page, I'll reference it again The Common Goal of Anarchism. You all just proved exactly what it was saying. Your stubborness just highlights the heck out of it and shows what it says is true. Anarchy is a headless state where no centralized controlling power exists. If there is coercion of any kind, it won't be anarchy anymore. It will just be another forceful, unfree state. Capitalism does not = fascism. It is the presence of enforced state capitalism whereby coercion is formed and freedom is lost. Whiskey Rebellion 15:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with the writer's message. If the state and coercion are gone, whatever system is going to emerge is going to emerge. Individualists think a market economy will emerge. Communists think there will be no markets or money and people are going to work without getting paid and share everything "according to need." That seems a bit naive to me, but whatever. DTC 16:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the author was saying that, in a true anarchy, both could co-exist in various communities. Whiskey Rebellion 16:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

If commie anarchists say that people will share everything "according to need." Christian anarchy might say the same thing. Uh, Jesus said "get rid of your land and possesions and share with each other". Only hes said it 2000 years ago. Whiskey Rebellion 16:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually i think we did a good job of showing why the article was not a very good one. Further, my statement (from above) that "I agree with the statement, 'But while discussing the anarchist society, anarchists often make the same mistake as statists: making up a plan for how an anarchist society would be like, and aim to accomplish this society'" shows that we (whiskeyreb/lingeron) are in agreement that in an ideal anarchist society many different forms of anarchism could coexist in many different communites. As an Anarchist-without-adjectives, that is my official stance, despite the fact that I identify with the social anarchist movement. The article, however, for all the reasons detialed above, is a poor one and certianly not appropriate for an encyclopedia. I for one am not dismissing the legitamcy of ancap or its existence but am only trying to keep its portrayal in this article balanced. i, along with most anarchists, historical and contemporary, as well as socialist and individualist, do not agree with ancap tenents. most anarchists have been and are anti-capitalist, and so that majority opinion should be paramount in this article. Blockader 16:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, many of Jesus' teachings seem to bear resemblance to anarcho-communism but i think it questionable to claim that his teachings had much direct impact on the development of that ideology (as Lingeron did in the past). certainly, what people have done with his teachings has nothing to do with anarchism of any kind. but don't you hate and despise anarcho-communists and therefore Jesus' teachings as well? Blockader 16:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

First, I don't hate or despise anarcho-communists. I don't hate or despise any type' of anarchism or it's adherents. I'm glad you agree with the sentiment of the article I cited and that you agree that anarchism is not a very good article. Please stop calling me whiskeyreb/lingeron. Whiskeyreb is fine. Lingeron is not as I don't understand it or what the heck you are getting at. I have been accused of being several different editors and none of them is true. I am just who I say I am, Whiskey Rebellion. Whiskey Rebellion 16:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, i think the article is pretty decent at the moment. My goal now is to prevent it from being changed too dramatically. I will stop refering to you as Lingeron. Its just that you bear many similarities to that user and his sock Shannon. From your stances on ancap and Jesus, to your virulent anti-communism, even the way your name signs with different colors/links. i guess there could be two very similiar people in the world so i will cease. apologies, Blockader 16:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Giving up

I've determined that wikipedia is a hopeless mess, and nothing can be done to solve this. I give up —Two-Bit Sprite 16:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, wikipedia bears many resemblances to crack. Blockader 16:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

LOL. That was a good one, Blockader. Whiskey Rebellion 16:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

You mean, usenet?

Best of luck, and thanks for all of your help. --AaronS 17:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

American revolution deserves more discussion

This article gives the very peculiar impression that anarchism is a philosophy mooted about by some Greeks and Lao Tzu, which was adopted by Rosseau and some French Revolutionaries, and came to America through the pioneering efforts of Warren in the 1820's. If you look up "origins of anarchism" you will find an interesting quote from Thomas Jefferson, but that is all the mention that the American revolution receives. The subsequent Whiskey Rebellion only occurs as a user name.

This is an absurd situation. Clearly the American revolution was pivotal in opening up these philosophical discussions and advancing the idea of absolute freedom as a real-world goal. The rebels may not have called themselves anarchists (and generally weren't anarchists) but their opponents weren't so stingy with the label, and certainly some of the rhetoric from the time seems best described as anarchist. Even the non-anarchist theory of social contract implies the possibility that people can reject the social contract and live in anarchy, which would seem to be what the later communes were about. Conflicts like the Whiskey Rebellion and Shays' Rebellion reflect some of the economic system issues from the article and discussion. I hope the experts here will explore this history and its relationship to anarchist philosophy in more detail. Mike Serfas 17:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

There are plenty of precursors to anarchism that later influenced anarchism. But they're not discussed here, because this is an article on anarchism, not on precursors to anarchism. Something about political events that prefigured anarchism in some way would be useful (it could include the English Civil War and the French Revolution, as well), but I'm not sure it should go in this article, which is already pretty long. Unless you want to claim that the American Revolution is somehow uniquely significant to anarchism (a claim I think many here would dispte), it would be more appropriate at Origins of Anarchism, or perhaps as a new article on its own. VoluntarySlave 00:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Blockader

Thanks for your apologies - apologies accepted. And thanks for not referring to me as this user anymore. My name links to my user page and my talk page. I see a lot of editors whose signatures do this. Again, I do not despise any anarchists. That's why I gave that article link, or one of the reasons. It's true that I don't like communism, but I don't despise communist-anarchism or certainly not communist-anarchists. I believe I have misunderstood the concepts behind this, at least to some extent. For that I apologize. I would like us all to stop the bickering, like TwobitSprite so aptly calls it, and work together on this article. Wouldn't that be so much more productive? Thanks to all for your consideration of this. Whiskey Rebellion 17:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

American revolution deserves more discussion (again)

I agree with Mike Serfas and just about everything he said. The only thing I don't agree with is the idea that it started in the U.S. It started when there were no states or governments, before civilization itself. Blockader said this and I agree with it: If you are going to look at anarchism in a society then there are plenty of indigenous/aboriginal ones that come far closer to actual anarchist tenants then the United States."

Like I said (again) way up there I made many valid points which were not actually addressed. Please see U.S. and the seed of freedom. US anarchism like US type libertarianism or classical liberalism is not represented in this article. Anarcho-capitalism is a type of US libertarianism. The seeds of freedom, in a modern society began here, with all it's faults and all it's tragedies. You can't just dismiss it because you don't like America. Whiskey Rebellion 23:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Again you say that other editors are biased against America. Again I will ask you to retract this baseless assumption of bad faith. --Marinus 03:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Just to be clear: are you saying that Libertarianism and Classical Liberalism are types of anarchism, and so should be included in this article? If so, that's a surprising claim, and I'd like to see what sources you're basing it on.VoluntarySlave 19:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

In response to VoluntarySlave, etc, etc, etc

"There are plenty of precursors to anarchism that later influenced anarchism. But they're not discussed here, because this is an article on anarchism, not on precursors to anarchism" The argument has been made that anarcho-capitalism and other forms of US anarchism are not valid because they're not associated with movements. Whether this is true or not is debatable, but the point I'm making is that this is not an article on anarchist movements, either. It is just an article on anarchism. So can we stop the games and just write this article including all forms of anarchism? Well, I'm getting ready, and since I rarely get an intelligible answer or response to what I post here, I'll go ahead. Man...Whiskey Rebellion 02:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I fear that including the American revolution as a form of anarchism will stretch the term so much as to render it meaningless. No need to attach everything you like politically to a single banner - we need a more nuanced view than that. --Marinus 03:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Marinus, like usual you missed the point of what I was saying. What I'm saying is there is an incredible lack of American anarchism in here. I'm not saying the American revolution itself should be included. You missed the point. I'm saying American anarchism should be represented in this article. That's all. Whiskey Rebellion 04:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

It is represented: Emma Goldman. If you want to add a section concerning Bookchin's communitarianism and libertarian socialism then you are more than welcome - I think the article can do with more references to him. I also think that you are trying to appropriate anarchism for your own particular brand of politics, whether it is anarchistic or not. --Marinus 05:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

If the american revolution was anarchist, then kill me now. Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 04:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

"The relationship between early libertarian radicalism and free speech is best revealed in the individualist anarchism founded by Josiah Warren...A society based on the sovereignty of the individual, Warren believed, would represent the culmination of the social movements that had already produced the Protestant Reformation and the American Revolution." (David Rabban, Free Speech in Its Forgotten Years 1870-1920) Bang, you're dead. hot 04:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

You don't read very carefully. What your quote says is that Warren considered (his) anarchism the culmination of a tradition of liberalism that includes the Protestant Reformation and the American Revolution. He's talking about liberalism, not anarchy. And, for god's sake, 'freedom' and 'anarchism' aren't synonyms. --Marinus 05:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Folks, I never said the American Revolution was anarchist. To some degree it was a revolt of the wealthy against the tyranny of their own taxation, and in defense of the right to own slaves. But the revolution was a blunderbuss of new ideas. Those "anarchist" ideas from indigenous/aboriginal cultures did not arrive by people reading Greeks going on about the lost Golden Age. People learned both freedom and federalism from their interactions with native peoples in the English colonies. For centuries the American frontier was about as close to anarchy as things have actually come (and yes, it was capitalist, although there are many different kinds of capitalism and just which kind was often the cause of violent dispute). The ideas of self-evident inalienable rights and of liberation through political revolution were unveiled on this stage. It would be nice to see the relationship of this history to later events traced in more detail.Mike Serfas 16:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Here are my problems with what you are suggesting:

• As you say, the Revolution wasn't anarchist - it immidiately becomes unsuitable for this article.
• "People learned both freedom and federalism from their interactions with native people in the English colonies" is a view that, while not without some merit, is rather inaccurate. Remarkably similar views of organisation (both 'freedom' and 'federalism' are not cogent words to subscribe the autonomism of the native people, but are later interpretations placed over it to appropriate their societal characteristics for an other political goal) were also native to Europe and was still practiced in Europe (especially in the Balkans and in Russia) till long after the American Revolution. The politics of the Founding Fathers is more like that of privateers and pirates (and I don't mean this as a slander) than the Iroquois Nation. Your view is again unsuited to this article.
• Self-evident inalienable rights isn't an idea of anarchism, but of liberalism - the fact that many, even the majority of, anarchists agree with it doesn't make it anarchistic. And anarchism's links with liberalism is already well-represented.
• For 'liberation through political revolution', see the above article, replacing that phrase for 'self-evident inalienable rights' and 'revolutionary socialism' for 'liberalism'. Revolutionary socialism and liberalism, by the way, are divergent though similar. Neither is uniquely anarchistic.
• Nothing in the American Revolution is uniquely anarchistic. It isn't relevant in this article.

Thank you for your input, but it should be clear why this doesn't belong ere, along with Thomas Jefferson and Jesus. --Marinus 05:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Sources 2

For purpose of avoiding this kind of wasteful discussions in the future, I propose that we should only use sources where it's explicitly said that anarcho-capitalism is/isn't a form of anarchism. Does everyone agree? -- Vision Thing -- 15:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Whiskey Rebellion 16:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I Agree. I think some people here just assume because some writer says he's opposed to anarcho-capitalism that it means he holds the opinion that anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism. But that's a leap in logic. There are sources in this article from writers who say they oppose anarcho-capitalism but say that anarcho-capitalism is indeed a form of anarchism. Also, someone saying they oppose capitalism is not necessarily saying that they oppose ANARCHO-capitalism, let alone is it the same thing as saying that anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism. If it's not explicit then it's not a source, because saying anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism is a specific claim. I would expect the anti-anarcho-capitalists here to want the same kind of explicitness in sources saying that anarcho-capitalism is form of anarchism. DTC 22:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that you ignore the plain logic of people's arguments, and instead caricature them, because it's easier to swing at a straw man that you have created than actually be confronted with the possibility of error. --AaronS 13:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

problematic second paragraph

When somebody put a contradiction tag on this article I thought it was about this paragraph. In its current form I think it's worse than nothing. The fourth sentence contradicts all the others, and the last sentence is only there to refute an earlier version of itself.

Because the types of anarchism vary so largely, anarchism cannot be considered an ideology in the ordinary sense. Rather it is a set of ideas from which ideologies are drawn. On its own anarchism does not provide a world view beyond the idea that imposed authority is undesirable and unnecessary. Anarchism is, according to the majority view, universally socialistic. There are dramatic differences on economic arrangements, ranging from advocates of complete common ownership and distribution according to need, to supporters of private property and free market competition. Most forms of anarchism, including individualist anarchism, are associated with social movements or social activism of some kind.

In the light of the contradictory available sources it seems POV to assert either that "anarchism" is a unitary philosophy with specific characteristics or to assert that it's not. Statements that can't bridge the gap between the two positions may not belong in the introduction. EbonyTotem 21:39, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

It's clear from the article itself that anrchism is not a unitary philosophy with specific characteristics. There are no two anarchists here that agree with each other on how anarchy would be or who envision the same thing. Whiskey Rebellion 19:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

FAQs

Some basic questions that should be addressed somehow in the article (please feel free to add more, or to provide answers). Please note that I am simply stating these questions as topics that should be covered, not as an attack on any particular ideology.

1. Do anarchists support the right of a person to be tried by a jury of his peers?

2. What ensures that an anarchist punishment (revenge, 'direct action', etc.) will be commensurate with the crime?

3. In anarcho-capitalism, is there a mechanism to prevent private police agencies from agreeing to an arbitration system that is blatantly biased against the poor? Do those too poor to afford police have any representation in determining the regulations to which they are subject?

4. In anarcho-capitalism, if several police agencies rely on negotiation of their philosophical differences, is it necessary for each to be prepared for large-scale conflict in order to negotiate effectively for its customers?

5. Which are more esteemed by anarcho-syndicalists: worker-owned cooperatives or customer-owned cooperatives?

6. Who determines what resources are or are not property in anarcho-capitalism? (For example, copyrights, patents, radio broadcasting bandwidth/intensity, beachfront and river basin property, mineral rights, water rights, fishing rights, right to operate a cable or utility monopoly, domain name trademarks, public protest rights, child naming rights, slave ownership...) Where resources are owned subject to the regulation of a government, international, or private agency, is the arbitrating power of this agency seen as legitimate?

7. In anarcho-collectivism, is there provision for different wage levels depending on the difficulty or unpleasantness of work?

8. In anarcho-collectivism, who hires and fires people? Who starts new businesses? Who shuts down old businesses, and what happens to their leftover equipment?

The role of answering such questions is not encyclopedic. "An Anarchist FAQ", already the first-mentioned source for further information, is the best for answering them. While WP is the first source of information on general topics for a lot of people it is first and foremost an encyclopedia, not an internet filter, portal or theory-of-everything. --Marinus 05:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Voting

There is an apparent contradiction in the text. It says that the CNT came to advocate voting in Spanish elections, while saying that "in general" anarchists oppose voting (in Ends and Means). Given that the CNT was one of the larger concentrations of card-carrying anarchists in history, I think that latter text needs to be softened a bit.Mike Serfas 22:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

No - when the CNT advocated voting in the elections it explicitely stated that it was doing so contrary to anarchistic principles. It made compromises in a variety of ways, most importantly in joining the Republican government (which had an anarchist Minister of Justice). Their actions are important but not defining. --Marinus 05:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Globalization section

"These anarchists are also said to participate actively in the anti-globalization movement." Huh? "said to", "participate"? Anarchists involved in the Reclaim the Streets movement were among the primary originators of the so-called "anti-globalization" movement. There's no "said to" about their involvement and participation, virtually all active anarchist groups have played a part in the major protests. The black bloc organisational tactic is specifically an anarchist one, as are the fluffies. Anyone seeking proof to this blatantly obvious statement should look through the archives of Ainfos Donnacha 17:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

We know, don't blame it on us, that edit was made by one of the "anarcho"-capitalists. I'd say change it. Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 05:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Changed, better? Donnacha 00:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Please stop adding this statement

This statement "All forms of anarchism advocate individual liberty" is clearly untrue as communist and collectivist anachists do not advocate the liberty of individuals to sell. (capitalism) You can't have it both ways. Whiskey Rebellion 19:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

All forms of anarchism have individual liberty and the liberation of the individual as their aim. They just go about it differently. It may not conform to your point of view, but even marxists have this as their aim (just look at the Communist Manifesto). The statement is accurate. --AaronS 20:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, agreed that they go about it differently. One school of anarchist thought that goes about it differently is anarcho-capitalism. You can't deny it's existence because you don't like it. And please don't tell me about Encarta and Britannica. They are not the only source of referenced material. Editors like Vision Thing, DTC, That'Hot and TwoBitSprite have introduced referenced material over and over again only to have it removed because you don't understand or like it. That is not neutral encyclopedic behavior. And, in advance, can you please don't attack me personally, but respond to what I am saying? Thank you.

A crucial issue to the concept of anarcho-capitalism is the fact that it is capitalism minus state control. It is not capitalism per say that anarchists have revolted against but the oppressive enforcement of it by industrialized nations. Anarchists have also revolted against other repressive states such as the Russian czars and Stalin's socialist state.

If you don't grant individuals the right to sell you don't grant liberty. Whiskey Rebellion 20:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

No one is claiming "anarcho"-capitalism doesn't exist, just that it's a minority view and isn't a form of anarchism proper. You however seem to think anarcho-communism doesn't exist. [11] And yes, all anarchists consider individual liberty to be important. It's just we don't want one individual having the right to buy off another one or force them into wage slavery. Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 06:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, this is not an article about liberty, it is an article about the political tradition of anarchism. That tradition has one idea of liberty, you have another. For you to shoulder your idea of liberty in this article which is not here to represent your views is for you to distort Wikipedia. --GoodIntentions^talk 05:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Whatever floats your boat, Lingeron/Thewolfstar/et al. --AaronS 20:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow, what a comprehensive reply to my comments. I'll take it that your comment, ""Whatever floats your boat", says that you will stop interfering with my and other non-communist or non-collectivist anarchists' contributions. Please stop making ad-hominem and straw man attacks like TwobitSprite says. Also DTC has pointed out how Blockader is your likely sockpuppet. This wouldn't suprise me - the way you accuse everyone you don't like of being a sockpuppet. TwobitSprite made this observation and from what he said when leaving Wikipedia, you are one of the reasons he left. Rather than spend your time on witch-hunts, attacking other editors, and keeping this article biased why don't you do something to improve the UnNeurality of it? (Here comes another attack, I'm sure.) Whiskey Rebellion 21:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I for one will interfere with your contributions as long as they make this article inaccurate. Stop acting this vengefully. --GoodIntentions^talk 05:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Lingeron, you're really starting to annoy me. I'm not a communist, I'm not attacking you, and your arguments make so little sense that I'd rather not waste my time trying to educate you. --AaronS 13:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

That was an attack, AaronS, as with everything else you say to me. And stop calling me Lingeron. Whiskey Rebellion 17:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

But... but, you are. Rabid anti-communism; the tendency to call people communist conspirators, anti-American, America haters, or what-have-you; constant claims of being attacked and outnumbered by a shadowy cabal of spooks; etc. Please, I'm not stupid. --AaronS 17:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The references are a mess

Through dicking around with the references they are now an unusable mess. Congratulations. If anybody adds or removes references make sure that everything is still working. Thank you kindly. --GoodIntentions^talk 07:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to try and rectify this as much as I can right now - please don't change any references for a few minutes. Thank you. --GoodIntentions^talk 07:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, done. Somewhere in this disaster the original use of reference "Skirda" was lost and I don't have the time to find it now. Can somebody grab it out of the stable version of the article we had, oh, about two weeks ago? --GoodIntentions^talk 07:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. -- Vision Thing -- 09:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

Uh, i come back from my weekend break (i only have internet access at work) to find these ancaps accusing me of being aaron's sock? first, i am somewhat offended that you people view me so pitiously to assume that i am aaron's sock and not the other way around. this is ridiculous. i am not someone's sockpuppet though the people accusing me likely are sock puppets. as far as i know the only socks to ever appear on anarchism have been ancaps. if you fools want proof of who i am you can go to www.myspace.com/blockader and view my stupid profile or you can call me at the homebrew collective i operate in Athens, GA at 706-548-5035. you can send me an email at justin@uga.edu proving that I attended the university of georgia and not BU or whatever school in boston that aaron attends. aaron and i could arrange to post without signing in at exactly the same time identifying our seperate ip addresses or whatever you call em. frankly, i am fairly computer illeterate and i don't even know how to create a fucking sock puppet. lastly, due to these allegations, DTC and WhiskeyReb etc, my gloves are fucking off. i thought i was at least getting along with DTC and was begining to build a functioning dialogue with whiskeyreb despite the fact that he is obviously lingeron/shannon, but fuck that shit. piece, Blockader 17:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Although, I wouldn't let it bother you. DTC was just retaliating against me for suspecting him of being a sock puppet of RJII, which, I suppose, is a wildly fanciful suspicion, considering that they act in a very similar manner, that they make almost identical edits, and that DTC arrived out of the blue to start editing this article where RJII left off. But I'm just assuming bad faith. Anyways, don't take it personally. It's quite obvious to anybody with eyes and a brain that I am not the same person as you, and most of my edits come from either Harvard or Dartmouth IP addresses. I do hear that Georgia is a beautiful place, however, and would love to see it sometime. Oh, and I live in the real Athens of America. ;-) --AaronS 17:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I suspected you were a sockpuppet of AaronS. But from the pictures on your myspace account is sure looks like you're a Georgian to me. And I'm not going to argue against someone who plays with guns and wears what looks like terrorist garb. You're not a sockpuppet. Forget I ever mentioned it, please. DTC 17:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

yes, aaron, georgia is beautiful but very very hot very often. and boston may be the real athens of america but i live in the "dirtiest" athens of america. i guess "forget i ever mentioned it" is as close to an apology as i'm gonna get here so thankyou, apology accepted from DTC. Blockader 18:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

It gets plenty hot and humid up here during the summer, trust me. And dirty, too. But there's no doubt that you live in the Southiest Athens of America. I once had a friend from Georgia. He was very touchy with regard to the subject of General Sherman. --AaronS 18:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, i have a friend at BU for grad school, she says its almost as hot in the summer and a shit ton colder in winter. Unfortunately, Athens, TX is further south than here so we can't even claim "southiest" (did colbert use that at some point?). i would say we are the drunkiest athens (per capita) but all those damn irish in Southie distort the statistics. maybe if we discounted them as outliers? slainte, Blockader 18:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Póg mo thóin! I think we might be the drunkiest, too. Why, with Sam Adams, Harpoon, Ipswich Ale, Smuttynose, and all of these delicious brews, and especially with the subzero winter temperatures, it's rather hard to maintain any substantial level sobriety most of the time. --AaronS 18:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

All I can say about the alcohol discussion above is: everyone, please don't edit Wikipedia while intoxicated. It could impair your judgement and make discourse more difficult than it needs to be, especially for the sober person who feels like he is beating his head against the wall. It never crossed my mind before that the other person I'm dealing with could be drunk but that is a very real possibility. My recommendation is don't drink, period, on Wikipedia or off. DTC 18:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Could this be a touch of humor? If so, I'm shocked. As for editing while drunk, sadly, I'm afraid I only edit Wikipedia while passing time at work. When I'm drunk, I usually have more interesting things to do. --AaronS 18:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not humor at all. I'm dead serious. It's good to know that you don't edit drunk. DTC 19:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Then I find it doubly humorous, if only because it's unintended. --AaronS 19:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Blockader, I don't remember attacking you again after apologizing. If so I absolutely apologize again. But, AaronS going to the noticeboard thing and calling me a sockpuppet was not nice at all. Whiskey Rebellion 22:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Communism

Why is "violent" removed? Source says violent, and Kropotkin, main anarcho-communist ideologue, is known for commending violence. -- Vision Thing -- 19:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

"violent" is removed because the way the sentence reads it implies that all anarchist communist strategies are violent and that all anarchist communists condone violence. a wide variety of strategies have been employed by anarchists of all types, some violent, many not. further, strategies considered violent by some, such as destruction of property, may not be considered violent by others (some anarchists view attacking property as not violent because the property was acquired through coersion and exploitation. further yet, many anarchist communists, past and present, have been pacifists and would balk at their strategies being generalized as violent. in the interest of full disclosure, i do support the use of violence :). Blockader 19:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not aware that individualist anarchists used violence. Can you give some historical examples for that?

Ideology is shaped by its main ideologues. In case of anarcho-communism that’s Kropotkin, and he condoned violence. Do you know for some other important proponent of anarcho-communism who rejects use of violence? -- Vision Thing -- 20:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not aware that the individualist anarchists did much of anything at all, violent or not, other than writing theory. I am not expert on indies though. i don;t think i said they did, but if you misinterpreted what i wrote as implying that indies used violence i assure you that was not my intention. as far as ancoms go, i think it clear that some support violence and others do not. the wiki article on ancom doesn't mention violence a single time. nor does any definition or explanation i have read. Thomas Jefferson believed that black people were racially inferior to whites (i read much primary and secondary info on this subject in history school), does that make all adheerents of Jeffersonianism or admirers of the man himself racist? Blockader 20:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Sentence is not talking about individual anarcho-communists and their personal beliefs, but about acceptance of violence by anarcho-communist theory. And violence is accepted by anarcho-communists theory. For example, in The conquest of bread Kropotkin said: "A great change in thought has been accomplished during the last half of the nineteenth century; but suppressed, as it was, by the propertied classes, and denied its natural development, this new spirit must break now its bonds by violence and realize itself in a revolution." -- Vision Thing -- 18:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Editing while drunk

(edit conflict) The personal, weird and off-the-topic conversation between Blockader and Aaron, that we all just got subjected to, sounded like two drunks at a bar. It really just did! Please don't edit Wikipedia while drunk. You will likely make a lot of off the wall edits and further screw everything up. Please just edit while sober. The things you say while sober are strange enough never mind what you say while drunk. Also, please have personal dialogues elsewhere as they disrupt any meaningful debates that may occur here. Thanks. (I didn't mean to hurt anybody's feelings, either, though.) Whiskey Rebellion 19:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

LOL. This is hilarious. But seriously, I work a 9-5, it would be irresponsible for me to be drunk. Being drunk while editing Wikipedia would be twice as irresponsible. I'm a responsible kind of guy. Trust me, when I'm drunk, the last thing I want to do is sit in front of a computer and argue with nerds. --AaronS 20:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Please, have some humor. i would say our tangent was an effective way to diffuse the tension YOU created by calling me a sockpuppet. instead of apologyzing and admitting you were wrong, you instead attacked us again for what was obviously light banter. I too only edit at work because that is where i have internet, and though I operate a homebrew collective I am don't generally drink at work. Also, you haven't initiated any "meaningful" debates since youv'e arrived here. Rather, you have attacked editors for being "communist" and "strange" and demonstrated a general lack of knowledge where anarchism and political doctrine in general are concerned. Actually, i think we can assume you are constantly drunk due to the nature of your postulations and edits as well as the fact the word "whiskey" is in your name. hows that for sock puppets and personal attacks? Blockader 20:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe he's rebelling against whiskey. DTC 20:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Humor's good, accusations are not. If anyone was attacked originally here it was me, DTC and That'sHot. Here is where I was attacked and accused of being a 'sock' Talk:Anarchism#Lopsided_article. I tell you what, if you all apologize to me, I will apologize to you, as you all actually started this sockpuppet namecalling thing. You say you generally don't drink at work. How often do you drink at work? And as an afterthought, you get paid for a job while editing Wikipedia? I would call that stealing. And also, Whiskey Rebellion was an historical event. So your retort was rather lame. Sorry. Whiskey Rebellion 20:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not apologizing for anything. You're obviously a sockpuppet. --AaronS 20:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

And you're obviously a drunken witch-hunter. Whiskey Rebellion 20:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I wish. That would be fun. I have some friends in Salem. I just might do that this weekend. --AaronS 20:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Well i proved i wasn't a sock. I will drink at work whenever i damn well please, drinking and being drunk are not the same thing. I know what the whiskey rebellion was, i was a US history major. yet again that statement was made tongue in cheek, a fact apparently lost on you. lastly, i can't steal from myself can I? though you are currently stealing my fucking patience. Blockader 21:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah, i did apologize to you. I wrote, "Actually, i think the article is pretty decent at the moment. My goal now is to prevent it from being changed too dramatically. I will stop refering to you as Lingeron. Its just that you bear many similarities to that user and his sock Shannon. From your stances on ancap and Jesus, to your virulent anti-communism, even the way your name signs with different colors/links. i guess there could be two very similiar people in the world so i will cease. apologies, Blockader 16:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)" You responded, "Thanks for your apologies - apologies accepted." You then preceeded to groundlessly attack me and accuse me of puppetry. eat me Blockader 21:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Blockader, I don't remember attacking you again after apologizing. If so I absolutely apologize again, but your offer to eat you....No. Out of the question But, AaronS, going to the noticeboard thing and calling me a sockpuppet was not nice at all. Whiskey Rebellion 23:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

This where you attacked me three days after i apologized, "Also DTC has pointed out how Blockader is your likely sockpuppet. This wouldn't suprise me..." Blockader 15:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Joy, or LoLz

Let me just say that the fact that this discussion exists makes my day. Blockader and I actually were two drunks at a bar. We stumbled across a public Internet terminal, and, after praising Stalin (God bless him), we began happily disrupting Wikipedia with our confused and intoxicated notions of truth. --AaronS 00:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm assuming it was vodka that did it, no? Always good in that cold Russian climate. Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 00:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The one and only. --AaronS 00:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Whiskey is better. Whiskey Rebellion 03:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Peter Kropotkin

Peter Kroppotkin, did he call himself an anarcho-communist, did he strive for the ideal of anarcho-communism? I can agree on the fact that his philosophies are akin to what later have been defined as anarcho-communism. But was the concept even used at that time? At all? Because if it wasnt there id say whats important is not that Kropotkin where an anarcho-communist, as the structure now gives implicit, but him and his ideas and thereafter his impact on anarcho-communism later on. Why not take it from the begining to the end instead of going around and around. The classical characters, the history of a social movement, then the ideas from the present and so on. Offcourse, for starters, its all about kropotkin and the term anarcho-communism. --Fjulle 00:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Kropotkin was arguably the leading figure of anarcho-communism (a term he and others used at the time in pamphlets, books, etc, referring to the contemporary and pre-existing tradition) of his time, and also the most important theorist of all anarchism, especially anarcho-communism. His knowledge and involvement was so well recognised that the Encyclopaedia Brittanica asked him to write the article on Anarchism for their well-known 11th edition (one that asked for contributions on each field from the most recognised expert in that field). Because of his unquestioned status as a leading anarcho-communist the section refers to him a lot. The only other comparable figure would be Emma Goldman, who was less inolved in theory but nothing short of a miracle-worker in organisation, unionisation, feminism and whatever needed action on the ground. So I don't really now what you're getting at. --GoodIntentions^talk 04:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Just that i never thought they actually used the concept anarcho-communism ... woul have thought it something like "communist anachism" if anything, but allright. I have too read Kropotkin at first hadn soon anyway. But still have you discussed if maybe taking the first steps about something is done best with the humans who stand at the first step? It might work for anarcho-capitalism as well as anarcho-communism. What i think happens when you try to give a complete review if some speciel branch is theres many different scholars who says different things about it. Its their views we want, not some POV'ing from the people writting the article. Maybe to make sure thats whats happening lets start with the people behind all these concept. Let them explain whats to be explained. --Fjulle 11:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

"communist anarchism" "anarcho-communism" "libertarian communism" is all the same thing, just a different phrase reflecting different translations or the preferential wording of the person using the phrase. --GoodIntentions^talk 04:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

IWW paid ?=

I changed that to 'paying' they don't pay you to be in the IWW!!!

i wish they did though :) Blockader 15:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Government versus State

How about a section on government versus state? If seen a few sources on anarchism discussing the difference between government and the state and say that the state is what anarchists are actually against. hot 03:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Fundamental of anarchism Whiskey Rebellion 03:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

User:DTC referred to WP:AN/I

Because he has insisted again to strike a list of perfectly fine (and, in some cases, induspitable) sources from the article in what can only be considered bad faith, despite my repeated pleading and the defences of these sources on this page, I have asked for administrator intervention here. My patience, quite simply, has been exhausted. --GoodIntentions^talk 06:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

It's about time. We need someone to come in here and mediate in regard to sourcing. You're the one that put in those sources and I gave you ample time to come up with page numbers so they could be verified but you couldn't do it. Why couldn't you do it? Because you never accessed the sources. You took them out of another Wikipedia article, which you admitted. Apparently you don't know that information on Wikipedia needs to be verifiable. If you cite a whole book and claim that somewhere in there is the specific claim that anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism, how is anyone to verify that? I looked through some of those books and I didn't see the claim in them. And you didn't either. The burden is on you to show that you allege to be sources actually are. You need to give us a page number, and a quote as well would be better. When and if you do, I'm going to look it up in the book to verify it. If you assume bad faith, that's your problem. I haven't given you any reason to assume bad faith. I have even deleted sources that were claimed to say anarcho-capitalism is a form of individualist anarchism, because I went to verify it and it didn't say what it was alleged to say. But if you want to assume bad faith, go right ahead. Your assumption of bad faith is not going to stop me verifying the sources and deleting any that can't be verified. DTC 06:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I have an issue with their removal as well. First, the Ward reference should definately stay in as the book is entitled "Libertarianism: Bogus Anarchy" and the qoute provided, ""few anarchists would accept anarcho-capitalism into the anarchist camp," backs up the argument exactly. Second, the Noam Chomsky cite definately used to have a page number, i specifically remember seeing it when i added the page # for the other chomsky book. Thirdly, i think more time is needed for people to examine those books to find page numbers. whoever added them originally should have included numbers but didnt so now we must go back and verify, that can be very time consuming. Lastly, there are 3 sources in the previous cite which do not include page numbers but which you are not removing. that is blatant POV in my opinion. piece, Blockader 15:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

You're mixing up sources. "Libertarianism: Bogus Anarchy" isn't by Ward but by Peter Sabatini, which by the way isn't a book but apparently an article some unknown person sent into Anarchy magazine. Even though it's kind of a flimsy source, I didn't take it out. And Ward is not the one that said "few anarchists would accept anarcho-capitalism into the anarchist camp." That was Peter Marshall. I didn't take Peter Marshall out as a source for that. He's still in there. He was cited twice. I took out the citation of him saying that anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism because he didn't say that. I didn't take Noam Chomsy out either. The reason I didn't take it out is because you said you verified it and you provided a page number so I took your word on that. What sources don't have page numbers that I'm not removing? DTC 20:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

That quote doesnt make clear what Ward thinks, but what Ward thinks most anarchist think. It should be used like that. If thats the case, then ive got no objections but one and thats about Ward's opinion not being 100% against anarcho-capitalism as anarchism because he beleives it got its place in the discussion of anarchism excactly because it compels anarchists and others to think of how institutions (like welfare security) could be organized differently. --Fjulle 16:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Any book entitled "Libertarianism: Bogus Anarchy" is clearly a biased source and therefore cannot be used in an article. Only neutral sources are allowed in articles. I would not cite a book called "Communism: Bogus Anarchy". Whiskey Rebellion 19:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it is an appropriate reference because it is being utilized to back a point that most anarchists disapprove, or in other words are biased against, anarcho-capitalism. It is being used in the same way that ancap (who are biased) references are employed in the "communism" section to show that they disapprove of communism. you would learn stuff like this in history school, 69.55.170.53 20:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

That would be fine but those saying that anarcho-communism is not a legitimate form of anarhism are famous anarchists. Who the hell is Peter Sabatini? Do we even know if he's an anarchist? DTC 20:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Good point. It's obviously just a POV piece. As far as I know Peter Sabatini is not a credentialed scholar of any kind but just some schmuck that sent in an article he wrote into Anarchy magazine. The reason I didn't take that one out is because there are so few sources saying ancap is not a form of anarchism. It is in "Anarchy" magazine and is not self-published so maybe that's enough credibility for it it be cited. But since it's so obviously just a polemical POV piece, I'm not so sure it's a reliable source. DTC 20:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

It is Colin Ward saying it i believe, but i can't look at the original reference format since you removed it. I think maybe someone has jumbled the references or something. At any rate, Sabatini at any rate is a published anarchist scholar who is stating that traditional anarchists are unlikely to view ancap as bonafide anarchism. that is no different than half the references you are using to support your statement that it is. they are polemical and POV but in your favor so thats okay right? Blockader 20:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

No, it is Peter Marshall saying that. Look: [12] I didn't take that out as a source for that. How do you know about Sabatini being an anarchist scholar? How do you know this? Are you saying it's just because he sent in something he wrote to Anarchy magazine? (Remember, I didn't take that source out). What source that I put in the article are you claiming are polemical POV pieces? As far as I know I haven't provided any sources at all from anarcho-capitalists. I provided sources from published credentialed scholars, some of whom are anti-anarcho-capitalists. DTC 20:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

You deleted Marshall's book as a source. Do you want to correct your mistake? --GoodIntentions^talk 03:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I didn't. Marshall is source #39 (at time of writing). You need really need to be more aware of what's going on and stop making false claims. DTC 03:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

You threw him out as a source for ancap as un-anarchistic which is the discussion at hand, and you know it. Don't do WP:Wikilawyering. --GoodIntentions^talk 04:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course I "know it." I said a few lines up that I threw him out as a source for that. He doesn't say that anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism. DTC 04:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I just did a search on Google with the prase (in quotes) "anarcho capitalism" and got 178,000 results. Apparantly something is happening here and I really doubt it is mostly or all criticisms of anarcho capitalism.

1. result:Wikipedia article

2. result: [13] -- Here are some quotes:

"At the top of any reading list on anarcho-capitalism must be the name Murray N. Rothbard. There would be no anarcho-capitalist movement to speak of without Rothbard. His work has inspired and defined the thinking even of such libertarians such as R. Nozick, for instance, who have significantly deviated from Rothbard, whether methodologically or substantively. Rothbard's entire work is relevant to the subject of anarcho-capitalism."

"Egalitarianism As a Revolt Against Nature is a marvelous collection of Rothbard essays on philosophical, economic, and historical aspects of libertarianism, ranging from war and revolution to kids' and women's liberation. Rothbard shows his intellectual debt both to Ludwig von Mises and Austrian economics (praxeology) and to Lysander Spooner and Benjamin Tucker and individualist-anarchist political philosophy. This collection is the best single introduction to Rothbard and his libertarian research program."

Just thought these were some interesting observations and interesting facts concerning the history of anarcho capitalism, (especially the referral to it as a movement.) is all. :) Whiskey Rebellion 21:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Irrelevant irrelevant irrelevant. This is about DTC's insistence of removing perfectly good sources, far better ones than the one's he are able to provide (especially Ward's Anarchism: A Very Short Introduction - a secondary source from one of the most respected publishers on earth, as compared to his reams of primary sources) through bad faith wikilawyering. The content dispute is something else. --GoodIntentions^talk 02:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Ward doesn't say that anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism. Before, I thought maybe you just didn't know how Wikipedia and sourcing works, but I'm convinced now that you're just being downright unethical. You're just throwing in names of books and articles you've never read, hoping that somewhere in them that they make the claim that anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism. You said yourself that you simply got them from another Wikipedia article. If you want to put a source in then, if it's a book, you need to give us a page number (with quote would be better) where it says that anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism. We should not have false sources in here. DTC 02:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you accusing me of lying? I've said which of the books I've read. And again you are misrepresenting WP:CITE. And Ward's book. And my position. --GoodIntentions^talk 03:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you read one of those books, but you didn't see the claim in Ward that anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism. You may have dreamt it though. Now, why shouldn't I accuse you of lying when you accused me of lying earlier? As far as your claim that I've put in "reams of primary sources," I have not. I have not put any sources from anarcho-capitalists claiming that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism. You really really need to stop making false claims. DTC 03:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I've read Ward's book and it is very clear that anarcho-capitalism can not be anarchistic because it's capitalist. Tell me, DTC, am I lying? --GoodIntentions^talk 03:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

You're the one that likes to throw around accusations of lying: [14]. Whether you're lying about Ward, I don't know. You could just be imaginging things. But I do know that I don't trust you one bit. You've given me every reason to distrust and loathe you, with your repeated accusations of bad faith, accusals of lying, threats against me, and false claims about things I've said or done. Give us a page number where he says that anarcho-capitalism can't be a form of anarchism. I'll check to see if your right, because I don't see anything in there where he says that anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism. DTC 03:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

You misrepresent me again. I pointed out for you to claim as you do that these books don't call ancap unanarchistic either you or I have to be lying. I repeat this. Do you say that I am lying? --GoodIntentions^talk 03:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Not to anger the gods, but everything that DTC just said is accurate. Fact is fact, and DTC is trying really hard to get referenced material into this article and unreferenced material out. If people have a problem with that then...well, you know. Duh? Whiskey Rebellion 03:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

False. There is no necessity that either of us is lying. I'm saying that I can't find a claim from Ward that anracho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism. That's why I'm asking for a page number. I'm not accusing you of lying. Whether you're lying or not I don't know, but after the dealings I've had with you I would not be surprised. I assume good faith of people, but you've led me to distrust you very much and I don't think you have "good intentions" at all. I accepted BlockAder's verification of the Chomsky source, but I don't trust you. The fact that you won't give a page number tells me that you probably don't have the book. Otherwise, you would simply give a page number like everyone else does and be done with it. You're putting on this show because you don't have the book and I doubt you've ever had in your hand. DTC 04:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

"Unreferenced material out"? He's throwing referenced material out! --GoodIntentions^talk 04:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm throwing out fake references. DTC 04:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Why dont you give us a page number? I also got the Anarchism (AVSI) an been reading it once again because of this discussion, and i cant see where he says that because anCaps are capitalist then they arent anarchist. The closest he comes is something like: "This Phalanx of authors have provided the 'ideological superstructure' of the swing to the Right in federal and local politics in the United States, and in British politics for the aim of 'rolling back the frontiers of the State', which was actually a cloak for increased subservience to central decision-making." He doesnt say explicit that they arent anarchist, but rather he comments on the use an possible motives of these academical writtings in a way that opens up for the possibility of these writters not really being anarchist because of their indirect support of central decision-making. On the other hand theres this line, which i believes states why he doesnt make the stamp non-anarchists on the anCaps: "The libertarians of the Right have, nevertheless, a function in the spectrum of anarchist discussion. Every anarchist propagandist finds that the audience or readership is perplexed by the very idea that it might be possible to organize human life without government. That is why Kropotkin, as a libertarian of the Left, as we saw in Chapter 3, insisted that anarchist propagandists should identidy new forms of organization for those functions that the state noew fullfills through bureaucracy." This i think i just splendid writting! We should take that wisdom and use it here. --Fjulle 09:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I, too, am curious why its so hard to simply end this debate by providing a page number or a quote... —Memotype 13:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, I don't have these texts at hand. I don't have to. Someone who does can come by later an spruce up the reference with page numbers and a quote (the way I have tried to improve the encyclopedic references in this article, since I have access to them) - that is the explicit intent of WP:CITE. If you look above at the enormous discussion on Ward, you'd see that such attempts are simply brushed off. DTC even went so far as to say that unless one can find a sentence that explicitely says "Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchistic" he simply isn't going to allow the source, even when that plainly is the message of the material (as it is in both the Ward and the Marshall books, both standard texts of the field). Whatever the source, if it disagrees with him he throws it out, given half-an-inch. If I mention that an-cap is given no or next-to-nothing mention in encyclopedias he wrangles and misrepresents so that his view still prevails. Meanwhile he enters dozens of souces which half-hints or doesn't-deny the claim he makes - different standards if evidence. I didn't raise the matter as a content dispute, but because of the malicious misrepresentation of sources as a way of distorting Wiki. --GoodIntentions^talk 04:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

More falsehoods from you, as expected. Let's get this straight. I have not put ANY sources in this article that do not EXPLICITLY state that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism. I provided page numbers and can even provide scans for verification, if you want to challenge me. If anyone wants direct quotes, all they have to do is ask. Secondly, Ward does not say that anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism. Nor do I agree that it is implicit. Fjulle disagrees with you as well on that. Marshall doesn't say it either. DTC 04:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Your sources aren't the problem, it's the weight you give them. You want me to ignore the clear tendency in tertiary sources which ignores or (at very best) glosses over anarcho-capitalism (but gives it volumnious treatment as "libertarianism", which it is, without a doubt - you can have the word "libertarian" as long as it keeps you out of my hair), ignore the clear tendency in secondary sources (yours are primarily primary sources, discussing particular trends in economics, etc) which at length points out how anarcho-capitalism does not form part of the anarchist tradition (what other interpretation is there about what Ward say about it?) and you want to place it clearly in the anarchist tradition, which you cannot uncontestedly do. Please go away. --GoodIntentions^talk 05:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

So you backpedal from your claim that "he enters dozens of souces which half-hints or doesn't-deny the claim he makes." Smart move, because I can easily prove that you don't know what you're talking about. Now you speak of tertiary sources. Last time I checked there were six tertiary sources in the article that says anarcho-capitalism is a form of individualist anarchism. And contrary to your claim, there are zero primary sources (you need to learn what those terms refer to before you throw them around like that). I make no claim that anarcho-capitalism is not contested as a form of anarchism, but it's a small fringe position. You sure can't find any sources. All you do is throw in names of books and hope that they make them claim that you want them to make. And, no, I'm not going away. I'm staying right here to defend this article against your attempts to add false sources to it and to defend myself from your malicious false claims. DTC 06:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I stick by my claim. I don't think you read your sources very carefully. I think you are very willing to see an interpretation you like and marvelously inept at seeing ones you dislike. --GoodIntentions^talk 06:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, then how about taking them one at a time then? Do you dispute that this source says anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism?: ""There are several recognized varieties of anarchism, among them: individualistic anarchisms, anarcho-capitalisms, anarcho-communisms, mutualisms, anarcho-syndicalisms, libertarian socialisms, social anarchists and now eco-anarchisms." (Sylvan, Richard. Anarchism. A Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy, editors Goodin, Robert E. and Pettit, Philip. Blackwell Publishing, 1995, p.231.) What is it that I'm misinterpreting or not seeing there? DTC 06:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not attacking your sources. Don't be so hyper-enthusiastic. I am saying that you are certainly more well-disposed towards sources that agree with you than sources that don't. Which is hardly contestable. --GoodIntentions^talk 07:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't ever claim that I "enters dozens of souces which half-hints or doesn't-deny the claim he makes - different standards if evidence" again. I don't put in sources with "half-hints." And, I hold myself to the same standard that I hold you to. I will not put a source in unless it clearly says anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism. There are simply way more sources out there saying that it is than it isn't. It is the consensus position among scholars that it is a form of anarchism. Those scholars who say it isn't are very few, they're a minority fringe, and are without exception anti-capitalist social anarchists. DTC 07:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

You are either dishonest or ignorant of the anarchist tradition. Since you've taken the pains to dismiss every anti-capitalist as POV (carefully telling the world who is and isn't anti-capitalist), but declined to extend the same consideration to pro-capitalists, since you've dismissed the thousands of pamphlets like "What is Anarchy" by Emma Goldman or "What is Anarchy" by Kropotkin (I don't actually have internet access right now, not even to the @ FAQ, I've got access to Wiki and a few encyclopedias from a public library, but from memory The Zabalaza Anarcho-Communist Collective has dozens of pamphlets by well-known authors on the subject online, all of which you'll dismiss as POV) you can have no other view than the one you are espousing. You've so narrowed your standards that only sources that agree with you qualify (and the ones you can't dismiss - and you've even dismissed the Encyclopedia Brittanica - you misrepresent, like UK Encarta and Ward's book). That's why I'm not raising a content dispute but notified the administrators as to your malicious and dishonest misrepresentation of sources - not because you say your sources uphold your view, but because you say mine don't. Which is a lie. --GoodIntentions^talk 01:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

It appears to me that you're misrepresenting DTC. The sources in this ariticle saying that anarcho-capitalism is anarchism are not from capitalists, except maybe one. You're also accusing him of lying and have been very uncivil with him. He's doing what any good editor should do. I agree with him that you have provided bad sources. Are you seriously claiming that Kropotkin claimed that anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism? Anarcho-capitalism wasn't around when Kropotkin was around. hot 02:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Godwin, Proudhon, Stirner, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Goldman, Bergman, Malatesta, Durruti, Makhno, Bookchin, etc. have all made perfectly clear that capitalism, in whatever form, can not be anarchistic. So did Tucker and Spooner, though they were a lot more fuzzy about it (a discussion on this point hinges on a precise definition of capitalism as opposed to the artisan-homesteading type of private-ownership that Proudhon, Spooner, Tucker et al supported) and the point isn't worth pressing too hard. --GoodIntentions^talk 02:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

No they have not made such a point. There is a difference between capitalism and anarcho-capitalism. Their conception of capitalism was intimately tied with the state. There is no way you can use one of them as a source for anarcho-capitalism not being a form of anarchism. That would not be a credible source at all. Besides, those are primary sources from anarchists (who aren't exactly objective observers). A good source saying anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism should come from secondary sources. hot 02:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you are mistaken. The discussions concerning capitalism in the anarchist discourse are concerned mainly around the relationship between employer and employee, not the business and the state (though this has entered the discussion, of course). If you read Godwin or Stirner on this issue my point will become clear. A business becomes a mini-state, where the employer is able to boss the employee around and, critically, the employer gains the benefits from the employee's labour (which is why Tucker and Spooner did not advocate capitalism but instead a system where each labourer can own his own means of production - an homesteading/artisan form of socialism, for those keeping score). Whatever the conditions outside the business is largely irrelevant. This could perhaps, at a stretch, be a point worth discussing if the leading lights of anarchism didn't explicitely oppose anarchism with capitalism. And after Rothbard did his thing Bookchin et al just continued this opposition. --GoodIntentions^talk 03:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

You're wrong. Tucker and SPooner advocated a "system where each labourer can own his own means of production." Yes, so what? So do anarcho-capitalists. They're both for private ownership of the means of production. Tucker and Spooner did not think employee/employer was inconsistent with anarchism. Tucker said he supported people "carrying on business for themselves or from assuming relations between themselves as employer and employee if they prefer." Neither Tucker nor Spooner opposed anarcho-capitalism (though it didn't have that name in their day). They thought anarcho-capitalism would lead to no profit. This was because they had a labor theory of value. Spooner supports the same system as anarcho-capitalists, even down to land ownership norms. The difference is he has a labor theory of value. They thought competition would make profit impossible. hot 03:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, Benajmin Tucker said "Capitalism is at least tolerable, which cannot be said of Socialism or Communism." hot 03:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Since you brought up Rothbard and Bookchin in the same sentence. Rothbard and Bookchin shared a platform at an anarchist conference and Bookchin said that he felt more home with anarcho-capitalists than authoritarian socialists. He doesn't say that anarcho-capitalists are not anarchists. This is documented in the film "Anarchism in America" hot 03:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

You are really weaselling about. Tucker called his own politics "Anarchistic Socialism". Bookchin is a "libertarian socialist" and a "communitarian" and his politics are deeply anti-capitalistic. That they have less objections to ancap than to state socialists is neither surprising nor an endorsement for ancap. --GoodIntentions^talk 03:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is arguing that those anarchists opposed capitalism. But that isn't the same thing as saying anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism. Murray Rothbard opposes communism but as far as I know he doesn't say that anarcho-communism is not a form of anarchism. You can't draw the conclusion that because someone is opposed to capitalism that they think anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism. hot 03:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, all that is around the content dispute. That isn't why I protest against DTC - his removing and misrepresenting sources is. --GoodIntentions^talk 03:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

What sources as he misrepresented? From reading the discussion above it looks pretty clear that you're the one misrepresenting sources and falsely accusing him of doing so. hot 03:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The books by Marshall and Ward, the encyclopedia entry on UK Encarta. --GoodIntentions^talk 03:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Where does either of those people say anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism? The UK Encarta article includes anarcho-capitalism as one of the types of individualist anarchism: "The American Benjamin Tucker (1854-1939) believed that maximum individual liberty would be assured where the free market was not hindered or controlled by the State and monopolies. The affairs of society would be governed by myriad voluntary societies and cooperatives, by, as he aptly put it, “un-terrified” Jeffersonian democrats, who believed in the least government possible. Since World War II this tradition has been reborn and modified in the United States as anarcho-capitalism or libertarianism." This is under the Anarcho-Individualism section. He is saying the anarcho-individualist tradition has been reborn in the form of anarcho-capitalism. hot 03:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

There you go again trying to malign me by maliciously and falsely claiming that I misrepresent sources. I don't think anyone's falling for it. You're claims are proven to be false over and over. Your credility is shot and has been for quite awhile now. Maybe you better move on to an article where people are more easily fooled. I don't know what article's you're coming from but your tactics of bullying and false claims won't work here because people here are battle-hardened and know their shit. DTC 05:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

"Battle hardened"? Precious little creature. This isn't a battle, it's a consensus. --GoodIntentions^talk 05:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't patronize me. You don't acheive consensus by maliciously making false claims about others and faking sources. DTC 05:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

You're spoiling for a fight, aren't you? When I hear some kid on the internet tell me how he's "battle-hardened" during a discussion-room spat I want to ruffle his hair. We'll do better when you act less antagonistically (which means not responding to this with "you are antagonistic"). --GoodIntentions^talk 07:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

You see me abandoning the edit-war against you, not pressing the (universally ignored) charges against your misrepresentations? That's me being less antagonistic. Get off the battlements, DTC, nobody's under siege at the moment. --GoodIntentions^talk 07:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

20th friggin' century

DTC, read the book, for Christ's sake. Ward sketches an outline of individualists who were not anarcho-capitalists spanning the 19th and 20th centuries. --AaronS 13:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The anarcho-capitalists are also from the 20th century, so you have to differentiate the pro and anti-capitalist individualists. DTC 18:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Nah, he's talking about individualist anarchists. But whatever. This is my last comment. Have fun with this article. --AaronS 19:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

This is not a reference

"Anarchism in the modern sense however has its roots in the secular political thought of the Enlightenment, particularly Rousseau's arguments for the moral centrality of freedom" Anarchism, Microsoft® Encarta® Online Encyclopedia 2006 (UK version) http://uk.encarta.msn.com © 1997-2006 Microsoft Corporation. All Rights Reserved

Also removed first bit in Christian Anarchism as it was totally out of place and unecessary there.
Whiskey Rebellion 00:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't need the "Copyright" or "All rights reserved," but apart from that, what's the problem? VoluntarySlave 00:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Why was this comment I made removed?:

It doesn't refer to an article just to encarta itself. Whiskey Rebellion 00:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it refers to the article (Anarchism). The link doesn't refer to the article, but the reference does. Fix the link, don't throw out the source. And don't break the references, for chrissakes - now that note links to empty space. And then I have to spend an hour - again - to make the references usable. You know that it had almost 200 footnotes the other day, with footnote [2] following [71] in the first paragraph? Because of people indiscriminately dicking around with them, the way you have now. Please be more careful. Reverted back to a previous, working, perfectly fine version. --GoodIntentions^talk 02:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Um, Whiskey, that was a section on religion, not on christian anarchism, therefore it is perfectly fine to have that first part. In fact, it would still be good to at least mention something like that, even if it was just a section on christian anarchism. Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 00:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Here is the section

From Proudhon and Bakunin to the Spanish anarcho-syndicalists, anarchists have traditionally been skeptical about and opposed to organized religion, believing that most organized religions are hierarchical in nature and, more often than not, aligned with contemporary power structures like state and capital.

On the other hand, Christian anarchists believe that there is no higher authority than God, and oppose earthly authority such as government and established churches. They believe that Jesus' teachings and the practice of the early church were clearly anarchistic, but were corrupted when "Christianity" was declared the official religion of Rome. The most famous Christian anarchist was the Russian novelist Leo Tolstoy whose 'The Kingdom of God Is Within You' is considered a key christian anarchist text. The Catholic Worker Movement is a modern Christian anarchist organisation.

It contradicts itself, doesn't make sense and or is totally unnecessary.

Part I says: Proudhon, etc...reject organized religion because of hierarchy etc. Part II says: On the other hand.. Christian anarchists oppose earthly authority such as government and established churches, etc..

So there is no argument between the Christian anarchists and any other anarchists, concerning human power structures and authority. Whiskey Rebellion 00:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

See my response above. Second, plenty of anarchists reject religion as a whole, so if you want to take that out, then take out the whole section on religion, since most anarchists are atheists. Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 00:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

It still contradicts itself in the way that it is written. And why should Christian anarchism not have it's own section? It needs to be written in the least. Whiskey Rebellion 01:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

How does it contradict itself? Most anarchists distrust religion, but some anarchists are nonetheless religious. Seems clear as crystal to me. --GoodIntentions^talk 01:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I just said how it used to contradict itself (above). I rearranged it and took the contradictory phrase out On the other hand. Now it's okay. Whiskey Rebellion 02:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

It didn't. There is a difference between "traditionally being skeptical" and "absolutely dismissing". --GoodIntentions^talk 02:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't contradict itself at all. it says MOST anarchists distrust religion but ON THE OTHER HAND, some anarchists are of the christian variety and therefore religious. Blockader 19:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

What you just said was not what the article said. Whiskey Rebellion 00:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

It's getting really hard to assume good faith with you. It was quite clear, and if you think Blockader's interpretation is somehow a huge deviation from the original text, then, well, I don't really konw. It was pretty obvious though. Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 01:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about. I never said anything about Blockader's edits!!??? What I said is here Talk:Anarchism#Here_is_the_section and I can't see what's so hard to understand about it. Also, why are you beating a dead horse? My main objection was to the phrase (on the other hand) and it's not there now. I honestly don't know what you're talking about when you say, "Bockader's edits." I have done nothing wrong. Why are you having a hard time "assuming good faith"? Whiskey Rebellion 02:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Because it's pretty clear that you are a recreation of a banned user, and I honestly think you're here to make trouble. Sorry, but you have yet to demonstrate otherwise. Regarding blockader, I was refering to their comment that you responded to above. I don't know why you have a problem with that phrase, in fact, it doesn't make sense to not include it. We say that anarchists traditionally don't support religion, then we start talking about christian anarchists without any kind of transition? It's important to mention that others disagree and have different views. Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 05:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Theres a contradiction only if you believe there shouldnt be one, but the differences between the general trend against any authority and the christian anarchist's belief in god as the only true authority are not necesarily (Wrong spelling?) a logical difference. If it should be there would be a definition on anarchism that simply does not exist (as far as iam aware of). The difference could be stated as an contradiction, as it was before you edited, or not. All it comes down to is the perspective of the reader in regard to logic or not. Alternatively all this might be written as both a contradiction and not, depending on the perspective of the reader. Its a hard nut to crack! --Fjulle 23:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)