Talk:Anarchism/Archive 44

Archive 40

←

Archive 42

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

Archive 46

→

Archive 50

Unlock the article?

As a self-identifying anarchist and a person who enjoys wiki because it is an important information resource which is collectively governed (some could argue in an "anarchist" way) I think the most important thing for the Anarchism page would be to have an open introduction which acknowledges the many philosophies and viewpoints associated with the word. Isn't that the backbone of "anarchism" anyway; to respect and value everyone's unique way of being without implying there is one "true" or definite path? I also believe the reference to violence in the frozen intro is unneccessary and should be removed because "Anarchists" in the most general modern meaning of the word are overwhelmingly nonviolent. Not a single introduction for political/social philosophies (that I have found) on wiki reference violence in any way in the intro, this includes the Fascism page intro, which does not even suggest the warlike or violent nature of almost every nation that has identified itself as "fascist." The reference to violence should be removed immediately, or pages such as "fascism," "capitalism," or even "republic," should also include introductory comments on the violent byproducts of those social theorems. The core idea behind "Anarchism" contained in the word itself: -an- (without) -arch- (ruler): without ruler) means that "Anarchy" is implicitly anti-authoritarian, but not neccessarily anti-government. This is because (some may believe, including me) that governments can exist which are not of an authoritarian nature (and therefore Anarchist). The entymology listed on the frozen page is incorrect for many obvious reasons, and I think that the intro needs to return to a state that acknowledges the fundamental root of the word ("without rulers, no rulers, or no authoritarians") awhile appreciating the many interpretations that stem from that well-known foundation. One way or the other, - "vandalism" or not, the page ought to be unfrozen immediately, because it is false and misleading in its current state. Why don't we agree on one open and broad intro which embraces the foundation of the word, and then everyone can apply their many various interpretations from there. It is very important that there is an open consensus on this intro, along with vast theoretical diversity afterword, because that in itself is Anarchism to so many people: we agree we must remove the wrongful rulers first (a correct entymological intro), and then embark on our own individual and unique paths (the many sections after that).

Please join this call to unfreeze the page immediately! The many millions of people who access wiki must also have access to the free and diverse idea exchange which makes up the amazing word: "Anarchism." (REEDBPERRY)

I don't see anything being accomplished by the above discussion. This is all just a continuation of the debates that have taken place between individualists and communists that have been going on for over a hundred years, with both sides denying that the other is true anarchism. I don't see any chance of a resolution. Individualism and collectivism are simply in constant conflict. I could throw in my opinion in the mix but what is that going to solve? Nothing, but inflame communists and create more disputes. So how about unlocking the article so we can edit it? I'm tired of waiting around for a conensus that will never come. DTC 17:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Please pay attention: The debate isn't about individualism vs. communism. It's about the definitional issue - what is anarchism. Some want to use the dictionary definition (the definition given by most luminaries); others want to use the circular definition anarchism is whatever has traditionally been considered anarchism. See the section above titled "Neutral Disambiguation Page" for specifics. Hogeye 17:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

"The" debate? I see lots of different debates going on at once. It looks to me like people are just arguing for something to do, since the article is locked. DTC 18:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Yep. I'm undecided about unlocking. DTC, why do think another edit war is preferable to keeping it locked? Hogeye 18:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

There wasn't an edit war. Someone simply decided to lock the article. No one was trying to remove anarcho-captialism out. How could they with all those sources backing it up? Some people were trying to put a "disputed" tag on anarcho-capitalism, but I think it's already been cleared up that anarcho-capitalism is not alone in being disputed. Anarcho-primitivism is also claimed not to be true anarchism, Benjamin Tucker's anarchism claimed not to be true anarchism, anarcho-communism is claimed not to be true anarchism, and so on. THere was no edit warring over the definition of anarchism. DTC 18:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Unprotecting a page because the discussion is leading nowhere is not the way to go. Has anyone thought of asking for arbitration here? Or has that been tried? --Woohookitty^(meow) 19:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that the discussion is going nowhere because no one knows what they're supposed to be discussing. What exactly would be arbitrated? I didn't see any edit warring over taking anarcho-capitalism out of the article, so whether anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism shouldn't be a matter of discussion here. I didn't see any edit warring over the definition of anrachism, so why is it being argued over here? What should we be discussing? Does anyone know? DTC 19:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

It looks to me like there was an edit war over the second paragraph of the intro. The socialist only faction wants to mention only the "self-labeled" anarchists and appeal to socialist tradition; the broad-tent faction wants to mention that there were anarchists of all stripes historically (but usually not self-labeled as such). I.e. the old definitional dispute. When unprotected, I intend to change the intro to something like this:

---

Anarchism is the name of a political philosophy or a group of doctrines and attitudes that are centered on rejection of government, or the state, as harmful and unnecessary and support its elimination.The term "anarchism" is derived from the Greek αναρχία ("without archons" or "without rulers"). Thus "anarchism," in its most general meaning, is the belief that all forms of rulership are undesirable and should be abolished. The rise of anarchism as a philosophical movement began in the late 18th century, with Edmund Burke's Vindication of Natural Society and William Godwin's Enquiry Concerning Political Justice.

On its own anarchism does not provide a world view beyond the idea that the state is unnecessary and should be abolished. There are a variety of types of anarchism, generally emphasizing their points of difference. Economic arrangements are one of the main areas of disagreement. Historically, no one knows whether most anarchists were capitalist, mutualist, or socialist. Assessment is difficult since, historically, pro-capitalist anarchists have generally not used that label due to perceived association with socialism and violence. Today, most self-described anarchists consider themselves anti-capitalist, except perhaps in the United States.

---

Hogeye 20:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

It looks to you? It looks to you? How disingenuous is it possible to be? You were the reason it was locked. You vandalised the page to try and prove a point. YOU are the one playing games with this article. Donnacha 20:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Exactly right, and I hope DTC may be beginning to see hogeye's modus as well. incidentily, i don't think any objective person here would agree with the sentence, "Assessment is difficult since, historically, pro-capitalist anarchists have generally not used that label due to perceived association with socialism and violence." that is entirely unsupported conjecture. historically, pro-capitalist anarchists in the US call themselves anarcho-capitalists. if these procap anarchists you speak of have not called themselves anarchists than they are not anarchists of any type. if they existed, then what did they call themselves? Just another example of hogeye's bullshit games and POV that degenerate the quality and fairness of this article. as long as the ancaps and pro-ancap editors continue to side with him on issues they are hurting their image, credibility, and this article. i believe it is fair to assume bad faith when regarding an editor who is consistently banned. Blockader 20:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Blockader: "If these procap anarchists you speak of have not called themselves anarchists then they are not anarchists of any type. If they existed, then what did they call themselves? "

Still using your weak circular definition, I see. Pro-capitalist anarchists used to call themselves économistes (Molinari), voluntaryists (Auberon Herbert), and various other things. It's hard to see your objection to "Assessment is difficult since, historically, pro-capitalist anarchists have generally not used that label due to perceived association with socialism and violence." What do you object to? That assessment of numbers in each economic school is difficult? That pro-capitalists were reluctant to call themselves anarchists? That the term was often associated with violence or socialism? The first is obvious, and the other two are easily supportable. Hogeye 21:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

If it isn't commonly accepted today that they were such, then what you present is a new synthesis of information, which is WP:OR. Original research may be accurate and quite well-done; however, it's not acceptable on Wikipedia, the same way Wikipedia aims not to be true but verifiable. --AaronS 22:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Calling a whale a mammal is not original research - it is applying a definition. This holds true even if it is commonly accepted that a whale is a fish and not a mammal. Hogeye 22:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you always argue in fallacies? Let me show you why your discursive tactics are disruptive, disingenuous, and regressive. Looking at my statement, there were several possible ways of interpreting it: (1) Since I am referring to research and to the content of an encyclopaedia, it can be inferred, rather simply, that I am talking about the generally-accepted ideas of a community whose research is acceptable for publication in an encyclopaedia; namely, academics who have published theories in respected journals, or who have been published by respected publishers. It would seem obvious that I am contrasting this with what Wikipedia considers to be "original research," i.e. anything that does not fall into the above description. (2) You could focus on my use of the phrase "commonly accepted today" and treat it in the least generous way possible; you could, for instance, be too lazy to make the simple inferences noted above, or you might recognize them and ignore them for the benefit of your argument, and attack an interpretation that makes less sense, is less coherent, and is therefore easier to debunk. Given these two options, regardless of the discussion, you always favor the second; you do not give those who disagree with you the benefit of the doubt, and choose instead to attack sloppily propped-up straw men. You are more concerned with winning an argument than with arriving, through the exchange of ideas, at the best conclusion. This is because you already believe that you have the conclusion, and will do everything you can to retroactively confirm it, through similarly careless and dishonest methods. Your goal is to convince others of what you perceive to be the insurmountable veracity of your thesis; error on your part, in terms of your ultimate conclusion, is impossible for you. To you, those who disagree with you are not presenting logical or coherent arguments; and, even if they are not always worded in the best way, you refuse to interpret them generously, thereby multiplying intelligent discourse, and decide, instead, to read them in the worst way possible, or attack the weakest possible interpretation. Since you have already decided the truth of the matter, you see no reason in engaging in discourse; indeed, you use these dishonest methods, because, for you, the ends justify the means. This is why, at every opportunity, you distract all discussion relevant to the improvement of the article. If you can frustrate everybody who disagrees with you into quitting the article, then you are content. Battles can be won with dishonest tactics, with straw men, red herrings, and simple trolling. The methods, however, are still dishonest, and this is why many people find discussion with you to be pointless. We are not trying to "win" a battle; you are. We are trying to engage in a discussion, and if everybody learns something at the end -- even if it means learning that one is wrong -- then all the better. You are not interested in such an intellectual pursuit. You are an idealogue, a zealot, a charlatan, and nothing more.

These comments are probably uncivil. If civility is courteousness, however, then I owe none to you. Courtesy is due to those worthy of respect. Your behavior is not. And I stress that my problem with you is not with you, but with your behavior; I call you a charlatan, because you pose as someone who is interested in philosophy, but act like a sophist. If you were to change your behavior, I would change my perception of you. I am not, however, optimistic. --AaronS 01:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow! I guess my whale analogy struck a nerve. Probably because I stuck to the dictionary/luminary definition of "anarchism," and you would prefer that I use your circular traditionalist definition. Of course you don't accept my whale analogy because that assumes "my" definition. Just as I don't accept your longwinded generally-accepted ideas of a community spiel, since that assumes "your" definition. The rest of your message, the uncivil part, is classic transference. It applys to you just as much as it applies to me, since we are equally unwilling to budge from our respective definitions. Hogeye 02:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Never have I supported anything resembling a "traditionalist definition." Then again, I've never accused you of intellectual honesty. --AaronS 03:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

This article should not be unlocked. DTC still views it as a battle between individualists and communists, Hogeye has not changed his behavior in any way (brining up OR that was deleted before and shall be deleted again, and doing the same things that got him banned in the first place). Wikipedia is not a battleground, it is not a soapbox, and it is not a medium by which people with personal web sites can disseminate the information and conclusions they have assembled therein. Talk page discussion still centers around meaningless theoretical debates or red herrings. --AaronS 22:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Exactly how I feel Aaron. I'm trying to stay away from here, since nothing productive is getting done, and I blame most of it on Hogeye, who has openly acknowledged his desire to engage in edit wars and pointless debates. Why is he not banned yet? I really want and answer this time. Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 23:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more with both Aaron and The UFC The UGF; I'm fed up with dealing with anarcho-capitalist apologists. They've already hijacked the anarcho-capitalism article, which is still a featured article, incredibly. -- WGee 00:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

On a related note, does anyone here have the time to open an arbitration case? Protecting the article is only a temporary fix: the source of the problem must be eradicated. -- WGee 00:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you forgetting you're on Wikipedia? Nothing is a permanent fix. I think that's the whole point. You just have to roll with the changes.Anarcho-capitalism 02:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm convinced now, too - the article should stay locked. The edit war over "anarchism" will never end. Ideally the protected page would be the Neutral Disambiguation Page so everyone could get back to working on their article of choice. If it's locked long enough, other editors may come to the same conclusion. Hogeye 02:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

This is not a debate between individualists and socialists. No one has denied that the individualist anarchists were anarchists (although, personally, I think they were inconsistent ones). That is because they considered themselves as socialists and/or aimed to abolished capitalist exploitation. The question is whether "anarcho"-capitalists should be able to rewrite the history of anarchism or not. As a compromise, they should be listed as a school of anarchism, but only if it is clearly and obviously noted that few anarchists would accept them as anarchists. That second point is, I think, an obvious fact. Moreover, I would like it noted that their fore-runners like Molinari refused the term anarchism because of its socialist nature. That is a significant point and indicates well that "anarcho"-capitalism really is a different political tradition to anarchism. Given this, any introduction should note that few, if any, anarchists consider anarchism to be "pure anti-statism." Reading Proudhon, Kropotkin, Bakunin, Goldman and so on they were obviously anti-capitalist as well. Their general introductions make that perfectly clear. Tucker was also critical of capitalism and its property rights and called himself a socialist. Labadie (father and son) called anarchism a form of socialism. As such, when Kropotkin called anarchism the "no government form of socialism" no anarchist would disagree. To ignore this is, simply, to ignore the history of anarchism and what it stands for. Just because Rothbard decided to call his ideology "anarchism" does not make it so. [BlackFlag], 09:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I have already procured a source above saying pretty much that were was no single "anarchist tradition" coming out of the 19th century. Intangible 11:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Good for you, it doesn't make it true. There is a multi-faceted anarchist tradition that includes individualist, collectivist and communist concepts within the broader socialist tradition. Any attempt to divide up the single tradition based on disagreements between individuals is rubbish. Donnacha 11:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

As you hopefully know, Wikipedia does not "seek to make things true." See WP:V. Intangible 11:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Very good, now reread Undue Weight. When it comes to the anarchist tradition of the early 20th Century, I think I'll stick with one of the experts of the time: Emma Goldman in 1910 - Anarchism: What It Really Stands For. One tradition, many facets. Donnacha 11:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Except that my source came from a peer-review academic journal. The text of Goldman does not even come close to that—it is actually quite easily argued that any text by Goldman should not be used, because she clearly is not a neutral observer. Intangible 11:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Anarchism is not an academic issue, it's a living breathing tradition. When you want information about a tradition, you look within, not without, it. Emma Goldman's piece makes clear that, in 1910, one of the most famous and influential anarchists ever regarded anarchism as one multi-faceted tradition. Of course there were disagreements - Tucker was a grumpy old sod, Emma was probably jealous of Voltairine De Cleyre, Kropotkin became detached from the real world around him later in life and was arguably too influenced by the little needed to improve the lives of Russian serfs, Proudhon and Bakunin were bigots, Bookchin and Hakim Bey spend too much time arguing with each other while most most anarchists have taken elements from the philosophy of both. That's where the tradition is, anarchism is not dogmatic, there are no primary texts. Anarchists within the tradition pick and choose elements, add bits, take bits out and synthesis their own version (often arguing amongst themselves). However, it is and always has been a multi-faceted socialist tradition. Donnacha 12:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

There is the systemic problem that anarcho-capitalism is more likely to be discussed by academics because it is mainly the invention of academics. Before, academics spared little ink on anarchism; they still do, today. This is noted in a couple of different reliable sources, which I'll provide when I have more time. --AaronS 11:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

There is the systemic problem that anarcho-capitalism is more likely to be discussed by academics because it is mainly the invention of academics. Before, academics spared little ink on anarchism; they still do, today. This is noted in a couple of different reliable sources, which I'll provide when I have more time. --AaronS 11:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict)And, of course, some of the greatest academics who have written about anarchism are anarchists - Kropotkin, Chomsky, etc. Any attempt to exclude them skews the article in favour of those who know less knowledgeable. Donnacha 12:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

So instead of a capitalist conspiracy, this has become an academic conspiracy? I have a an academic source from 1889 that already says that communist anarchism should be dealt with by the courts, and is not really worth ink about, namely: "...the Communist Anarchists are revolutionists of the most violent sort. They form the extreme left wing of the modern revolutionary movement. They teach materialism and atheism in their most revoluting forms. The method which they propose to use for the destruction of society and the institution of the new order is beneath scientific consideration." (Osgood, "Scientific Anarchism", 1889). Intangible 12:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Who said anything about a conspiracy? It's unfortunate that you and some others feel the need to debate caricatures instead of addressing the actual, valid points that others are making. I made mention of a systemic bias; that hardly implies a conspiracy. In fact, systemic biases are usually accidental. Please stop putting words into people's mouths. I really wish that some of you would be less concerned with the ultimate triumph of your views and more concerned with actual discourse. --AaronS 14:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

"I really wish that some of you would be less concerned with the ultimate triumph of your views and more concerned with actual discourse." This is not putting words in people's mouths? Intangible 15:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Considering that my mention of systemic bias in no way implied belief in a conspiracy, and that your tactics belie an attitude that reflects what I described, no, it is not. --AaronS 17:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Donnacha wrote, "Emma Goldman's piece makes clear that, in 1910, one of the most famous and influential anarchists ever regarded anarchism as one multi-faceted tradition." I wholeheartedly accept Emma's definition. Here is her definition:

ANARCHISM:--The philosophy of a new social order based on liberty unrestricted by man-made law; the theory that all forms of government rest on violence, and are therefore wrong and harmful, as well as unnecessary.

Pure anti-statism. By Goldman's definition, anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism. Thank you. This by a hard-core anti-capitalist, no less. Hogeye 16:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

that the brain capacity of the average reader be not taxed too much LOL. Property rights are a man-made law, as she makes clear further in the article. Thank you, and goodbye. Donnacha 16:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Hogeye, perhaps you should read the rest of that essay. You know, the part where Goldman says

[...]Anarchism has declared war on the pernicious influences which have so far prevented the harmonious blending of individual and social instincts, the individual and society.

Religion, the dominion of the human mind; Property, the dominion of human needs; and Government, the dominion of human conduct, represent the stronghold of man's enslavement and all the horrors it entails. [1]

She wasn't wasting her breath ink when she said that. Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 02:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

But that wasn't part of her definition. That's the point. I'm well aware that Emma was a commie. But she defined anarchism in terms of anti-statism. The features and beliefs of her particular version of anarchism are not necessary for all anarchisms. Hogeye 06:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The entire article is her extended definition. It's called "Anarchism: What it Really Stands For" for crying out loud! The article is her attempt at clarifying the basic ideas of anarchism, which to her included anti-capitalism. She didn't say "I have declared war [...], she said "Anarchism has declared war[...]" (emphasis added). Oh, and did you read the paragraph directly following your little selective quote?

The new social order rests, of course, on the materialistic basis of life; but while all Anarchists agree that the main evil today is an economic one, they maintain that the solution of that evil can be brought about only through the consideration of every phase of life,--individual, as well as the collective; the internal, as well as the external phases. (emphasis added)

And before you even say it, I'm not the only one who seems to think the entire essay is her extended definition. In my 11th grade Honors American Lit class we had to write an essay on whether Huck Finn was an anarchist or not (a claim that some critics have stupidly made). Guess what we used as our basis of judging what the key components of anarchist philosophy were. This essay, and we didn't just focus on that one sentence--the parts about religion and property were considered (by our teacher at least) to be necessary ideas within anarchism as a whole. I can't say I'd agree with her, in fact, we argued about some of the details in class (mainly due to the fact that religion isn't inherently bad, it just usually is). Still, she said that we could base our essay only on this essay, and that I (since I was the only one with outside knowledge) couldn't use any other criteria. I still think it was really cool that she passed out anarchist propaganda though. That's still one of my happiest high school memories. Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 07:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Most property rights are not man-made law. See natural law. Sigh. Intangible 16:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

ROTFL! Even Tucker rejected Natural Law. Natural Law is a metaphysical fiction that has no place in a rational theory of society or humanity. There's nothing predefined in a social contract. Donnacha 16:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

"Miss Goldman is a communist; I am an individualist. She wishes to destroy the right of property, I wish to assert it. I make my war upon privilege and authority, whereby the right of property, the true right in that which is proper to the individual, is annihilated. She believes that co-operation would entirely supplant competition; I hold that competition in one form or another will always exist, and that it is highly desirable it should." -Voltarine de CleyreAnarcho-capitalism 16:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Please read more carefully. Goldman rejects decreed property, citing Proudhon. She rejects "property, the dominion of man's needs, the denial of the right to satisfy his needs." She does not deny property based on natural rights or contract. In her words, "A natural law is that factor in man which asserts itself freely and spontaneously without any external force, in harmony with the requirements of nature." This she contrasts with "man-made" law. As we know, property - the kind Proudhon talks about when he says "Property is liberty" - arises spontaneously in society due to scarcity and the need to distinguish mine from thine. Put another way, anarcho-capitalists reject decreed "man-made law" property, too. Hogeye 16:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) And she's wrong. No anarchist communist has ever, to my extensive knowledge, has ever argued that co-operation would entirely supplant competition, rather that the capitalist system focusses exclusively on competition to the detriment of humanity. Rather, the argue that a society that promoted co-operation over competition would be a better one. Further, anarchism is based on voluntary co-operation and a social contract, it can only destroy that which people wish to destroy. Finally, since Proudhon, most anarchists have recognised the distinction between property and possessions. Capital property is theft, possessions - that which one owns and uses - is the individual's to retain or share with the collective or commune. Donnacha 16:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Capital property is theft from whom?Anarcho-capitalism 16:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Go read Proudhon. Donnacha 16:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

You should read Proudhon if you take the statement "Property is theft" literally. Theft is the wrongful taking of someone else's property. Theft can't exist unless property exists in the first place.Anarcho-capitalism 16:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

So saying anything is "theft" is acknowledging a right of property.Anarcho-capitalism 16:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

"But property, in its derivative sense, and by the definitions of law, is a right outside of society; for it is clear that, if the wealth of each was social wealth, the conditions would be equal for all, and it would be a contradiction to say: Property is a man's right to dispose at will of social property. Then if we are associated for the sake of liberty, equality, and security, we are not associated for the sake of property; then if property is a natural right, this natural right is not social, but anti-social. Property and society are utterly irreconcilable institutions. It is as impossible to associate two proprietors as to join two magnets by their opposite poles. Either society must perish, or it must destroy property." Proudhon, Pierre Joseph . What is Property?. Donnacha 16:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Proudhon was famous as much for his style as for what he said. The rhetorical form of "property is theft" was one he used repeatedly. It means that what the defenders of "property" are defending is by their own terms a violation of property, or "theft." The sections he devotes to the assertion that "property is impossible" make this very, very clear. Libertatia 17:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

"property is the greatest revolutionary force which exists, with an unequaled capacity for setting itself against authority..." and the "principal function of private property within the political system will be to act as a counterweight to the power of the State, and by so doing to insure the liberty of the individual." Theory of Property, ProudhonAnarcho-capitalism 16:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

And by this time, Proudhon has changed his rhetoric without signicantly changing his beliefs. All through Theory of Property he still talks about the inherent injustice of "property." He champions the concept only "in its aims." Libertatia 17:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

So he thinks private property is injust but he still supports it.Anarcho-capitalism 17:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Très ironique, non? Read Proudhon again if you don't get it. Donnacha 17:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I do get it. He thinks private property is unjust (in the sense that wealth distribution is not equal, according to his own flawed sense of justice) but he supports it because it's necessary for liberty. Without private property there is no liberty.Anarcho-capitalism 17:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you at least read all the way through the Selected Writings anthology that is available. That would help this conversation enormously. Proudhon initially doesn't want to talk about two kinds of property relations. He faults Pierre Leroux for doing just that. But his initial rhetorical strategy is not entirely compatible with his mature theory, so he changes rhetorical strategies, continues to reject existing property relations, but champions what he takes to be the aims and desired ends of property. This isn't the clearest strategy either, but Theory of Property takes just this approach. Libertatia 17:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Proudhon was a very confused person. His logic was tortured by his flawed moral senses.Anarcho-capitalism 17:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like you hardly have a neutral POV. Perhaps you should just excuse yourself from editing material on this "confused," "immoral" figure...? Or, alternately, learn enough to follow Proudhon's arguments...? Libertatia 17:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I hardly have an NPOV. I never claimed to. I'm an anarcho-capitalist. Anarcho-capitalism is correct, and Proudhon's philosophy is flawed. But that doesn't mean I'm going to insert my POV into articles. I would never claim that Proudhon was wrong in the article. I might point out that a source opines that he's wrong, but that's as far as it goes, and that is consistent with the POV policy.Anarcho-capitalism 18:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

With Proudhon, you have to look at the context to see if he was talking about decreed property or natural property. In "What is Property" he was writing about decreed property. (Anarcho-capitalism, is Proudhon's "Theory of Property" online somewhere?) In his first work "What is Property," P. tried to make this distinction by calling decreed property "property," and natural (to him labor-based) property "possession." Later he apparently realized that some things, like the product of labor, you had a right to sell, so he went back to the term property for both the decreed kind and the rightfully-owned kind. This ambiguity in terminology makes him hard to fathom, and P's penchant for contradiction doesn't help. Hogeye 19:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Various differences in translation don't help - Property is theft or Property is robber? Add to that the French use of irony as a different literary device to English and, finally, a very different French academic style and it's extremely difficult to make out. So.... hmmm, where do you find a decent interpretation of Proudhon? A new American idea far detached in time, culture and space? Or those who directly followed Proudhon in developing the ideas - Bakunin, Marx, Engels, Kropotkin, etc. - an interpretation that has endured largely unchallenged for over 100 years? Dumb question. Donnacha 19:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The best interpretation of Proudhon is with your own mind by reading his works. The cultural differences should be kept in mind, but shouldn't be overemphasized. Prussian culture and Russian peasant culture is no closer, and perhaps more foreign, to French culture than American culture - so pretending Marx and Kropotkin got it right and Americans got it wrong is disingenious. Proudhonian thought came to America rather quickly through William Weitling, William B. Greene, Charles A. Dana, and Albert Brisbane, Elisee Reclus, and Joseph Dejacques. Greene's Proudhonian book "Mutual Banking" was published in 1850. Hogeye 20:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I've got most of the editions of Greene's mutual bank writings online now, along with a number of bibliographic essays. The most recent one is here—not citable, but perhaps still useful. Libertatia 00:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Russian peasant culture? Both Bakunin and Kropotkin were aristocrats originally, and Kropotkin was educated by a French soldier left behind after the Napoleonic war! Donnacha 21:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

You are way off, Hogeye. Most educated Europeans at the time would have been fluent in French and would have been very much influenced by French culture, history, and philosophy. Paris was the métropole of Europe. As far as translations are concerned, I am fluent in French, and have read parts of Qu'est-ce que la propriété ?. English translations vary in quality. Either way, I would trust his contemporaries to interpret him better than you. --AaronS 22:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Anarcho-Capitalism cites the following quote above from Voltarine de Cleyre to bolster his point, ""Miss Goldman is a communist; I am an individualist. She wishes to destroy the right of property, I wish to assert it. I make my war upon privilege and authority, whereby the right of property, the true right in that which is proper to the individual, is annihilated. She believes that co-operation would entirely supplant competition; I hold that competition in one form or another will always exist, and that it is highly desirable it should." -Voltarine de CleyreAnarcho-capitalism 16:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)." Here are some other quotes from de Cleyre.

"Anarchism...teaches the possibility of a society in which the needs of life may be fully supplied for all, and in which the opportunities for complete development of mind and body shall be the heritage of all... teaches that the present unjust organisation of the production and distribution of wealth must finally be completely destroyed, and replaced by a system which will insure to each the liberty to work, without first seeking a master to whom he must surrender a tithe of his product, which will guarantee his liberty of access to the sources and means of production... Out of the blindly submissive, it makes the discontented; out of the unconsciously dissatisfied, it makes the consciously dissatisfied... Anarchism seeks to arouse the consciousness of oppression, the desire for a better society, and a sense of the necessity for unceasing warfare against capitalism and the State."

"The communistic customs of these people are very interesting and very instructive too...,"

"the best thing ordinary workingmen or women could do was to organise their industry to get rid of money altogether . . . Let them produce together, co-operatively rather than as employer and employed; let them fraternise group by group, let each use what he needs of his own product, and deposit the rest in the storage-houses, and let those others who need goods have them as occasion arises."

Don't quote de Cleyre for your ancap purposes, she was very anticapitalist.

She also wrote, "Socialism and Communism both demand a degree of joint effort and administration which would beget more regulation than is wholly consistent with ideal Anarchism; Individualism and Mutualism, resting upon property, involve a development of the private policeman not at all compatible with my notion of freedom."

I think it surreptitious and underhanded the way ancap presented de clerye's quote and that action makes me seriously consider his intentions here. Blockader 18:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The quote I gave was from when De Cleyre was an individualist anarchist. The quote you gave you rejecting individualist anrachism is from later when she changed her mind and became an "anarchist without adjectives." The intention of the quote was to show it was De Cleyre's opinion that Goldman rejected private property and de Cleyre supported it. It certainly wasn't meant to imply that de Cleyre was an anarcho-capitalist. If I think someone is an anarcho-capitalist I will say so.Anarcho-capitalism 18:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm quite aware of how you were using the quote, i found it dubious. In 1894 (the date of your quote) de Cleyre did "believe" in property. As early as half a decade later she did not, as evidenced by the quotes i provided in which she makes anti-property asserions like, "and deposit the rest in the storage-houses, and let those others who need goods have them as occasion arises" and "Anarchism...teaches that the present unjust organisation of the production and distribution of wealth must finally be completely destroyed." Blockader 19:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

What's your point? I never said she was always an individualist anarchist. We quote Tucker here, but his philosophy changed as well when he turned to Egoist individualist anarchism which contradicted a lot of his early anarchism. "The right of might and the right of contract are the only rights that exist" -TuckerAnarcho-capitalism 19:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Consensus is Impossible

It's fun discussing Proudhon, Goldman, de Cleyre, and Stirner ... but what about the article? Does everyone agree that consensus among editors on the definition of anarchism is impossible? If so, how shall we proceed?

1. Unlock the article and continue the edit wars.
2. Keep the article locked as is.
3. Lock the article with a neutral disambiguation page of some kind.
4. Seek binding(???) arbitration.
5. Other?

Hogeye 21:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

You've already admitted that your goal is to disrupt the editing process as much as you can until you get what you want: a neautral disambiguation page, catered to your opinion regarding divisions in anarchist theory. --AaronS 21:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

And, unless I've missed it, Hogeye still hasn't provided a reliable source for his claim that anarchism is commonly defined in two different ways. VoluntarySlave 22:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

??? I, and others, have cited numerous dictionaries and luminaries for the anti-statist definition.E.g. Here's Tucker: "the doctrine that all the affairs of men should be managed by individuals or voluntary associations, and that the State should be abolished."[2] Also see Wikiquote and Onelook. Various people have provided sources for the anti-state plus anti-capitalism definition. Half this page is providing quotes and arguing about which def is the right one. Both definitions have been amply sourced, and both definitions have editors championing them. It is clear that there are at least two reasonable definitions. Hogeye 05:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that's enough, though. Your proposed disambiguation page asserts that there are two, and only two, primary definitions of anarchism, which are separate and incompatible with each other. That is, your claim is that the word anarchism has two meanings, not that there is one meaning but a disagreement about how that meaning should be expressed. To claim that the word has two distinct meanings, without a source, is OR. To make a disambiguation page when there is disagreement about the meaning of the word is a POV fork. VoluntarySlave 06:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with VoluntarySlave here. Besides, wikiquote is not a legitimate source (especially considering all the debate we had about that page here on this talk page). I think your the main contributor there as well, which was one of the main issues. And like Aaron, I honestly can't assume good faith on your part here. Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 07:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind adding more than two definitions to the NDP. Perhaps we should add the chaos and violent lawlessness definition and redirect to anomy. Even if you don't like Wikiquote, Onelook and the definitions of the various luminaries supports the pure anti-statism def. The various sources appealing to tradition and movements support the second def. In light of the numerous definitions given already, I don't understand how you can say these two meanings are unsourced. Would you like me to cite two different respectable dictionary defs, one giving the anti-state def and the other the anti-state plus anti-capitalism def? What would convince you that these two meanings are used?

Over and above these abundant citations, there is the practical consideration that editors here are adamant about using their one true definition, resulting in permanent edit wars. Hogeye 21:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not just the individual definitions that need sourcing. It's the claim that the word "anarchism" has two (or more) different meanings. The obvious interpretation of the diversity of definitions is that the definition of "anarchism" is controversial, not that there are two different (and equally well accepted) definitions. But the latter is what your DP says, so that's what I'd like to see a source for. I'm not at all convinced, by the way, that the disagreements that occur on this page are due to defining the word "anarchism" in different ways. VoluntarySlave 02:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Looking at it historically, there was no major disagreement over defining anarchism as both Tucker and Kropotkin called themselves socialists. Tucker would have agreed with Kropotkin's definition of anarchism as "the no-goverment form of socialism." Both the individualists and others were critical of capitalism. Hence Brian Morris:

"The term anarchy comes from the Greek, and essentially means 'no ruler.' Anarchists are people who reject all forms of government or coercive authority, all forms of hierarchy and domination. They are therefore opposed to . . . state, capital and the church. Anarchists are thus opposed to both capitalism and to the state, as well as to all forms of religious authority. But anarchists also seek to establish or bring about by varying means, a condition of anarchy, that is, a decentralised society without coercive institutions, a society organised through a federation of voluntary associations . . when one examines the writings of classical anarchists . . . as well as the character of anarchist movements . . . it is clearly evident that it has never had this limited vision [of just being against the state]. It has always challenged all forms of authority and exploitation, and has been equally critical of capitalism and religion as it has been of the state." ("Anthropology and Anarchism," Anarchy: A Journal of Desire Armed no. 45)

Unsurprisingly, he also notes in that essay that "anarcho"-capitalism is not a form of anarchism. The reason we are having this discussion is because Rothbard decided to call his ideology "anarcho-capitalism" in the 1950s and so ignore the whole history of anarchism. Personally, I think (like most anarchists) that we should stick with the traditional definition of anarchism as anti-state and anti-capitalist. "Anarcho"-capitalism should be mentioned as a form of anarchism, but in addition it should be clear and obviously stated that most anarchists reject the claim. BlackFlag 11:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

etymology

Come to think of it, this is probably the most interesting thing lacking from this article. Intangible 23:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

We do have the basic etymology: αναρχία ("without archons" or "without rulers").

Perhaps we should add that "archon" is related to the word for "throne," and thus clearly refers to political rule. Some people misinterpret it as some weak fuzzy form of authority, e.g. social hierarchies. Hogeye 06:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

That's not really the etymology, though, it's just the root terms that were used when the word was constructed (which, incidentally, says absolutely nothing about the meaning of the word). An etymology would give a history of how these terms came to be combined in one word, and how that word came to be used in various different contexts. VoluntarySlave 06:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Is this what youre talking about: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/anarchy. And as far as i know (i dont have the source, but ill take a look after it) an arkhos was a position of authority which seems to an official as in most states of our time. The wikitionary translates the word as "ruler, authority" more than precicely an statesman. This last (and i think, most widespread) interpretation creates an image of the word anarchia as being more than just anti-statism, but anti-authority in general (family authority, religious authority, authority at work etc. etc.), while the first one (an Archon being an official of some sort) gives credit to the anti-statism interpretation. I think we should stick to the widest and most known interpretation of anarchia which simply is anti-authority. --Fjulle 13:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

No, I do not want only the starting point, I pretty much like to see something about its use up till the 2nd half of the 19th century. Intangible 14:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

From the OED: Etymology of anarchy: [ad. Gr. {alenis}{nu}{alpha}{rho}{chi}{giacu}{alpha}, n. of state f. {alenisacu}{nu}{alpha}{rho}{chi}-{omicron}{fsigma} without a chief or head, f. {alenis}{nu} priv. + {alenis}{rho}{chi}{goacu}{fsigma} leader, chief. The word was also adopted in med.L. anarchia, and Fr. anarchie (Cotgr. 1611), from one or other of which the Eng. may have been immediately taken.] Etymology of archon: [a. Gr. {alenisacu}{rho}{chi}{omega}{nu} ruler, magistrate, pr. pple. of {alenisacu}{rho}{chi}-{epsilon}{iota}{nu} to rule.] Etymology of the arch- prefix:

repr. Gr. {alenis}{rho}{chi}{iota}-, {alenis}{rho}{chi}'-, comb. form of {alenis}{rho}{chi}-{goacu}{fsigma} chief (cogn. w. {alenisacu}{rho}{chi}-{epsilon}{iota}{nu} to begin, take the lead), as in {alenis}{rho}{chi}{iota}-{delta}{iota}{gaacu}{kappa}{omicron}{nu}{omicron}{fsigma} chief-minister, {alenis}{rho}{chi}{iota}-{epsilon}{pi}{giacu}{sigma}{kappa}{omicron}{pi}{omicron}{fsigma} chief-bishop, {alenis}{rho}{chi}-{gaacu}{gamma}{gamma}{epsilon}{lambda}{omicron}{fsigma} chief-angel. Hence in later L. archidi{amac}conus, archiepiscopus, archangelus; in OF. arce-archediacne, arce-archevesque, arc-archangele. (In L. the ch was treated as c; hence, in Romanic, it remained = k in archangelus; in other words, it became in It. arce-, arci-, Pr., Sp., Pg. arce, OF. arce-, later arche-; whence G. erz-, Du. aarts-.)

In OE. at first translated by héah- high (héah-diacon, héah-biscop, héah-{ehook}ngel, etc.), but also at length adopted from L. as arce-, ærce-, {ehook}rce- (? orig. arci-), in {ehook}rce-diacon, {ehook}rce-biscop, {ehook}rce-stól arch-see, {ehook}rce-hád archiepiscopal dignity. The OE. {ehook}rce-, arce-, became in ME. erche-, arche-, the latter coinciding with OF. arche-, whence also archangel was added. From these, in later times, arch- became a living formative, prefixable to any name of office. The same happened in med.L. and most mod. langs.; hence many of the Eng. examples, e.g. archduke, are adaptations of foreign titles. Since the 16th c., arch- has been freely prefixed to names of agents and appellatives (like arci- in Ital., and archi- in French, as archifou, archipédant); in a few instances also to appellations of things, and occasionally even to adjectives. Finally, from its faculty of being prefixed to any appellative, arch has gradually come to be a separate adjective; see prec. word. (In modern literary words from Gr., the prefix is, in Eng., as in all the Romance langs., ARCHI- q.v.) In pronunciation, the compounds of arch- have two accents, either of which may be the stronger, according to emphasis, as in right hand. But established compounds, as archangel, -bishop, -deacon, -duke, tend to have the main stress on arch-, especially when they are prefixed to a name, as, the {sm}Archduke {sm}Charles, {sm}Archbishop {sm}Cranmer. As a prefix the usual sense is ‘chief, principal, high, leading, prime,’ occasionally ‘first in time, original, initial,’ but in modern use it is chiefly prefixed intensively to words of bad or odious sense, as in arch-traitor, arch-enemy, arch-rogue.

1. a. In titles of office, rank, or dignity: meaning, ‘Chief, principal, -in-chief; superior, master-; one who occupies a position or rank above those who bear the simple title’; as ARCHBISHOP, ARCHDEACON, ARCHDUKE; arch-beadle, -brahmin, -chaplain, -druid, -eunuch (Gr. {alenis}{rho}{chi}{iota}{epsilon}{upsilon}{nu}{omicron}{gufrown}{chi}{omicron}{fsigma}), -gunner (obs.), -ma{sm}girist (Gr. {alenis}{rho}{chi}{iota}-{mu}{gaacu}{gamma}{epsilon}{iota}{rho}{omicron}{fsigma}) chief cook, -mime (= ARCHIMIME), -minister, -phylarch chief magistrate of the tribe, -satrap, -visitor; especially in many titles of offices in the Holy Roman or German empire, as arch-butler, -chamberlain, -chancellor, -count, -cupbearer; arch-dapifer, chief sewer, whose office it was to carry on horseback the first meal to the newly-crowned emperor, whence archdapifership; arch-earl, -marshal, -sewer, -steward, -treasurer,

b. In appellations formed after these, and applied in a similar sense, as arch-apostle chief apostle, or chief of the apostles; arch-chief, -corsair, -dæmon, -emperor, -engineer, -genethliac (Gr. {gamma}{epsilon}{nu}{epsilon}{theta}{lambda}{iota}{alpha}{kappa}{goacu}{fsigma}) chief caster of nativities, -governor, -magician, -patriarch, -pontiff, -primate, -prince, -publican, -regent, -ruler, -sacrificator, -sacrificer, -shepherd, -vestryman, -workmaster.

--AaronS 17:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you AaronS, but this is not what I'm looking for. I'm looking for the use of the term "anarchy" up till the 19th century, by different people. Intangible 21:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

That's not etymology. It's more like a genealogy. More from OED, perhaps what you're looking for: On the "political disorder" definition: 1539 TAVERNER Erasm. Prov. (1552) 43 This unleful lyberty or lycence of the multytude is called an Anarchie. 1605 BACON Adv. Learn. II. xxiii. §36 (1873) 241 Pompey..made it his design..to cast the state into an absolute anarchy and confusion. 1664 H. MORE Myst. Iniq. 219 A Polity without an Head..would not be a Polity, but Anarchy. 1796 BURKE Corr. IV. 389 Except in cases of direct war, whenever government abandons law, it proclaims anarchy. 1840 CARLYLE Heroes (1858) 277 Without sovereigns, true sovereigns, temporal and spiritual, I see nothing possible but an anarchy; the hatefullest of things. 1878 LECKY Eng. in 18th C. I. i. 12 William threatened at once to retire to Holland and leave the country to anarchy. On the "theoretical state with no governing person(s)" definition: 1667 MILTON P.L. x. 283 The waste Wide Anarchie of Chaos. 1821 BYRON Sardan. I. ii. (1868) 356 The satraps uncontroll'd, the gods unworshipped, And all things in the anarchy of sloth. 1831 BREWSTER Newton (1855) II. xix. 205 Some of the provincial mints were in a state of anarchy. 1959 Daily Tel. 23 Feb. 10/5 The spirit of anarchy today current in the visual arts. Ibid., A form of emotional anarchy even more destructive of talent than the slovenly disregard of technique. On the "non-recognition of moral law; moral disorder" definition: 1656 COWLEY Chronicle ix, Thousand worse Passions then possest The Inter-regnum of my Breast. Bless me from such an Anarchy! 1713 STEELE Englishm. No. 7. 44 The Licentious are in a State of barbarous Anarchy. 1875 HAMERTON Intell. Life VI. ii. 203 A moral anarchy difficult to conceive and so forth... --AaronS 00:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's a quote about the etymology:

"Another of Proudhon's startling paradoxes, seemingly so at least, and I think we shall see really so, is the use of the term anarchy, to denote not chaos and confusion, but the basis of order in the freedom of the individual from the control of others. Etymologically, this use of the term has a show of reason as it merely means absence of government, and a writer has the right, if he choose so to revert to etymological origins; and frequently there is a great advantage in so doing." - "Proudhon and His Translator" by Stephen Pearl Andrews[3]

Hogeye 22:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

"The word anarchy comes from the ancient Greek word...The etymology of the word - anarchism meaning the absence of a leader, the absence of a government - signals what is distinctive about anarchism: a rejection of the need for the centralized authority of the unitary state, the only form of government most of us have ever experienced. The concept of the state is inseparable from the notion of authority within a society...A distinction that is relevant to the anarchist ideal is the difference between the government, referring to the state, and government, referring to the administration of a political system. Anarchists, like everyone, tend to use the word government as a synonym for the state, but what is rejected by anarchism's a priori opposition to the state is not the concept of government as such but the idea of a sovereign order that claims and demand the obedience, and if necessary the lives, of its subjects. Anarchism rejects that form of imposed, centralized authority enshrined and made material by the state." Sheehan, Sean. Anarchism, Reaktion Books, 2004, p. 25-26Anarcho-capitalism 00:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Calm down people

I'm seeing major straying from civility, especially under the "Unlock the article?" section. Calm down people. Take a deep breath and then see if you can be civil. Otherwise, I'm going to start handing out blocks again. There's just no reason to get personal here. --Woohookitty^(meow) 07:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for being harsh with my words, before, but I would appreciate it if there wasn't so much equivocation going on in the discussions. --AaronS 05:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Discussion of Schools of anarchism

I cast an eye over the article in it's current form, and I must say I find myself rather unimpressed. Currently the American Individualist section is about the size of anarchist collectivism, anarchist communism and anarcho-syndicalism put together. Strange that the descriptions of the other schools were butchered yet the individualist ones remain. Also disappointing, since I and a few other editors have put hard work into creating an informative article. --GoodIntentions^talk 05:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I dont get why Stirner, the Individualist anarchist of the US and anCap gets a speciel place of honour in the individualist section either. Its strange, because who can say which is the most influencial: fx Stirner or Bakunin. Beyound that i dont get why theres this anarchist schools at all. It seems to me that the index which is used by Ward in anarchism (AVSI) is far better in illustrating 1) the different ideeological discurses and that 2) theres not schools in an traditional way in anarchism (anCap probably being closest to what might be called a school), rather different individuals working in different ways with different people at different times. --Fjulle 10:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Because Stirner has a different type of individualist anarchism than the American form. Maybe it should probably be called "Egoism." Stirner is the first Egoist individualist. Maybe the section should be renamed "Egoism." There are other Egoists besides Stirner. We could add a couple other names.Anarcho-capitalism 15:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I know he is a different type, its implicit in my statement, but anyway, ill try again: Even though he is of a different type, that doesnt mean this type is anymore important, so important that fx bakunin (mutualist or collectivist) or kropotkin (communist anarchism) doesnt get a place somewhere. Because both Bakunin and Kropotkin are different types of anarchism too, so are all others. Why should we favour Stirner? Id suggest:

1) we boil Stirner, US individualistd, anCap and the introduction to the individualist anarchist section down so that the whole individualist section fits the size of the other section, and go in details in the individualist anarchist article... or

2) We reconsider the whole structure. My suggestion is Ward kinda style.

--Fjulle 09:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Stirner never called himself an anarchist, either. I wouldn't mind using Ward as a model. --AaronS 14:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Just because you don't call yourself an anarchist it doesn't mean you aren't one. All sources I've ever seen say he's an anarchist. Godwin was the first anarchist, but he didn't call himself one either. Josiah Warren never called himself one.Anarcho-capitalism 15:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

In normal circumstances, particularly post-Proudhon, it means exactly that - if people choose not to call themselves anarchists, you should respect their choice (that applies to Gandhi, libertarians and all others). However, Godwin and Warren are special cases because they are direct predecessors of the movements and proposed clearly anarchist ideas in a time when the term had not entered common use. Stirner is more difficult, while his philosophy was hugely influential on anarchism (not just individualist), there are clear points of difference. He had no real position on the state, for one. He used the term Egoism and, while its influence on anarchism should be noted, it's incorrect to call him an anarchist when he chose not to himself. Donnacha 15:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Then you're disagreeing with all that people out there that study anarchism. "Max Stirner is the most individualistic and 'egoistic' of the anarchist thinkers." The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, 2005; "Both Godwin and Stirner developed versions of anarchist doctrine based on individualism, but there the resemblance ends." Adams, Ian, Political Ideology Today, page 117; "[Stirner's] name appears with familiar regularity in historically-orientated surveys of anarchist thought as one of the earliest and best-known exponents of individualist anarchism." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy; "Some anarchist thinkers, such as the German Max Stirner, refused to recognize any limitation on the individual's right to do as he pleases or any obligation to act socially..." Encyclopedia Britannica, Anarchism. You're mistaken that he has no position on the state. His position is that if everyone turn egoist then the state will fall apart. The only reason it exists is because people are letting it exists because they have an illusion that the self needs an authority.Anarcho-capitalism 15:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Strangely enough, I do tend to question authority. You'll find most real anarchists tend to do that. Donnacha 16:06, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

"Does it follow that I reject all authority? Far from me such a thought...I bow before the authority of special men because it is imposed on me by my own reason. I am conscious of my own inability to grasp, in all its detail, and positive development, any very large portion of human knowledge. The greatest intelligence would not be equal to a comprehension of the whole. Thence results, for science as well as for industry, the necessity of the division and association of labour. I receive and I give - such is human life. Each directs and is directed in his turn. Therefore there is no fixed and constant authority, but a continual exchange of mutual, temporary, and, above all, voluntary authority and subordination." -Michael Bakunin, What is Authority?

Question is not spelt r-e-j-e-c-t. Authority is not automatic. Donnacha 16:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Much of what goodintentions and Fjulle mention above have also been concerns of mine since the last unlocking of the article led to massive contraversial edits which shortened all the social anarchist school's sections, removed kropotkin, changed the intro, but interestingly enough left the indiv sections largely untouched. i think the article as it stands now is pretty pitiful and it should be returned to the state in which it existed at the last unlocking so the large amounts of important info can be returned. stirner/tucker should stay, of course, but kropotkin and the info on the social schools had no business being removed imo. i too would be fine using Ward as a model. Blockader 15:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I also wonder why the anarcho-communism section is so minimal. It should be explained in more detail.Anarcho-capitalism 15:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Hogeye removed most of social anarchism when he posted his ridiculousy POV "nocommie" version 3 times on Sep. 18th. go to the article history and look. somewhere in the edit war that ensued due to his contraversial and undiscussed changes, it appears that someone was able to remove large amounts of sourced and uncontraversial info. you still wanna support him ancap? i think that an admin should revert the article to the state it was in at the time of the last unlocking. Blockader 16:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Here (Revision as of 19:43, 15 September 2006) is how it was at the last unblocking. A comparison shows that the Anarchism as a Social Movement section is virtually unchanged. Get your facts straight. Hogeye 17:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

He's right, most of it was junked before I even started editing. Kropotkin was actually removed by, eh, Good Intentions[4]!!! Was that deliberate? Donnacha 17:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I've never known how to look at previous versions, just the changes made in the history section. i am nearly computer illiterate :). i thought it got lost during the "nocommie" version edit wars since hogeyes version removes most of social anarchism. those sections were previously more extensive but it could've been durng the WhiskeyRebellion days that they got f'ed. sorry for confusion. Blockader 17:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

To see the previous version, just scroll down from the edit history. Donnacha 17:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the history, I found out who deleted most of the anarcho-communism material. It was user GoodIntentions: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anarchism&diff=72964791&oldid=72941301 He deleted the whole Kropotkin discussion.Anarcho-capitalism 17:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Then he deleted more of it: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anarchism&diff=73899572&oldid=73898782 Anarcho-capitalism 17:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, I see you already discovered this.Anarcho-capitalism 17:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Back then, three archive pages ago, I was aiming at something different than what we are aiming for now - conciseness. There was mention of no thinker past Proudhon after I was done - it was certainly more concise and a concession I was willing to make for removing the page-long epic on Rothbard. I'm still not convinced that we need a section on Proudhon, or even Godwin, right there at the top of the article - I'd prefer something like the Stirnerite section which is admirably free from talk of Stirner. You'll also see that the sections I deleted (not quite "most of it") from the an-com section were rather contentious, unnecessary and biased attacks on the movement, the type of bickering that is unbecoming of an encyclopedia and which I remove on sight from wherever (you should have seen the point-for-point attack on Tucker from Rothbard's perspective which I also removed). --GoodIntentions^talk 01:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Should fix Wikiquote link

Wikiquote's article q:Definitions of anarchism has been moved to q:Anarchism. Although a redirect exists to allow the current WQ box link in this article's "External links" section to jump to the current article, the box link itself should be simplified to "{{wikiquote}}", either by a sysop or when this article is finally (or even temporarily) unprotected. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 14:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I've made the fix. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

YANDP

Yet Another Neutral Disambiguation Page

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

Anarchism may mean:

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

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

---

If you want to work on an anarchism article, take your pick from above and have at it. No need to wait until this one gets unlocked. Find YANDP at Anarchism (disambiguation).

LOL. You've done it now.Anarcho-capitalism 18:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it's not funny at all. Hogeye, I've redirected both of those clear POV forks. You know that that was a bad edit to make and yet you did it anyway. Your edit warring needs to stop. Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 19:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Obviously this is an attempt to avoid edit warring, by recognizing that there are (at least) two different definitions of anarchism. See anarchism (disambiguation). I un-redirected them, of course. Please stop vandalizing articles, UF. Redirection like that is no different from blanking articles. Hogeye 19:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

If you're going to do that, maybe it should be Anarchism (political) and Anarchism (philosophical). "What is distinctive about philosophical anarchism is that its judgement of state illegitimacy...does not translate into any immediate requirement of opposition to illegitimate states. This is what leads many to contrast philosphical anarchism to political anarchism." -John Simmons, Justification and LegitimacyAnarcho-capitalism 19:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

No, he shouldn't do it at all. It's a clear violation of content forking policy. This is incredibly pov and a clear demonstration of Hogeye's bad faith and unwillingness to cooperate. Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 19:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The purpose of discussion pages is so that editors can discuss ideas etc and come to a consensus before making changes. your neutral disambiguation idea was discussed on this page extensively and almost noone from any perspective/stance supported it. therefore it is in bad faith to post the page against the consensus of the group. i think you should be blocked for such actions as they are obviously meant to engender further dispute and perpetuate the contentious atmosphere that you seem to get off on. Blockader 19:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

A disambiguation page does not violate the forking policy. The forking policy page says, "A content fork is usually an unintentional creation of several separate articles all treating the same subject." Obviously, the two articles anarchism (political) and anarchism (social) treat different subjects - they use distinctly different definitions of anarchism. If you don't care to work on either article, that's fine - but no reason to vandalize. Those who wish may argue here to their heart's content and stare at a locked page. Those who wish to work on one or the other disambiguated articles may do so. Hogeye 19:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

What do you think about political and philosophical? There are lots of sources for that.Anarcho-capitalism 19:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

"Philosophical anarchism should not be equated with political anarchism...An example of philosophical anarchism based on act-teleological foundations is William Godwin's Enquiry Concerning Political Justice." Lagerspetz, Eerik. The Opposite Mirrors: An Essay on the Conventionalist Theory of InstitutionsAnarcho-capitalism 19:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

"The position is called philosophical anarchism to distinguish itself from the more notorious political anarchism popularly associated with bombs and beards." -Edmundson, William A. Three Anarchical Fallacies: An Essay on Political Authority. page 32Anarcho-capitalism 19:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

We're trying to solve the anarchism is necessarily anti-capitalist definitional problem here. No reason to add another distinction which doesn't address the edit-war issue. Hogeye 20:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

But there aren't any definitions that say such a thing.Anarcho-capitalism 20:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

What??? We have definitions galore! I'll give two of each, one a dictionary and one a luminary.

anarchism qua pure anti-statism

• American Heritage College Dictionary:[5] - "The theory or doctrine that all forms of government are oppressive and undesirable and should be abolished"
• Benjamin Tucker' - "the doctrine that all the affairs of men should be managed by individuals or voluntary associations, and that the State should be abolished."[6]

anarchism qua anti-statism and anti-capitalism

• Sorry, I looked through many definitions in Onelook, and couldn't find a single one which said anarchism was anti-capitalist. Maybe a socialist partisan can find one. There's bound to be at least one that defines it so.
• Michael Bakunin - Anarchism is "stateless socialism."[7]

I'm willing to grant them their silly anti-capitalist definition, just to avoid edit wars. Hogeye 21:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

NO, I'm saying that there aren't definitions that say, as you put it, "anarchism is necessarily anti-capitalist" so there's no reason for a disambiguation. Anarcho-capitalism 01:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

What about Bakunin's definition? There are a couple of other luminaries that also give anti-capitalist definitions. See Wikiquote def of anarchism. Hogeye 02:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Bakunin's definition is irrelevant. You can't take a definition from an actual anarchist "luminary" bloviating about his own anarchism. You have to use the definition from a more independant observer who studies anarchism. Rothbard said that "capitalism is the fullest expression of anarchism" but his definition doesn't matter either. Anarcho-capitalism 02:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

That isn't Rothbard's definition of anarchism. Rothbard considered Godwin a communist anarchist, so probably Rothbard would agree with our pure anti-statism definition. I agree with you that the correct def is the anti-state def, but there are a lot of crazy editors here that feel strongly that anarchism is necessarily anti-capitalist. They're wrong, but there's a bunch of them and I say we should give them their mistaken definition so they can play in their own sandbox and not feel like they have to vandalize articles to promote their view. Hogeye 02:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Create an "Anarchism (anti-capitalist)" article then and let them play with that.Anarcho-capitalism 02:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I did. I called it Anarchism (social). YANDP aka Anarchism (disambiguation) gives the link. So far, however, they choose to redirect it to a locked page! Go figure. Anarcho-capitalism, you are invited to work on the Anarchism (political) article. Hogeye 02:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

There already is a social anarchism article. Maybe you could direct it there.Anarcho-capitalism 02:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I just did it..directed it to social anarchism.Anarcho-capitalism 02:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

One I've redirected it to in the past is libertarian socialism, which is defined pretty much the same way they think anarchism is defined. But really it should go to anarchism (social) which covers all of anarchism (by their definition). Social anarchism, I believe, is what they call anarchisms other than Individualist anarchism. Hogeye 03:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The most basic distinction is between social and individualist anarchism. I think what a lot of people have in mind when they think of anarchism is social anarchism. When they think of anarchism they think of opposition to private property and markets. So if there is a disambiguation maybe it should be between social and individualist.Anarcho-capitalism 03:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

There are already articles about that distinction: Social Anarchism and Individualist anarchism. The disambiguation here is about an overall anarchism article - whether it should cover all pure anti-statist philosophies, or just the ones that are anti-capitalist. IOW Broad-tent vs. anti-cap only. Hogeye 03:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Yet more equivocation from Hogeye. Nobody has ever suggested that this article should exclude anarcho-capitalism. The question is regarding its place and treatment. Further, there has never been an anti-statist/anti-capitalist dichotomy; if anything, there has been an anti-authoritarian/anti-statist dichotomy. I know that you like to dress up your argument as being more "open," but, really, anti-authoritarianism is a much broader term than anti-statism. --AaronS 05:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Hogeye, Anarchism wasn't locked in order for you to make the war ambulatory. As I wrote in my edit summary at Anarchism (social), you don't avod edit warring by creating POV forks, you avoid it by not edit warring. Finally, you don't turn good-faith (and very well motivated) redirects into vandalism by calling them vandalism in your own edit summaries: that's a purely magical belief. That's why you've been blocked for 3RR violation. Bishonen | talk 20:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC).

Yep I agree with Bishonen here. POV forks such as this are not allowed per this and several arbcom decisions. Hogeye, you said that it's better to work on these other pages than to sit here and look at a locked page. Well, the page is locked for a reason, mainly that there isn't a consensus as to the whole anarchist-capitalism issue and other issues. Getting around it by creating other Anarchism articles is just a way to spread edit wars. It's why it's not allowed. If you do it again, you will be blocked again. It's not the way to go. --Woohookitty^(meow) 04:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

By not forking, you only guarantee that there will be divisive altercations between users. I am thinking that maybe this is a desired state of affairs by some in power. Having both schools of anarchist thought in the same article has been tried repeatedly, and failed. - MSTCrow 00:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

My concern is that anarchism is linked from many places on WP, and new links are going to be continually added. If there are two articles, we'll have to figure out which one the article "should" refer to, which will add a bunch more edit wars. MrVoluntarist 04:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, yes, that is a valid point. Not sure what to do about that. - MSTCrow 10:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention that as far as I know it's not a common distinction to make. Two sources are above, but I've never seen an encyclopedia that had two different articles on anarchism like that. It's clearly POV. And again, there is a reason the page is locked--if it isn't we are going to have edit wars like hogeye is attempting to provoke. Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 05:08, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

We gain nothing from a NDP which is neither particularly neutral nor disambiguating. The problem is far from insurmountable in a single entry, provided people are willing to work together even minimally. More than anything else, an inclusive article requires that the various factions find means not to sabotage one another. Since this is a general page, with links to numerous more specific pages, we can be fairly inclusive and fairly strict at the same time. Here's a few possible principles:

• Acknowledge that there is disagreement on the meaning of key terms, including socialism. This is an old issue, acknowledged by Tucker in "Socialism and the Lexicographers" in 1892. We won't solve it here. Plenty of anarchists, including some Rothbardian individualists, consider themselves "socialist."
• Treat definitional issues in the context of a historical account, inclusively but avoiding anachronism. This means there is a place for Molinari as a proto-anarcho-capitalist, a distinction which respects the current conflict over the term and the historical distance between figures like Molinari and those who called themselves anarchists at the time.
• Simply leave out generalizations that can't be supported by the mass of facts. That means we stop reasoning from the labels to the practices, as if the words individualist anarchist or mutualist definitely corresponded to certain social, political, or economic doctrines. We know this was not the case. And we know that most of the conflict and gaming of the Wikipedia system comes from attempts to manipulate generalities.
• By all means, let's have our little "source wars," and let competition to dig up relevant facts spur more complete entries. But let's keep them on the talk pages until the data is collected.

I see absolutely no reason, barring sheer cussedness on the part of individual editors, this article can't be written. Libertatia 17:08, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

You have some good points, Libertatia. The first, acknowledge that there is disagreement on the meaning of key terms, is great. Eventually, I figure enough people will get tired of edit wars to acknowledge the two main definitions of "anarchism." Point two seems problematic: Do you really think we can call Proudhon and Tucker "pseudo-socialists" without an edit war? Then again, you say "inclusively but avoiding anachronism." So perhaps we should write: Molinari was an anarcho-capitalist, but called himself an "economist." And: Tucker was not a socialist by current definitions, however he called himself one. Hogeye 22:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

You're unbelievable, you know that? You constantly oppose the normal description and definition of anarchism by adding its opposite (capitalism), yet you claim there is one modern definition of socialism. There isn't, mutualism is as much a part of socialism as communism. There are plans to rework the Socialism page to properly reflect that. Tucker was a socialist and those who do not call themselves anarchists should not be described as such. Donnacha 23:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Tucker was not a socialist. Socialism today is defined as state or community ownership of the means of production. Tucker did not support that. Anarcho-capitalism 01:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

And again, whether someone calls themselves an "anarchist" or not has no bearing on whether they actually are an anarchist. For instance, Godwin is considered an anarchist by practically everyone who studies anarchism but never called himself an anarchist. "Anarchist" used to be an insult, so people didn't claim the term, until Proudhon broke the mold. Do you honestly think Proudhon was the first anarchist? Anarcho-capitalism 01:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I would like to point out that Encarta's entry for anarchism, found at http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761568770/Anarchism.html, makes a distinction between Proudhonian philosophical anarchy, which is characterized as "extreme individualism," and "another school of anarchism, relying on organized action and even deeds of terror to achieve its purposes, grew out of the socialist movement and appeared toward the end of the 19th century." I cannot access the article text, but judging from the table of contents, Encyclopædia Britannica also appears to be breaking anarchism into at least two schools of thought. I hope this goes to clarifying the accuracy of the viewpoint that anarchism involves two distinctly opposing schools. - MSTCrow 06:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Pshaw, you prefer Marilyn Manson to Pig, who's going to listen to your views ;) Donnacha 22:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Please Note: The above is meant to be a bit of light-hearted joshing to lighten the tone. Donnacha 22:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I can't help it, "Mechanical Animals" speaks to my glittery gothic side. - MSTCrow 22:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is going to disagree that there are two broad schools of anarchism (social and invidiualist); but, as he made clear above, this division doesn't map to Hogeye's two pages, which he has still failed to give any reliable sources for. Further, I'm not sure how accurate it is to call individualism and collectivism "distinctly opposing schools" - they're distinct, sure, but there's been a certain amount of overlap, historically.VoluntarySlave 00:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Anarchism in Taoism and Stoicism

If the page ever gets unlocked, this is for that time (just to get going a bit further in discussing something out of the present discourse). In reading the Origins section of the anarchism article, its references and the Origins of anarchism article ive come to the conclusion that the perspective on Taoism and Stoicism is really quite onesided. Most of all in the Origins of anarchism article, but also, especially when considering Taoism, the Origin section. The reference to the article which compares anarchism with taoism is both critical and optimistic as to how much these two have in common. Fx the article states that Tao te Ching is viewed by the Chinese scholar D. C. Lau as having "a primarily ethical rather than mystical or philosophical import, and which does not question the concept of political rule. In his view, passages concerning the sage or ruler apply to any follower of the Tao, but are also specific references to an enlightened and skillful “ruler,” in a quite literal sense.". I think it would be to take the source serious in all its perspectives if we where to put a line under the Tao and Stoic part of the Origins section in the Anarchism article which states that the comparison between Taoism and Anarchism is a controversy. In the Origins of anarchism article there is need of a view of the bigger picture in details, something which would be too long for the Origins section. About the Stoic Zeno, ive got some objections which is nothing but a reference to the views of Zeno in regard to metaphysics and ethics. I havnt got a source which actually contests the comparison of anarchism to stoicism in Zeno, but i have some objections myself. If i find any source that backs me up ill put it here. --Fjulle 12:02, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Time to unlock

With thewolfstar sock attacks thankfully gone for a few days and now Hogeye indefinitely banned (barring a few sock attacks), can we now agree to unlock this article (keeping it protected from sock attacks)? There are a few bits that need redeveloping, Kropotkin should be reinstated and, looking back, GoodIntentions' suggested Guideline to Capitalism and An-Cap [8] poll was supported 7 to 5 (counting Hogeye's vote, but not the Wolfy's "Rule by Secrecy" sock).Donnacha 19:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we need to rework the article back to the version that was approaching a compromise between editors who disagree with each other. I'm particularly interested by the suggestion that we use Colin Ward's model from Anarchism: A Very Short Introduction to shape the article. Either way, work needs to be done. I won't be involved in it, but there are those who would like to be. With the most troublesome and disruptive users dealt with, I'd support unlocking the article. --AaronS 20:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Before we unlock the article, shouldn't we deal with Anarcho-capitalism (talk · contribs) and DTC (talk · contribs)? The former seems like a sock puppet of the banned TheIndividualist (talk · contribs)—they both have access to a comprehensive library of anarcho-capitalist literature, and they both keep trying to alter the lead of anarcho-capitalism to define it as a form of individualist anarchism. The latter, DTC, seems like your typical RJII sockpuppet, for obvious reasons. -- WGee 21:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

HaHa. I don't have an access to a "comprehensive library of anarcho-capitalist literature." I have access to a library (and a great online search engine), don't you? If you pay attention, no sources I reference are from anarcho-capitalists.Anarcho-capitalism 21:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalism is a form of individualist anarchism. There are two main kinds of anarchism, social anarchism and individualist anarchism. Anarcho-capitalism is not social, but individualist.Anarcho-capitalism 21:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Those are just equivocations. I have long suspected DTC of being a sock puppet of RJII, because they have the same styles, make the same points, and try to make the same changes. TheIndividualist was a sock puppet of RJII; he admitted that. User:Anarcho-capitalism does not seem to have the same style as RJII. --AaronS 21:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I don't thing Mr. Ancap is anything other than who he claimed to be at the beginning, someone recruited off a list. His recent bad habits have clearly been influenced by thewolfstar socks and Hogeye. I'm hoping that the end of the recent rubbish means we can return to reasonable editing. Donnacha 22:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Same here, an-cap is either A) Not a sock of a blocked user or B) Is doing a good job of changing their style to hide their identity. I'll assume good faith and go with A. Seems like a unique user to me. Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 06:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think ancap is a sock at all but remain unsure of DTC. i also think Ward's format in AAVSI would provide a better layout for the article. Blockader 16:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

What bad habits are you talking about? I hope your insults aren't a "bad habit."Anarcho-capitalism 22:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I can't speak for Donnacha, and I don't mean to be unfriendly, but, Anarcho-capitalism, you're a little quick to make comprehensive, controversial generalizations. My only concern is that we do a little more comparing of notes on the talk pages, try to head off the madness before it starts. Libertatia 00:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Everyone else here says controversial things as well. I don't check to see if what I say is going to be controversial before I say it. I say what I think is true.Anarcho-capitalism 01:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

But wikipedia aint about the truth, its about verifiability. Might be that all this truth seeking lights up more fires than good is! After all this isnt the place for abstract philosophical discussions. --Fjulle 17:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Everything tends to become more polarized along with the presence of disruptive editors/socks and the bickering that ensues. people of all viewpoints become both more aggressive and defensive and generally less likely to compromise or admit mistakes. i trust that much of that sectarian behavior will diminish now that the article is no longer under immediate attack from unreasonable parties. Blockader 16:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I notified Woohookitty that there appears to be a consensus that the article should be unlocked. -- WGee 01:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Unprotected. --Woohookitty^(meow) 01:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not so sure we should unlock yet. This page is generating an archive a fortnight... We should first make a compromise of some sort, then we can unlock. This is one case where we need three parts prudence for each part action. --GoodIntentions^talk 01:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you think it matters much? I mean, the problem here is that we can't keep the page protected forever but on the other hand, I don't see alot of compromise here or attempts to get along. Just in this section, we have bickering. --Woohookitty^(meow) 01:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I've not much hope for this article, no. But I'll continue to attempt to reach compromises, because I'm stupid that way. --GoodIntentions^talk 02:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

It's all we can do. --Woohookitty^(meow) 02:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

What I would like this article to say

Wherein each interested party, being a Wiki editor of good repute, gives a short overview of how he/she would like the article to look. --GoodIntentions^talk 02:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I should say why I think this is a good idea: to allow us, all with clearly divergent views, to voice our vision in an uncontested, open manner and through this sharing allow ourselves to reach an agreement. I sound like a preschool teacher, I know, but I gotta be polite sometime. --GoodIntentions^talk 02:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I would like this article to be as short as possible, offering as much information and as little discussion as we can bear. It is my opinion that Wikipedia, or any encyclopedia, has no business serving as a place for polemics. I am perfectly happy to allow whatever ill-considered philosophy its place in Wiki. Even the Flat Earther deserve to have their space online wherein they can as factually as possible describe their movement. Therefore: 1) A short introductory paragraph, much like we have now.

2) A short rundown of anarchist trends in history pre-C19 - especially Godwin who first gave a fully-fleshed, clearly anarchist political philosophy. Mention the Enlightenment liberalism that Proudhon took to a logical extreme, the similar, and then describe in short how Proudhon's anarchism came about, it being the first self-described "anarchism", mature anarchism if you will.

3)Schools of Anarchist Thought: rundown of the various existent schools. Perhaps we can drop Stirnerite Egotism and historic American Individualist Anarchism (Warren-Tucker-Spooner) to a History of Anarchism section, since nobody practices them anymore (not to my knowledge). If we do this they deserve very prominent mention in the history section. They can be replaced with a more general individualist anarchism section.

4)Anarchist Figures: Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Goldman. I'd argue for a section on Bookchin as well.

5)Remainder of article as it exists now.

Points to repeat: No polemics, no evangelising, no attacks on movements, and brevity!

This article should serve as a concise general introduction whereby we lead the reader to whatever fleshed-out section he might desire, rather than trying to store every noteworthy fact in one place. We have hypertext, let's use it. --GoodIntentions^talk 02:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

If I seem aggressive towards an-cap it is only because I have no patience for the project of some an-caps to write socialist anarchism out of existence - a task that some have been going at since the start of WP. I have no particular vendetta agaist an-cap on WP. --GoodIntentions^talk 02:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I object to removing Tucker, Warren and Spooner. If Kropotkin and his ancom are discussed, then Tucker and his individualist anarchism should be discussed. It is not merely history either. There are a few individualist anarchists who still subscribe to the labor theory of value. Kevin Carson is one.Anarcho-capitalism 02:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I dislike your tit-for-tat objection, but the latter sounds fair. If the tradition of AIA still exists, then it should be represented, but since it's become such a small field I'd think a brief overview of all current anarchist individualism could do it justice. Warren, Spooner and Tucker can have places in the Figures of Anarchism section with my blessing. How would you like this article to be, AC? --GoodIntentions^talk 02:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

AIA exists mostly in the form of anarcho-capitalism. I think each kind of anarchism should be discussed as much as it takes to make each kind understandable. Each kind should be criticized as well. Right now only the individualist anarchisms are criticized. Anarcho-communism for example should have a few lines under it criticizing it, to be fair.Anarcho-capitalism 02:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd not call an-cap an extension of AIA, which is why I'd give it a seperate mention as a school, but that is a different discussion. I do not think each, or any, school should be criticised, and I've always removed such sectarian attacks on sight. However, saying that the majority of anarchists do not recognise an-cap isn't a criticism, not in the "Rothbard considered Tucker a flawed economist" sense. No one can deny the gulf between socialist anarchism and an-cap, which is what the section says in all fairness. --GoodIntentions^talk 03:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

It is not an "extension of AIA." It is AIA. AIA is just individualist anarchism in America. Tucker's is one form, Spooner's is another, and Rotbhard's is another.Anarcho-capitalism 03:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree, but that's another matter. How would you like to see the layout of this article, AC? We might disagree in our approach to politics, but we agree on how Wiki should be and that's all that's important here so i'd like your opinion. --GoodIntentions^talk 03:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any point of making any elaborate plans. It's not like we're on the editorial board of Encylcopedia Britannica and a final version is going to get printed. This is Wikipedia and there's never going to have a stable article. Let's not pretend it's something that it's not.Anarcho-capitalism 03:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Another point: It is critically important to discuss these movements in their own terms, and not to appropriate their beliefs for whatever cause. We are talking about apples, not how apples are unlike oranges. Leave the finer points of theory for articles specifically on those theories. --GoodIntentions^talk 06:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Wage Labour and anarchism

I think we should avoid using wage labour as a defining element of IA. I'm not sure about Warren, and Tucker gives it his half-hearted support, but Spooner attacked wage labour vehemently. I think it's more accurate to talk about compensation for labour: all individualist anarchists stress the importance in self-ownership of the means of production, thereby receiving a share of the profits (Tucker's support for wage labour extends exactly as far as that wage is an equal share of the profits). It's just that wage labour traditionally is a very sticky issue for anarchists and should be treated carefully. --GoodIntentions^talk 03:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

WHere does Spooner attack wage labor vehemently?Anarcho-capitalism 03:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I put the reference with the claim in the AIA section: [[9]]. The text mentioned goes on like that for quite a bit. --GoodIntentions^talk 03:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Spooner's position was work for wages if you want, but it's preferable to go into business for yourself so you get to keep all the profits, which he did because he ran a private postal service with offices in four cities.Anarcho-capitalism 03:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know. But he definitely characterised wage labour as a symptom of exploitation. Anyway, the issue is thorny enough to be careful in its presence, don't you agree? I've slightly rewritten the section if you want to look at it. --GoodIntentions^talk 03:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I just took out a claim by you that it is market socialism. In market socialism the means of production are owned by the state or by the community in collective, so it's not market socialism.Anarcho-capitalism 04:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I can live with that. That's a narrower definition of market socialism than I learnt, but the one stated on Wiki. All I wanted to say with that claim is that it is a socialism that seeks to exist in a free market (like mutualism). To talk about free market socialism is a sublime joke at the expense of mainstream (and impoverished) discussions of capitalism and socialism. --GoodIntentions^talk 04:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

It is not socialism at all by any modern definition of the term. In socialism there is not private ownership of the means of production. Benjamin Tucker called his system "Anarchistic socialism" but that is by his own unique definition, before socialism meant what it means today. It doesn't make sense to say it is a form of socialism without clarifying that's it's not socialism as defined today.Anarcho-capitalism 04:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Where have you got this definition of socialism? Its quite narrow, esepcially when looking through wikipedia about different kind of socialism. Take fx Social democracy which uses "Regulatory systems over private enterprise in the interests of workers, consumers and small enterprise." Which means here private ownership is permitted (Note: Not all social democratic parties call themselves socialist anymore, but it doesnt change the fact that theyve supported private ownership for as long as theyve got power anywhere). Also theres democratic socialism, which is for those a bit more to the left than social democrats. Wikipedia states that "Democratic socialists usually support re-distribution of wealth and power, social ownership of major industries, and a planned economy." which means that theres a limit to private ownership, but still that its possible. Both with social democrats and democratic socialists theres private ownership, but not so unregulated as in Liberalism or anarcho-capitalism. To say that in socialism theres no private ownership is to say the concept is unambiguous on account of private property, which it isnt. --Fjulle 16:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

And not all of the old individualists called their philosophy "socialism."Anarcho-capitalism 04:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

It is socialism - "as defined today" is a euphanism for "as defined by marxists and their enemies". The only prerequisite for socialism is that one is not seperated from the products of one's labour - in AIA this is accomplished by each labourer owning the means of production or a part thereof. Tucker supported wage labour only where its result would be equivalent to ownership of the means of production. Because each person has access to the means of production it is socialised. The LTV is by definition socialist. --GoodIntentions^talk 05:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

According to your definition, anarcho-capitalism would also be socialism, since anarcho-capitalists also support the individual owning the product of his labor. Do you think anarcho-capitalism is socialism too?Anarcho-capitalism 06:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

How can you say that "each person has access to the means of production" means that it's socialized? That's the opposite of socialization. That's individualization.Anarcho-capitalism 06:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

An-Cap also supports the alienation of the individual from the means of production, which AIA does not. That makes an-cap capitalistic, and AIA socialistic. I think your conception is a bit crude. AIA fought tooth and nail against an economic distinction between the owners and the workers of the means of production - for them they have to be one and the same. That is what LTV means. That is what socialism means. But because this is a rather complex subject I've left it out of the section (to the degree that it depends on me) - it's enough to state that they thought of themselves as socialists, and that they assuredly weren't capitalists. --GoodIntentions^talk 06:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

You're absolutely wrong. Anarcho-capitalists do support individual ownership of the means of production. That's what makes them individualists rather than socialists.Anarcho-capitalism 06:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

All individualist anarchists, including Benjamin Tucker and Murray Rothbard, support individual ownership of the means of production.Anarcho-capitalism 06:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you're understanding what I'm saying. Tucker et al supports a system where the means of production is freely available (homesteading, etc.). Rothbard et al do not. Tucker says that employer and employee should earn the same for doing the same work, ancap says that the owner is free to make profit and the employee must accept whatever wage was negotiated. That's the distinction between capitalism and socialism. Because we are working far, far outside of the bounds of marxism the definitions of marxism are irrelevant. Why do you think AIA called themselves socialists? --GoodIntentions^talk 06:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Rothbard certainly does support homesteading. That's basic to anarcho-capitalist philosophy. See the original appropriation article. You're definining profit in terms of the labor theory of value. No one defines it like that today. For Tucker, the employee must also accept whatever wage was negotiated. Do you think he would allow the employee to aggress against the employer? Of course not. Benjamin Tucker called himself a socialist because socialism didn't have much of a definition back then other than one who seeks to reform society.Anarcho-capitalism 06:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

"Original appropriation" and a homesteading culture are two entirely different things. As for socialism not having much of a definition in the latter C19 - tosh and poppycock. --GoodIntentions^talk 06:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

You really don't understand anarcho-capitalism. Rothbard says "Any attempt to claim a new resource that someone does not use would have to be considered invasive of the property right of whoever the first user will turn out to be." Rothbard fully supports a right of individuals homesteading on unowned land to make it their own.Anarcho-capitalism 06:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

"The basic axiom of libertarian political theory holds that every man is a self owner, having absolute jurisdiction over his own body. In effect, this means that no one else may justly invade, or aggress against, another's person. It follows then that each person justly owns whatever previously unowned resources he appropriates or "mixes his labor with." From these twin axioms — self-ownership and "homesteading" — stem the justification for the entire system of property rights titles in a free-market society." ----Rothbard.Anarcho-capitalism 06:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I've undone most of your edits in the past few hours, because I feel that they go into too much detail. Wiki is unfortunately prone to such an accruing of edits that makes articles (and sections) bloated and hard to read. If anything that section should say less: it's the largest of all the Schools sections. --GoodIntentions^talk 06:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Saying that they oppose "profit" is very misleading and confusing because you're defining profit in terms of the labor theory of value. Almost no one today subscribes to the labor theory of value so it doesn't make sense. What you're calling "profit" is the difference between what they receive in pay and what the labor theory of value says that should receive.Anarcho-capitalism 06:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Almost no one today subscribes to anarchism, so according to your logic it too "doesn't make sense."

I think you're misrepresenting the LTV. But, despite our differences, I only needed to change one word from your edit to make it very acceptable to me. Isn't this great? Now I'm hungry. --GoodIntentions^talk 06:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no "the" labor theory of value. They had their own labor theory of value. They thought that if value is proportional to price, because of their interpretation of Adam Smith, and though that therefore everyone who exerts the same amount of labor should receive the same wage. If they don't then there is something wrong. Somebody is being exploited. And, in addition to that, Benjamin Tucker thought that if the state stopped regulating the banking industry that it would cause wages to line up with labor exerted because there was more money to go around. It was very mystical.Anarcho-capitalism 06:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I know all of that, would you believe. --GoodIntentions^talk 03:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

If you pay someone to mow your yard, whether you "profited" from it or not is not even a coherent question in mainstream economics. We do not define profit as the difference between what labor theory of value says the mower should recieve and what he actually receives.Anarcho-capitalism 07:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

We aren't describing our own theories here, AC, but those of the people and the movements described in the article. --GoodIntentions^talk 03:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

But we can't use a term like "profit" in an unorthodox way without saying what is meant by it.Anarcho-capitalism 18:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Anarcho-syndicalism

I've been thinking recently that it's not really correct to call anarcho-syndicalism a school of thought, it's a form of tactical organisation to achieve collectivist or communist anarchism, not a distinct principle. It was a development of previous forms of organisation that came with the development of the labour movement, not a break from past ideas. Any thoughts? Donnacha 10:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Its true that anarcho-syndicalism is not mutually exclusive of other schools and that one might be a ancom, ancol, etc and simultaneously be a syndicalist. that seems to be the case most often actually. however, i am unsure of removing or even moving the section as it is a historically and currently important aspect of anarchism and could, I believe, be considered a school of thought (just not a mutually exclusive one). Maybe it would be best to note this particular aspect of ansynd in the section. Blockader 15:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Syndicalism should definately keep its place as a school, for two reasons: as a school of thought it is clearly distinct from an-com and an-col, with its own set of concerns and dilemnas; also, it's been the form of anarchism with the greatest historic impact, by quite some margin. --GoodIntentions^talk 03:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Why is Henry David Thoreau listed as supporting free market national defense? He protested the Spanish American War by not paying taxes. He was an individualist, but the individualist anarchism passage implies that all individualist anarchists are united by belief in free market defense, which is misleading. This should be rewritten and I'd do it myself but I'll leave it up to the long-time maintainers who are more invested in the quality of this article. --Lxpk 19:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I've been meaning to correct that. Not all individualist anarchists are market anarchists.Anarcho-capitalism 19:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Authority

I removed the following section from the article as it consists of only a single quote and I don't think it expresses what could generally be described as an issue within anarchism. as intangible reinserted it i will wait for some discussion on it before removing it again. I, as already stated, do not see a place for it within this article. Blockader 20:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

"Authority

This section is a stub. You can help by adding to it.

Although anarchists are almost unified in their opposition to "government," they are less united in :societal forms of authority.

Robert Fowler writes:

"First, it is sometimes argued that the distinguishing feature of anarchism was an intense distaste for any form of authority. This may describe the general style of both contemporary and past anarchists; but the actual views of the major anarchist theoreticians do not provide evidence for this claim, even apart from arguments about the potentially authoritarian nature of some anarchist ideas about community. The fact is that anarchist thinkers were not against all authority so much as they were against the authority of the state, or political authority. Authority as defined as that to which one owes moral obedience, was never rejected in principle, even when political obligation was...The classical anarchist ideal, then, did not banish authority. While anarchists undertook to destroy political authority of men over other men, ordinarily they were anxious to establish natural authority."

I agree that not all anarchists oppose authority. Bakunin said he he was fine with "voluntary authority and subordination." And if you look at anarcho-communism that is obviously a form of authority over the individual. The individual is not allowed to own any more of the product of his labor beyond what is "according to his needs." Anything beyond that is expropriated.Anarcho-capitalism 20:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Anarchists oppose not authority, which is the legitimate use of power, but authoritarianism, which I think has usually been interpreted differently. This is what makes them anti-authoritarian, not anti-authority. --AaronS 21:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Firstly, what kind of lunatic opposes all authority? Anarchism is opposed to coercive authority. A doctor has authority as a result of training, academics are authorities in their field. There are also legitimate cases whereby authority can be imposed - if someone is choking, a doctor should force people to get out of the way and inflict a certain amount of physical force, even if there is resistance, to save a life. A parent should physically prevent a child from running into the road, etc, etc, etc. As for communism, once again one of you sectarians ignores the fundamental principle of voluntary cooperation. If, and only if, the majority of people choose communism can it become real. It cannot be imposed by force in anarchism. Expropriation would only be in the case where capitalist monopolisation of the means of production were denying a commune the ability to survive. The MST expropriates land to live on. That's not coercive authority. The monopolisation of land in Brazil is coercive authority, maintained by exactly the violent private security you advocate.

" It is in much the same fashion that the shrewd heads among the middle classes reason when they say, "Ah, Expropriation! I know what that means. You take all the overcoats and lay them in a heap, and every one is free to help himself and fight for the best. But such jests are irrelevant as well as flippant. What we want is not a redistribution of overcoats, although it must be said that even in such a case, the shivering folk would see advantage in it. Nor do we want to divide up the wealth of the Rothschilds. What we do want is so to arrange things that every human being born into the world shall be ensured the opportunity in the first instance of learning some useful occupation, and of becoming skilled in it; next, that he shall be free to work at his trade without asking leave of master or owner, and without handing over to landlord or capitalist the lion's share of what he produces. As to the wealth held by the Rothschilds or the Vanderbilts, it will serve us to organize our system of communal production." - Kropotkin, "The Conquest of Bread"

Donnacha 21:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, so does everyone agrees that this does not belong becuase it is not an issue within anarchism? Blockader 23:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Right so anarchism is against "coercive authority." Voluntary authority such as deciding to become an employee for someone else is fine.Anarcho-capitalism 23:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

In the absence of wage slavery and monopolisation of the means of production, if they so wish. A group can elect a team leader, sure - even anarchist papers select an editor, for example. Or someone can become a student or an apprentice, fine. However, if someone owns a business that requires employees to run and controls the hiring and firing of people at a whim, then no, that's coercive authority and capitalist property. Donnacha 23:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

That's not coercion at all. An employer does not force anyone to work for him. You're free to walk out the door.Anarcho-capitalism 23:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I was going to clarify this, but you got in before me. If the only choice available to me to get enough money to eat, to afford somewhere to live and to buy clothes and other necessities is to become someone else's employee and follow their rules, that's not a free choice. Social welfare has softened the situation in most parts of the world, but it still remains true. If others profit from my work, that's theft. A free choice would be between becoming someone's employee or having access to the means of survival without doing so. "Anarcho"-capitalism, by supporting wage slavery while arguing for an end to state-provided benefits such as welfare, would, in fact, make life a living hell for most people. That's why it's not anarchism. Anarchism is not becoming an employee, it's taking over the factory, cutting out the leeching share-holders and getting rid of the bosses. Donnacha 23:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Your premise is wrong. It's not your only choice to work for someone else. In a capitalist system you're free to work for yourself. Capitalism embraces enterpreneurship. Most people simply prefer to be employees because it's less challenging. Social welfare is tyrannical. It deprives the individual of the product of his labor. Anarcho-capitalists don't support wage "slavery." They support voluntary contracts. Profit is not "theft" except according to twisted labor theory of value that no economist takes seriously. Your labor is worth no more, and no less, than what someone is willing to pay for it.Anarcho-capitalism 23:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

And shareholders are not "leeches." Shareholders simply want to be compensated for their labor. Anti-capitalists don't realize that subjecting yourself to the risking of losing what you own is a form of labor and that's why people pay to use capital. Without investment, no jobs are not created and you're left to create your own job (or hope everybody turns communist and is content to not be paid for their work *laugh*). By the way are you calling my grandma who purchased of large block of AT&T shares so she didn't have to work until death a "leech?"Anarcho-capitalism 00:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for proving, if proof were needed, that "anarcho"-capitalism is everything anarchism is not - greedy, egotistical, elitist and anti-humanist. Your theories have no grounding in any kind of reality I'm aware of, which is why "anarcho"-capitalism is the domain of well fed, lazy academics who've probably never done a day's real work in their lives. Oh, and by the way, anarcho-communists reject the labour theory of value as impossible to measure and thus support the economy of need, and most anarcho-syndicalists are communists, thus meaning that the majority of anarchists worldwide reject the labour theory of value. Donnacha 23:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

No offense to your grandmother, but yes, she had the misfortune to live in a system that turns almost everyone into a slave or a leech. You are so trapped in a mindset of capitalism and greed that you can't see the wood for the trees. People call anarchism utopian because anarchists are people who image a better world and try to figure out how it can be brought about. You Rothbardists see a world that sucks and look to see how you can profit from it. Go to Brazilian countryside and see what your theories would bring about. Banditry, murder and poverty. Donnacha 00:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for proving to me that anarcho-communism is a philosophy for thieves.Anarcho-capitalism 00:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Anarchism lesson 1: Property is theft. Reject that fundamental principle and you have no basis for calling yourself an anarchist. You're a wolf in sheep's clothing seeking to prey on as many people as possible. And with that, I'm going to bed. Donnacha 00:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Property can't be theft unless property exists in the first place. You can't steal what is not owned. Anarcho-communists want to steal what is owned. Anarcho-communism is a philosophy for thieves.Anarcho-capitalism 00:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

If an anarcho-communist asserts that I can't turn unowned land into my own private property then he himself asserting himself as the owner of that land because he is keeping me from taking it. So anarcho-communism is contradictory. It's not a denial of property at all, but an assertion that anarcho-communists own the land just by saying so but I can't turn land into my property though labor.Anarcho-capitalism 01:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Tolstoy sought divine authority. This is just one example that needs to be added to that section. Intangible 23:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

These sectarian discussions are quite silly. Although I might note, to Mr. Ancap, that Proudhon was summing up a much more involved theory in the ironic statement "Property is theft." It would be wrong to interpret by itself, divorced from the rest of his writings. --AaronS 02:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

That's what I was going to say to Donnachadelong.Anarcho-capitalism 03:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

From the thread, it seems that Donnacha was supporting the phrase "Property is theft" as is, not Ancap. Donnacha, what are your objections to Rothbard's theory of land ownership? - MSTCrow 03:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

This is not a discussion forum. We discuss matters pertinent to the article, not to the movements described therein. There are a variety of other places on the internet for that type of discussion. --GoodIntentions^talk 03:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The section on authority might be useful if it shows that anarchism opposes without question entrenched authority, authoritarianism. "Authority" is quite nebulous, a net that spreads so wide that one can't cogently talk about it. If I cook breakfast for a family it's my authority that makes them eat flapjacks. Not quite "no gods, no masters" territory. --GoodIntentions^talk 03:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Please do behave yourself, Good Intentions. This is no place to start being autocratic and disruptive. Sowing ill-will is not going to solve any problems. - MSTCrow 03:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Yet questions like "Donnacha, what are your objections to Rothbard's theory of land ownership?" certainly do lead down that path... and they don't belong on article talk pages. --AaronS 03:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

People on the internet seem to have really thin skins. While you are making your hide invioble to ill-will, Mr Crow, I would like to point out that it's a general guideline that talk pages not replicate the function of mailling lists. --GoodIntentions^talk 04:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I've re-added the section. Added note about Tolsoy. WIP. Intangible 11:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Issues: Social and Individualistic Anarchism

I don't have the sources, and not really the time, to do this now, but I think it's a good idea: someone, write up a paragraph describing in short the reason there is tension between the social and individualist schools. In this way we can remove the ugly "Other anarchists think this anarchism looks funny" paragraphs from the schools pages. Be sure to mention that there are people on all three sides (social, indiv and without-adjectives) who think that everybody can more or less live together in peace. Good idea, huh? --GoodIntentions^talk 04:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

This kind of dovetails into my suggestion that we have a paragraph on attempts at synthesis. Donnacha 16:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Qualifies as capitalism

I'm not comfortable with this statement in the ancap section: "Through these two qualities this is a capitalist school of thought." What makes anarcho-capitalism capitalist is that is supports private ownership of the means of production and a free market.Anarcho-capitalism 04:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

You can be both and socialist. Like Proudhon. You can remove the sentence, I placed it there in an attempt to make the position clear. I pulled back at describing an-cap's stance on profit, because that probably is a larger can of worms than I have an appetite for. Without that qualification that sentence doesn't explain much. --GoodIntentions^talk 04:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Not according to the modern definition of socialism you can't. Socialism is defined a state or community ownership of the means of production.Anarcho-capitalism 05:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

On the one hand, you accept a narrow "modern definition" of socialism. On the other hand, you and all the other "anarcho"-capitalists seek to redefine the definition of anarchism to mean its opposite. Ironic, no? Donnacha 08:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

There are many, many ways to socialise the means of production. The question is a bit broader than you make it out. --GoodIntentions^talk 05:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Individualized (private) means of production is the opposite of socialized means of production.Anarcho-capitalism 05:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

This isn't the place to go into it, but it really isn't as simple as that. You can have individual ownership of socialised means of production - it depends on the type of ownership in that society, of which there are a broad spectrum. You are looking at only two forms of ownership - exclusive (capitalist) and communal (communist). Syndicalism would have the syndicates own the MoP, and that would be socialist, even if each person has a specific private share of the syndicate he is a member of (why co-operatives are, or are able to be, socialist in a capitalist economy). Mutualism and AIA take place in and around the possession form of ownership, where whoever has something in his hands owns it. This is also socialist - only exclusive ownership, where someone in New York can own an Angolan goldmine and can only lose ownership by selling it, excludes any form of socialism. Only in capitalism is ownership such a pivotal factor in society, that is what capitalism is. Under socialism man can not be divorced from his labour, under capitalism his labour can be bought from him. --GoodIntentions^talk 05:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

If you're referring to Tucker, Spooner, as AIA, then that's not true. They don't support "possession" ownership except for land. Any other means of production is regular ownership, with no requirement than you keep your hands on it. If someone builds a machine or factory, or post office as in Spooner's case, it is his whether he leaves town or not. And Tucker supports purchase and sale of labor. "Not to abolish wages, but to make every man dependent upon wages and secure to every man his whole wages is the aim of Anarchistic Socialism." -TuckerAnarcho-capitalism 05:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

You'd do well to consider the context and material circumstances wherein AIA was developed, that of a homesteading and artisan culture. Doing so, you might see the problems with your arguments. BTW, saying "he didn't support 'possession' ownership except for land" is a bit like saying "he didn't support slavery except when using non-Europeans". --GoodIntentions^talk 06:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

"In No 121 of Liberty, criticising an attempt of Kropotkine to identify Communism and Individualism, I charged him with ignoring 'the real question of whether Communism will permit the individual to labor independently, own tools, sell his labor or his products, and buy the labor or products of others.' In Herr Most's eyes this is so outrageous that, in reprinting it, he puts the words "the labor of others" in large black type. Most being a Communist, he must, to be consistent, object to the purchase and sale of anything whatever but why he should particularly object to the purchase and sale of labor is more than I can understand. Really, in the last analysis, labor is the only thing that has any title to be bought or sold. Is there any just basis of price except cost? And is there anything that costs except labor or suffering (another name for labor)? Labor should be paid! Horrible, isn't it?" -TuckerAnarcho-capitalism 05:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

So his argument against communism was that the individual could get divorced from the product of his labour? And you're using this against what I've told you? --GoodIntentions^talk 06:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

In capitalism, the individual is not divorced from the product of his labor. What are you talking about?Anarcho-capitalism 18:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

So since you say "Under socialism man can not be divorced from his labour, under capitalism his labour can be bought from him," does that mean Tucker was a capitalist?Anarcho-capitalism 05:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

No, because Tucker stipulated a wage that is materially equivalent to working on MoP that the worker himself owns. Any other wage would be exploitative. There's also the small matter that he viewed himself as a socialist, and he was in quite a good position to know. --GoodIntentions^talk 06:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Tucker did not oppose people working on the means of production owned by others. That was permissible, and he didn't see anything wrong with it. Anything contractual is permissible in individualist anarchism.Anarcho-capitalism 18:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

You need to reread Tucker. For Tucker, much was permissible which he nonetheless opposed, because Tucker was so opposed to imposing standards. Later in his life, when it became clear to him that simply removing bars to voluntary trade might not overcome artificially concentrated capital and its social power, he became discouraged. But, when it comes to goals and ideals, recall that Tucker's defense of wages was not a defense of the power of employer over employee. He wanted everyone equally at risk in the marketplace. This is, I think, one of those places where capitalists and traditional anarchists (including the American individualists and mutualists) part company. Libertatia 19:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

No he was not, because socialism wasn't defined as it is today. Today it means collective , or state, ownership of the means of production.Anarcho-capitalism 18:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Feminism and anti-racism

This section needs expanding as the ideas contained within both ideas have origins in the early days of anarchism. I just wanted to check that no-one has an objection to me adding that Emma Goldman was the first to outline radical feminist ideas and that Kropotkin equated racism with the exploitation of the working class (I'll get good quotes to do so)? Donnacha 10:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds excellent to me. Blockader 15:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Capitalism in Issues

Does anyone else have problems with the "capitalism" para in the issues section? It is suprisingly less informative and shorter than the "communism" para in the issues section, despite the fact that far more anarchists have fundamental qualms regarding capitalism as opposed to communism. the paragraph is primarily devoted to explaining aspects of capitalism that mutualists and indivdualists don't have a problem with. it currently reads:

Most anarchists traditions not only seek rejection of the state, but also seek rejection of capitalism, which they perceive as authoritarian, coercive, and exploitative. For mutualists, this opposition does not include opposition to the product of labor or capital goods ("means of production") run by individuals, but only "usary," i.e. rent, interest, and profit from other's labor. Thus individualist anarchists, even those who are not anarcho-capitalist, support individual sovereignty, free trade, free competition, and private property, like in mutualism and homesteading.[31][66]

I remeber this section being substantially better in the past but can't find it in the history, which only goes back to august. Blockader 15:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I note Mr AnCap is even disputing the definition of profit, calling it Marxist. To say that labour is only worth what people are willing to pay for it is capitalist and thus POV. You don't apply pro-capitalist arguments to a definition of opposition to capitalism. Donnacha 16:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I have a problem with saying they oppose "profit from other's labor" without explaining that. "Profit" is not used in the normal sense. "Profit" according to the way mutualist uses it refers to not paying someone according to the labor theory of value. For example, you can "profit" by not paying someone enough for mowing your yard (with "enough" being what the labor theory of value prescribes). The labor theory of value is outmoded and few recognize that definition of profit except Marxists. So, it needs to be explained.Anarcho-capitalism 16:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

It's only out-moded to those who reject socialism, people like yourself. It's a fundamental part of union negotiations the world over. As every kind of anarchist other than your oxymoronic so-called anarchism is socialist, you are pushing your POV on this article. So please quit. Anarchists oppose profiting from another's labour. Full stop. Anarcho-communists go the whole hog to reject all kinds of payment and purchase because it's impossible to work out. Donnacha 16:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

To say that labor is only worth what people are willing to pay is today's mainstream view in economics, so you are the one who is POV pushing. -- Vision Thing -- 16:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Oho! So, anarchist definitions are now defined by the mainstream in economics, are they? Ooops, we got it wrong, the mainstream disagrees. Oh look, the mainstream view of politics is that you need a state, you mean we've got that wrong too? Oh, deary, deary, me, what a silly idea anarchism is, eh? Donnacha 16:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

If you say "X" in some article and you aren't using that word in accordance with mainstream definition you must acknowledge that. -- Vision Thing -- 17:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

If you make an encylcopedia article you need to write it so at least most people understand it. In mainstream thought it's not even a coherent question of whether you are "profitting from another's labor." You don't profit at all when you pay someone for their labor. You just pay for it. There is no supposed objective value that if it's not matched then anything below it is profit to the person paying for the labor, except according to Marxist-like theory. That is not how "profit" is defined today by the average person. Why do you have a problem with explaining what it means?Anarcho-capitalism 16:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

You profit from someone's labour when you make more out of it than they do. If I give the man on my right £10 for something he's made and sell it to the person on my left for £15, that's profiting from another's labour. It's the only definition I've ever heard and I'm not a Marxist. Donnacha 16:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

That's the normal definition of profit that you just gave. But that's not how mutualists are defining profit. Mutualists think that there is some objectively correct price for labor and that if you pay less than that then you're "profiting" or committing "usury." If the labor theory of value says the guy mowing your yard should get $20 for it, but you give him $15 then you have profitted, according to their definition. They thought you would have "stolen" 1/4 of his labor from him. Marxists understand this has having to do with "surplus value." The one who is paying labor is taking the "surplus value."Anarcho-capitalism 16:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

That's why anarchist communists reject the labour theory of value, as I've pointed out. However, Proudhon also argued against profit, but on the straight-forward basis I've given. So you're not correct. Some mutualists may have thought that there is an objective price, but not all. Donnacha 17:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Proudhon also subscribed to that labor theory of value. It's the basis of mutualism. Without it, there really can't be mutualism. A mutualists that didn't hold the labor theory of value would actually be an anarcho-capitalist.Anarcho-capitalism 17:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

"Referring to Karl Marx's position that the employee is forced to give up a part of his product to the employer (which, by the way, was Proudhon's position before it was Marx's, and Josiah Warren's before it was Proudhon's)..." -Benjamin Tucker, Liberty or Authority.Anarcho-capitalism 17:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The "objective price" concept sounds something like the just price theory, a discredited ancient and medieval notion that things have some kind of intrinsic price (perhaps ordained by God Himself) independent of crass human considerations such as how much anybody is actually willing to buy or sell it for. *Dan T.* 17:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Exactly.Anarcho-capitalism 17:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Globalization

I already explained this in my edit summaries but here it is again:

• This source only says that anarchist were a violent group that shed a bad light on a protest, it doesn’t mention anarchism in any other way nor does it claim that Carnival against Capitalism was an anarchist protest;
• Reclaim the Streets don't claim to be an anarchist group, which can be seen form this;
• This and is an unreliable source by any Wikipedia standard.

-- Vision Thing -- 18:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

You can't actually read, can you?

• The first cite is to back up the statement "The Carnival Against Capitalism on 18 June 1999, is generally regarded as the first of the major anti-globalisation protests." - you know, the one it's at the end of. And it does.
• From the sublime to the ridiculous. Where in that article do they say they're not anarchists? They don't come out and say it very often, because it's an inclusive organisation. However, they're a non-hierarchical direct action anti-capitalist organisation based on the ideas of Hakim Bey (Temporary Autonomous Zone) and originally made up largely of former members of Class War.
• An article by anarchists describing anarchist tactics is an unreliable source for an article that describes anarchist tactics? If you actually gave a crap about the article, you'd have realised that the last two cites are probably the wrong way around.

I don't deny that the paragraph could probably do with a bit of tidying up, which has rarely been possible due to the constant locks and messing around by you and your now banned comrades. Donnacha 19:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Leaving personal attack aside:

• • Saying only that The Carnival Against Capitalism was first major anti-globalization protest leaves false impression that anarchist were in charge of it. According to the source you provided, anarchist played only a negative role in it.
  • I'll quote it for you: Obviously journalists can't let the facts get in the way of a good story - after all, facts don't sell newspapers. Nevertheless, leaving aside the overtones of the word "threat", there are a few 'inaccuracies' here. For instance, none of the groups listed in the article claim to be anarchists...
  • It is unreliable source for claim that anarchists often played a major role in planning and organizing the major anti-globalization protests. -- Vision Thing -- 19:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

It's useful to pay attention to the words that are actually used.

• • Instigators does not imply control. And the source is a right-wing one, I deliberately added it because it backs the sentence it's cited on, not the previous one.
  • Nowhere does it say that the inaccuracies include the use of the term anarchists.
  • As I said, the next cite is probably a better one. That one is more appropriate for the tactical sentence. Donnacha 19:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm not disputing that The Carnival Against Capitalism was the first major anti-globalization protest. I'm disputing that anarchists significantly contributed to it.
    • Yes it does: For instance, none of the groups listed in the article claim to be anarchists.
    • Next source has no reliability at all. Check Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Self-published_sources_as_secondary_sources.

-- Vision Thing -- 20:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Donnacha that the info should stay in the article but could use some "tidying." reclaim is definately anarchist as it is comprised largely of anarchists. class war was (is?) a preeminent british anarchist org. Vision Thing, your edits here are bordering on disruptive as you are not engaging in discussion before making massive and contraversial changes to the article. i also find it interesting that you did not participate here during the presence of Hogeye but did participate prior to his ban lifting and subsequent to his ban reimplementation. Blockader 19:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The current sources don't seem that good. The first page of Google gives something from (Marxist journal) Monthly Review [10], that says "Many among today’s young radical activists, especially those at the center of the anti-globalization and anti-corporate movements, call themselves anarchists" (although it is slightly unclear, claiming that they might not "really" be anarchists, but then going on to refer to them as anarchists anyway); and something from (another Marxist journal) the New Left Review [11], which requires a subscription so I'll quote it at slightly greater length:

Writers who for years have been publishing essays that sound like position papers for vast social movements that do not in fact exist seem seized with confusion or worse, dismissive contempt, now that real ones are everywhere emerging. It’s particularly scandalous in the case of what’s still, for no particularly good reason, referred to as the ‘anti-globalization’ movement, one that has in a mere two or three years managed to transform completely the sense of historical possibilities for millions across the planet.

... most of the creative energy for radical politics is now coming from anarchism ...

The very notion of direct action, with its rejection of a politics which appeals to governments to modify their behaviour, in favour of physical intervention against state power in a form that itself prefigures an alternative—all of this emerges directly from the libertarian tradition. Anarchism is the heart of the movement, its soul; the source of most of what’s new and hopeful about it....

However you choose to trace their origins, these new tactics are perfectly in accord with the general anarchistic inspiration of the movement.

VoluntarySlave 01:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Kropotkin

Why does Kropotkin get his own section instead of being discussed as one of several anarcho-communist theorists in the Ancom section?Anarcho-capitalism 18:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

It's a sub-section, that's why it's in smaller text and indented in the contents. Donnacha 19:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't look like it. Maybe "Peter Kropotkin" can be made smaller so it looks like one. Right now it looks Kropotkin is different from anarcho-communism.Anarcho-capitalism 19:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Agree with ancap's change to heading. Blockader 19:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

the authority section is rediculous. huge qoutes from polemicists that give no overview of authority as an issue within anarchism. the problem is that authority is not really an issue within anarchism but was one of Hogeye's ridiculous attempts to justify his own stance and "research." I think the whole section should be scrapped. Blockader 19:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The reason I put the Rothard quote in was to offset the Chomsky quote. I say delete the whole thing or move it to Criticisms of anarchism.Anarcho-capitalism 19:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The original quote was clearly from an anti-left perspective. I put the Chomsky one in to balance it, to prove a point. The section should be deleted (it's not us who keep putting it back in). Donnacha 21:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

It's always a bad idea to edit something to prove a point. Instead, everybody just delete the ridiculous section until it says something useful. --GoodIntentions^talk 06:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

its just another section with massive edit war potential but little actual forebearence on anything. Blockader 19:47, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

It is actually pretty much the only decent section in this article. Hell, it is even from scholarly journal. I do not see any anti-left perspective here. All was fine until someone added the chomsky bit, which was clearly based on a original research reading of what chomsky was actually saying. Intangible 21:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The mere fact that Tolshoy sought authority in divinity, means that authority is an issue within anarchism. Intangible 22:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

No, it isn't. Tolstoy was a Christian, he was of the "No masters but god" persuasion. Good for him. Christian anarchism is fine, problems only come about when religious people seek to turn the state to their purpose. Even monarchism would be fine in an anarchist system, if a group of people voluntarily decided to elect a king - no problem, as long as they were free to unelect the king if they so wished, or individuals were free to leave the monarchy and he didn't attempt to expand his granted authority beyond the group that elected him. Donnacha 23:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

popularity of ancap

I put in a claim from a source that ancap is "common in the United States" but someone changed it. That is the words of the source. Also, according to Noam Chomsky, anarcho-capitalism is the only significant anarchist movement left in the U.S, and that left anarchism has died out.Anarcho-capitalism 19:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

i changed it becuase ancap is obviously not "common in the US." no type of anarchism is "common" in the US. democrats and republicans are common is the US. stray dogs are common in the US. ancaps exist in the US. whats your source on chomsky becuase i have never seen anything like that. Blockader 19:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

It is common relative to other types of anarchism in the U.S. Just a sec and I'll give you the Chomsky source.Anarcho-capitalism 19:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

It is not common relative to other types of anarchist groups. I know hundreds of anarchists in Georgia alone and none of them are ancap. i don't debate their existence but they are not more common than other anarchists. that is something that is hard to judge. conversely, if you count people in the libertarian party as ancaps then you are right. i dont think they can be so counted though. Blockader 19:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I can say that anarchist socialism has a "very large following in the US" but that doesn't make it true. nor is a single or even several sources making that claim sufficient, as it would be very a contentious claim. we need some better wording there in ancap and we can certianly come up with something that works for most folks here. Blockader 19:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying they are "more" common that other types of anarchists (thought they may be). I am just saying they are common in the U.S. They're not rare at all. That's what the source is saying.Anarcho-capitalism 19:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

"That's a peculiarly Anglo-Saxon phenomenon, in the English speaking world and the United States. One dream of anarchism - and the only kind that survived [in the U.S.] - was ultra-right anarchism...For years, the only journals I could write in were ultra-right libertarian journals because we agree on a lot of things...There was a left anarchist movement, too -the working class movement. They were pretty much destroyed by force. That's when people like Emma Goldman and Alexander Berkman were jailed and thrown out of the country. So the working class, left libertarian movement was mostly smashed but the right libertarian movement was applauded...Lots of anarchists are much confused by this. The United States has a tradition of individualist anarchism." -Noam Chomsky, in Chomsky on Anarchism, page 215

He's talking about libertarianism, not "anarcho"-capitalism. We've already been through this with Hogeye, libertarians are not anarchists. Donnacha 19:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes he is talking about anarcho-capitalism. "Libertarianism" just a synonym for anarchism. He seperates anarhism into left and right libertarianism or right and left anarchism. He says "the only journals I could write in were ultra-right libertarian journals because we agree on a lot of things." The journals he's talking about are Rothbard's journals. He says that explicitly in another quote: "I should add, however, that I find myself in substantial agreement with people who consider themselves anarcho-capitalists on a whole range of issues; and for some years, was able to write only in their journals." -Answers from Chomsky to Eight Questions on anarchismAnarcho-capitalism 20:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

"Now there is another strain of anarchism which is concerned only with, which really gives no weight to notions like equality, solidarity, and so on. That's the right-wing anarchism...It's perfectly obvious that under the formulations of someone like, say, Murray Rothbard, you will get such inequalites of power that it would be like living under Genghis Khan or something like that." -Chomsky, Language and Politics, page 153Anarcho-capitalism 20:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

If Chomsky said that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism, why he was listed as a source for opposite view? Can someone provide appropriate qoute from Chomsky on Anarchism? -- Vision Thing -- 20:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Ancap, that is simple misunderstanding. i too have read that book, though my mom still has it :). He is talking about the fact that left anarchism was forcibly destroyed in the early 20th century while right anarchism survived government persecution (likely because they had no actual ground movement and were not hostile to capitalism). Social anarchism began to develop strongly in the US again in the sixties and seventies and grew exponentially in the eighties and nineties. that is the history of social anarchism in the US as i have read it in half a dozen books. i would provide quotes but i read those works while in college and so don't have access to most of them. others here should be able to though. Chomsky would not deny the existence of social anarchism today because it is fairly visible, more so at least than ancap. Blockader 20:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so. He says right-anarchism is the most visible in the Libertarian Party. "One dream of anarchism -and the only kind the survived- was ultra-right anarchism, which you see in the libertarian party, which is just loved by the big corporations and the investment firms and so on. Not that they beliveve in it. They know perfectly well that they'll never get rid of the state because they need it for their own purposes..."Anarcho-capitalism 20:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Nobody cares what you think. Have you read the book? Or are you pulling random quotes from google? Donnacha 20:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm taking quotes made by Chomsky directly from the book.Anarcho-capitalism 20:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

You forgot a bit: "I'm taking quotes made by Chomsk directly from the book" out of context. Donnacha 21:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Chomsky is talking about academia. Anarcho-capitalism is virtually unknown outside of small Internet web sites and a few laissez-faire capitalist economics journals and think-tanks. --AaronS 20:47, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. I'd guess probably half of those who vote Libertarian are anarcho-capitalists. I'm one of them. I'll vote for anybody who wants to eliminate taxes. Left anarchists, on the other hand, when they do vote, vote to increase the size of the state by voting for more taxes to expand the welfare state to leech off the working class.Anarcho-capitalism 20:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Anarchists don't tend to vote except in single question referendums and the likes. If you vote Libertarian, you're clearly not an anarchist. Donnacha 21:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

You can "bet" anything you want. Your assumptions, based on your prejudiced desire regarding how reality should be, mean nothing. --AaronS 20:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalists have a very significant presence in the U.S. They've had much more effect than any other kind of anarchist.Anarcho-capitalism 20:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

ROTFLOL! Donnacha 21:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Significant presence? Libertarians barely have a significant presence. Even if your spurious guess is correct, anarcho-capitalists would still be painfully insignificant. Anarcho-capitalists don't even get a mention in the history books, which is why, it seems, they feel the need to create their own. --AaronS 21:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Anarcho-syndicalism

Since referenced claim that many anarchists view anarcho-syndicalism as anachronism is constantly removed I'm putting POV tag on section. -- Vision Thing -- 19:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Here is a non comphrehensive list of orgs etc that would disagree that anarcho-syndicalism is anachronistic.

• anarchosyndicalism.net
• anarchosyndicalism.org
• IWW
• IWA
• CGT
• CNT- spain
• CNT- france
• CTC
• WSA

Some of these groups have many thousands of members, the CGT for example has 50,000. Blockader 20:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

And? Anarcho-syndicalists aren't only anarchists around, and while they probably don't think that their philosophy is anachronistic, many other anarchists do. -- Vision Thing -- 20:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Like whom? You're the bleedin' minority who dig up graves to claim non-anarchists are such. You're the ones who removed the disputed tag from "anarcho"-capitalism. You're the POV-pushing wreckers. Donnacha 20:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Who or what is CGT? Google doesn't pull anything up that appears related. What is your source it has 50,000 members? How does it define a member? I think Vision Thing is correct here, anarcho-syndicalism appears to be the smallest and least influential brand of anarchism. - MSTCrow 20:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Try, hmmm, wikipedia - Confederación General del Trabajo (Spain). Donnacha 20:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

So you have a trade union in Spain of importance only in one or two regional areas. I can't tease that out into a large-scale endorsement of anarcho-syndicalism, especially when it's limited to only one country, when the other variants of anarchism are pan-global, with multi-lingual support. This is just a curiosity in Spain and several small Spanish-speaking only countries. - MSTCrow 20:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow, you question one example cited in a list. When it's pointed out to you what it is, you pretend the list never existed. There's a more extensive list under anarcho-syndicalism. Donnacha 21:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Bullshit, that is only one example. Most anarchists I know are either ancom or ansynd. The IWW is influential in many parts of this country and while not explicitly ansynd, is primarily composed of them. ansynd is hardly the smallest school, i would give that distinction to indivualists(i dont mean ancaps) and mutualists(though according to Libertatia mutualism is experiancing a resurgence.) the section on ansynd already notes, "Although more frequently associated with labor struggles of the the early twentieth century (particularly in France and Spain) there are many syndicalist organisations active today." it says that it is "more frequently associated with labor struggles of the the early twentieth century." What do you gain by stating that it is anachronistic? Making one form of anarchism seem less powerful does not increase the power of another form. A single source is just not enough to back up such a contentious claim. Blockader 21:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Most anarchists you know are either ancom or anysnd? That's funny. Most I know are ancap. Do you not realize that people simply tend to associate with those who have similar likes and tastes? An anarcho-communist is going to come into contact with anarcho-communists. And and anarcho-capitalist is going to come into contact with anarcho-capitalists. The exception of course is this article where they clash together because this is an article on Anarchism in general.Anarcho-capitalism 21:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

You're clearly an American, 'nuff said. Donnacha 21:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

That was not the basis of my argument and you know it. of course i understand association ancap, i was merely saying that i personally know anarcho-syndicalists here in the seat of the reactionary bible belt (probaly the least likely place for them to exist) so how is it possible that they are anachronistic. you didn't address my actual argument you just attacked the preface. Blockader 21:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Sentence Anarcho-syndicalism is viewed as anachronism by many anarchists says just that, that many anarchists see anarcho-syndicalism as a relict from the past, something out of date in a modern society. It doesn't say that anarcho-syndicalism is anachronistic. -- Vision Thing -- 16:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

"How could Reagan have won? No one I know voted for him!" Silly elitist logical fallacy, Blockader. - MSTCrow 21:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

oh? like this fallacy you state above, "o you have a trade union in Spain of importance only in one or two regional areas. I can't tease that out into a large-scale endorsement of anarcho-syndicalism, especially when it's limited to only one country, when the other variants of anarchism are pan-global, with multi-lingual support. This is just a curiosity in Spain and several small Spanish-speaking only countries."

Please, taking one example and attacking it rather than approaching the argument from a wider stance is hardly good pracice. i was merely stating that i at least know many ansynds and therefore have a hard time accepting a single source that questions their existence. you, on the other hand, made a broad assertion that ansynd doesn't have "pan-global, with multi-lingual support." Well the IWA and IWW are primarily western, english speaking groups and the CGT and CNT are French and Spanish and there are scandinavian, south american, russian, etc ansynd groups. thats pretty pan global and multi-lingual. more so i suspect than your beloved anarcho-capitalism. Blockader 21:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

CNT membership lists are not public, but you can see from this [directory] the CNT has locals in 46 towns across Spain. All, or almost all, of these have permanent offices/meeting spaces/libraries. CNT locals are generally staffed and open to the public 4 or more days a week. I don't know much about CGT but by all accounts it has more members than the CNT - its [directory] lists local federations in more than 80 towns. Spain is a smaller country than the US, obviously, and Spanish anarchism is obviously not what it was in days gone by. It certainly does not have 'large scale endorsement' from the Spanish working class (though you could say it has a higher profile, Spanish people at least tend to know more what anarchism is about). Even so I would think there are more anarcho-syndicalist activists, groups, meeting places, libraries, bookshops, printers, schools, research institutes, social centres etc. in this one little country than there are anarcho-capitalist outfits in the US. Going by weight of numbers and strength of organisation, or indeed intellectual output, this page should focus a lot more on Spain and other Latin-speaking countries and a lot less on the US.Bengalski 17:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Let's talk about in the article how the Spanish "anarchists" in the Spanish revolution stole and vandalized private property, including confiscating money, and executed people, and then teamed up with the fascists. Anarcho-capitalism 17:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Here we have a so-called "anarchist" who spouts Stalinist propaganda. Whatever next? Anarchism was a mass movement in Spain, during a war and a revolution. Yes, confiscation of property and resources was done by communities and collectives. Yes, there were executions of traitors. It was war. And, as for teaming with the fascists, that is a disgusting lie and you should be ashamed of yourself. Really, pissing on the memory of people who gave their lives in the thousands to stop fascism and were betrayed by Stalin's followers and the capitalists in France and England who preferred to let Franco win rather than send weapons to the anarchists and POUM on the frontline against fascism. Try reading a bloody book written by someone who was there, I'd recommend starting with Homage to Catalonia, written by a non-anarchist. Or, if reading is too much for you, watch Land and Freedom. You have succeeded in actually disgusting me, congratulations. Donnacha 23:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

That are probably the reasons why Tucker called Spanish anarchist "a crazy bunch" and anarchism in Spain "a misnomer". -- Vision Thing -- 17:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it was such a misnomer that Emma Goldman and Rudolph Rocker went to support it. Tucker was a notoriously abusive sectarian when he wanted to be, despite many efforts by others to come to some kind of accomodation with him. It's no wonder you lot love citing him. Anarchism is not about individuals, it's about ideas and movements. Revolutionary Catalonia is the high point of anarchist activism and this rubbish you and your ilk spout about it simply undermines the fact that you have nothing to do with anarchism and are eltist right-wing wreckers trying to appropriate the term to destroy it. You won't win because, as I've shouted at other right-wingers in the past, "there's many, many more of us than you". Donnacha 00:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I can see your arguments are purely to do with anarcho-syndicalism's relative global significance, and not in any way ideological.Bengalski 17:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Steering Committee Idea

I was wondering if anyone thinks it might be useful to have a de-facto steering committee for this article, with perhaps communications on an external message board for clarity and ease of use. The number for the committee would be small, perhaps between 5-8 members. There might be a president pro tem of some sort, to break tie votes. I'm placing this idea for comments and suggestions by others, to see if anyone else believes this would be a reasonable solution to article's issues, and to fully flesh out how it would work if others are in agreement. Perhaps the committee could focus on one piece or paragraph of the article at a time, and go through the entire article in such a manner to ensure that everything is covered and people aren't dragged off topic, delaying or inhibiting article work. - MSTCrow 21:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Horrible idea and also possibly against wiki policy. Blockader 21:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid it might ruin my image as an anarchist.Anarcho-capitalism 21:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm opposed to this idea. --AaronS 22:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

If no one has any concrete objections to it... - MSTCrow 21:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

It's a ridiculous idea. I think it's time for arbitration. Donnacha 21:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom doesn't deal with content disputes; the issues on this article are people with widely divergent and strongly held opinions acting in good faith. Please stop the tag warring, however; muchmore of that will likely result in an otherwise uninvolved administrator (e.g., me) protecting the article, and I'd really rather not do that. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to see some actual opposition to the idea itself, not calling the idea names. - MSTCrow 22:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't remember calling it names. But I hope that I didn't offend it. And I'm actually opposed to it. --AaronS 22:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

"Horrible" isn't a name, which would be a proper noun. it is an adjective though. Blockader 22:47, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, the part about name calling was addressed to everyone but AaronS, then the part about noting actual objections to it was to everyone, including AaronS. Erg. - MSTCrow 22:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Alright, then. My objection is that it would be cumbersome, unnecessary, and I don't feel like doing it. It would be the worst parts of this talk page transported to a BBS. I got tired of meaningless debates on BBSes a long time ago.

I understand that you have the best intentions with your idea, but I just don't think that it's a good idea. --AaronS 22:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

How about we populate it by schools, eh? 1 Anarchist Communist, 1 Anarchist Collectivist, 1 Anarcho-syndicalist, 1 Individualist socialist/Mutualist and, I suppose, 1 "anarcho"-capitalist? And, of course, democracy rules. :) Donnacha 23:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Or we could divide it in half, with collectivist on one vote and individualist another vote, with the pro tem a the tie-breaker. - MSTCrow 01:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Some individualists would pretend to be collectivists and vice versa, in order to dishonestly bias the vote. I think you have to look at Wikipedia like a reality game show. You have to expect that everybody is lying and strategizing in order to get their POV in the articles. PlayersPlace 02:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom doesn't deal with content disputes — But it does deal with disruptive editors, thereby helping to eradicate the source of the dispute. -- WGee 02:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I oppose the installation of some sort of "steering" bureaucracy; not only is it too time-consuming (a few of us are strapped for time), but, more importantly, it contradicts the founding principles of Wikipedia. -- WGee 02:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

It wouldn't be time-consuming for those who don't have an interest in it, and "contradicts the founding principles of Wikipedia" seems like a vague cop-out designed to stifle any discussions of how to improve the process. What disruptive editors are you referring to? What qualifies as a disruption? Does the endless back and forth and meandering qualify as disruption? - MSTCrow 03:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I mistakenly presumed that you would be familiar with the founding principles of Wikipedia. In particular, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a bureaucracy; "... although rules can make things easier, they are not the purpose of the community and instruction creep should generally be avoided." Nor is Wikipedia a democracy.

You must be new. Also, note "generally." - MSTCrow 04:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy" and "Wikipedia is not a democracy" seem unambiguous to me. -- WGee 01:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I was using "disruptive editors" in a generic sense. Because I haven't been extensively involved in this article, I will leave it to the others to determine who is disruptive and how to deal with the disruption.

-- WGee 03:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I also oppose the individualist-collectivist dichotomy. Some of us are neither. Some of us aren't anarchists. --AaronS 04:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC) Like most everyone here, I think this is not a good idea at all. Wikipedia is not about creating bureaucracies to edit pages, and even if there was going to be a page that was editited like that, anarchism is probably the last one were people will go along with it. It's a waste of time and not going to help much. Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 05:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

What do you suggest? My idea has the virtue of not being tried. The current plan of protecting the page on and off again, with not getting much agreed upon or accompllished in talk, is not what I think is a successful approach. - MSTCrow 05:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

A steering committee rings all the wrong bells, no doubt, and it's hardly practicable, given Wikipedia's nature. Who imagines this can all be "steered" much? But what if we proposed instead some forum for more active and conscious collaboration in research, intentionally multi-partisan (so to speak). That might actually have some merit. It could be as open as Wikipedia. I don't know. There simply might be some virtue to getting some of the hashing-out off these pages, somewhat more "distant" in a sense from the articles being edited, and someplace where we could have the "abstract debates" when they were useful—but which would have an explicit goal the improvement, in a broad sense, of the anarchism-related articles here. Libertatia 19:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The dispute resolution process is designed to deal with situations in which traditional consensus-building methods yield no results. If necessary, I would suggest that you follow that process rather than propose idealistic experiments in democracy. -- WGee 02:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Arguments

I stumbled across this discussion page and I've found the arguments so good it has compelled me to read the article. Schnizzle 15:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Chomsky again

"Now there is another STRAIN OF ANARCHISM which is concerned only with, which really gives no weight to notions like equality, solidarity, and so on. That's the RIGHT-WING ANARCHISM and that's an extreme form of authoritarianism as far as I can see. It's perfectly obvious that under the formulations of someone like, say, Murray Rothbard, you will get such inequalities of power that it would be like living under Ghengis Khan or sometrhing like that." -Chomsy interviewed in "Language and Politics" by Carlos-Peregrin and Noam Chomsy, page 153 (my emphasis)

"That's a peculiarly Anglo-Saxon phenomenon, in the English speaking world and the United States. One dream of anarchism - and the only kind that survived [in the U.S.] - was ULTRA-RIGHT ANARCHISM...For years, the only journals I could write in were ultra-right libertarian journals because we agree on a lot of things...There was a left anarchist movement, too -the working class movement. They were pretty much destroyed by force. That's when people like Emma Goldman and Alexander Berkman were jailed and thrown out of the country. So the working class, LEFT LIBERTARIAN movement was mostly smashed but the RIGHT LIBERTARIAN movement was applauded...Lots of anarchists are much confused by this. The United States has a tradition of individualist anarchism." -Noam Chomsky, in Chomsky on Anarchism, page 215 (my emphasis).

Anarcho-capitalism 17:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

i just explained my stance on your talk page. those are chomsky qoutes but not the one being cited. in the one being cited he does not consider ancap bonafide anarchism. in the neither quote above does he mention capitalism at all. i think it entirely possible that he may not have a clear position on this or perhaps he has changed his stance over the years. maybe a note that said, "Chomsky's position on this is considered by some to be unclear." i dont know. Blockader 18:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Here is an interview with Chomsky in Zmag. The second question and response are of interest. Chomsky says "The individualistic anarchism that you are talking about, Stirner and others, is one of the roots of -- among other things -- the so-called “libertarian” movement in the US. This means dedication to free market capitalism, and has no connection with the rest of the international anarchist movement. [...]But US and to some extent British libertarianism is quite a different thing and different development, in fact has no objection to tyranny as long as it is private tyranny. That is radically different from other forms of anarchism." Basically, it sounds like he considers it anarchism to some extent, but doesn't particularly like it and says it's not connected with traditional anarchism. Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 05:29, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

globalization

There are probably not two more terms loaded by vagueness and ambiguity these days than "neo-liberalism" and "globalization". One is not trying to indulge to much "anarchist language" into this article, please. Furthermore, is this actually an issue in Anarchism? It probably should be put under "Recent Developments within Anarchism". Intangible 22:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Issue does not mean bone of contention, race and gender are also under issues. As for the terms, globalization is far from anarchist language, it's the term used by its proponents. Anti-globalization, on the other hand, is a dispute term (applied by the critics of the movement more than its proponents), which is why it's preceded by the "so-called". As for neoliberal, it originally said capitalist until one of the ancaps changed it to neoliberal. That's not an anarchist term, per se, it's a Latin American term used by Bolivarians as much as Zapatista followers. It's only recently been used much in English. Donnacha 00:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Does "anarcho"-capitalism exist?

Outside of academic discussions, web warriors and circle-jerks, does "anarcho"-capitalism exist at all in the real world? I'd like to see any examples of real world action, activism or even organisations that prove it's more than the deluded fantasies of American right-wingers. Despite the claptrap by right wingers above, proving the existence of real anarchist movements worldwide is easy. So, I'm challenging the web-warriors - prove you exist outside your colleges and computers. Donnacha 00:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Does any kind of anarchism exist in the real world? No. It only exists in people's minds.Anarcho-capitalism 01:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

And was that question asked for any other reason than provoking more hostitlity? Certainly not very helpful or conducive to friendly or productive collaberation. Aside from that, I exist outside a college or computer. Is that proof enough for you? Imagination débridée 01:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

It was a straight-forward question as an alternative to the sectarian nonsense posted above by Ancaps. Anarchism exists on a small scale in squats, in some co-operatives, in non-hierarchical organisations, in mutual aid associations, in democratic trade unions, for a short time in protests, in TAZs. The seeds of the future are being planted now and have born short-lived fruit before, from the Ukraine to Catalonia, from Israel to Korea. These all existed openly and consciously under the banner of anarchism. It's a living, breathing tradition with a powerful and meaningful history. So, I return to my question, does "anarcho"-capitalism have anything to compare? Where are the self-identifying "anarcho"-capitalists other than in right-wing university courses and on the web. I'm honestly asking, because I've seen no evidence of anything more than that. Donnacha 13:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

proudhon

I have here a source saying that Proudhon calling himself an anarchist was a jeu d'esprit, although this notion might be attributed to Pavel Vasilyevich Annenko. Any thoughts? Intangible 01:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Some don't think he's a real anarchist. Albert Meltzer, who is a source used in this article for anarcho-capitalism not being a form of anarchism, says that Proudhon is not an anarchist.Anarcho-capitalism 01:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

"In particular, we may cite three philosophical precursors of Anarchism, Godwin, Proudhon and perhaps Hegel. None of these was in fact an Anarchist though Proudhon first used the word in its modern sense (taking it from the French Revolution, when it was first used politically and not entirely pejoratively). None of them engaged in Anarchist activity or struggle, indeed Proudhon engaged in parliamentary activity." Albert Meltzer, Anarchism: Arguments for and Against, page 12 (same guy who is used as a source in this article for ancap not being anarchism).Anarcho-capitalism 01:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

In this case, Meltzer is illogical, anachronistic, and partisan. This is the sort of argument engaged in by all factions who want to inherit anarchism from Proudhon, but at the same time to claim that only they are really anarchists. Proudhon was, in fact, a revolutionary, but the revolution of 1848 was not quite the revolution that he was looking for. He was elected, as an opponent of the Provisional Government, in a by-election, and his proposals during the short time he served were mainly of a fairly libertarian character. Libertatia 02:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Whether you agree with him or not, he's still a legitimate source so you shouldn't be removing it. I don't remove sources from people claiming anarcho-capitalism is not anarchism. Should I?Anarcho-capitalism 02:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

This isn't about whether or not I agree with him. It's about whether a single, obviously partisan criticism of the guy acknowledged by virtually everyone as the founder of the modern anarchist tradition is worth mentioning in an encyclopedia article. Meltzer's claim is obviously far outside the mainstream. His support for it involves an obviously non-standard use of the term anarchism. His definition is barely useful, because it is circular: anarchists do anarchist stuff, and organize with other anarchists. It's as if nobody could be an anarchist until there was some sort of mass movement, and a dogma agreed upon. It's weak and unhelpful stuff, the inclusion of which will force us to deal with even more weak and unhelpful material. Libertatia 16:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll post it again, Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight. Meltzer's entitled to his opinion, and his definition of anarchism as a movement may exclude Proudhon, but this article represents mainly the evolution of anarchist thought, not the movement (a failing of the article, btw) and thus Meltzer's comment is unreliable. This constant attempt to bolster the "anarcho"-capitalist position by unduly highlighting divisions and disagreements within the real movement is tiresome. Donnacha 13:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that Meltzer's comment is unreliable. It's a real position. Some think that if you're not involved in the so-called "movement" that you're not a real anarchist. Why would his opinion be reliable on anarcho-capitalism not being anarchism but not for Proudhon?Anarcho-capitalism 15:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

People, believe it or not, are not simply reliable or unreliable in a blanket sense, however much Wikipedia's source policies may encourage such simplistic thinking. Libertatia 16:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I think "reliable" on Wikipedia just means it's an actual source. It just mean that there's an actual record that that is someone's opinion. Wikipedia is not about whether those opinions are true.Anarcho-capitalism 16:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

You said that you disagree about reliability. If you would like to go on record that you do not care about the accuracy of the articles, then that would at least get a little truth on the table among editors. But, honestly, taking the approach that anything published under conditions that Wikipedia recognizes as "legitimate" is appropriate for inclusion is the death-knell of any accuracy or coherence in the articles. One of the dubious beauties of Wikipedia is that it is always possible to game an article into nonsense. We could probably, following the rules to the letter, get the majority of articles on the site tagged as contested or unreliable in some way. A far more interesting project is to actually make articles which are accurate despite the weakness of Wikipedia standards. Libertatia 17:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

If there's anything I understand about Wikipedia, it is the basic idea that it is not so much about what is true but what is true about what others have said is true. Note that when I put the source in I didn't use it as a source for saying that Proudhon is not an anarchist. I used it as a source saying that Meltzer says he's not an anarchist. There is a difference. He's a relatively notable anarchist so I think his opinion matters.Anarcho-capitalism 17:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit conflict intervened] Oh, c'mon. Do you think his opinion matters? He's a social anarchist sectarian who thinks an-caps are imposters. All the twisting and turning doesn't change the fact that you are introducing a highly controversial minority position into the article. And your championing of "notability as an anarchist" as complete justification is just the sort of thing that can come around and bite you (and the article) on the hind end. Undue Weight is also a Wikipedia policy, and one well worth following in cases like this. Libertatia 17:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Would you please read the policy - Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight. And it's far more than just a few anarchist theorist who reject "anarcho"-capitalism. Most simply ignore it - Bookchin never mentioned it not because he accepts it, but, because it's so far beyond the pale of what he considered anarchism, it doesn't bear mention. Avrich has one footnote mentioning it to explain Sternerites. There's nothing in Guerin's classic anthology "No Gods, No Maters". I could go on and on and on, but I'm not going to. Donnacha 17:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

ALL anarcho-communists reject anarcho-capitalism. That's because they're anarcho-communists. But they don't all say that it's not a type of anarchism. Only a couple say that.Anarcho-capitalism 17:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Because his opinion on "anarcho"-capitalism is the same view as many other anarchist scholars, thus it's not giving it undue weight. His view on Proudhon is highly contentious among anarchist scholars, thus it's unrepresentative and not necessary. Read the policy, please. Donnacha 16:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

No his opinion that anarcho-capitalism is not anarchism is not the same view as many other scholars. It's him and may one or two other anarcho-communists and that's it.Anarcho-capitalism 16:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Forking Only Allowed for Certain Users? / Many Anarcho-Collectivists Backstabbing Efforts

Why was Hogeye banned from Wikipedia for forking anarchism into two complimentary articles, one for each side, which was the best chance of resolving the issues with the anarchism article, while a completely POV fork that only causes more disruption was allowed for a Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism article that only exists to bash anarcho-capitalism?

I'm severely disappointed in you, Donnacha, as well. I thought you were genuinely trying to resolve things, but instead I learn you've been lobbying to keep your own POV fork, making the situation worse. You've made it clear that you don't care about the other side having a say from your comments there, when the other side has gone out of its way to let the anarcho-collectivists speak their mind. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anarchism_and_anarcho-capitalism, it can be seen that most of the other anarcho-collectivists have also been working in bad faith. You've broken our trust, and I don't think that there's any hope as long as we have duplicity running rampant among one side of the negotiating table. - MSTCrow 01:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

(1) Hogeye was banned because he exhausted the community's patience. The forking was just the final straw. (2) That article is not meant for "bashing anarcho-capitalism." --AaronS 01:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

That ariticle was definitely meant for bashing anarcho-capitalism. It's obvious to anyone who reads through all that nonsense. It's people attacking anarcho-capitalism and others defending it against the attacks. Just the title "Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism" carries with it the assumption that Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism are two different things.Anarcho-capitalism 01:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

It looks different if you've been involved in these online debates for a decade or more. The anarchist vs an-cap debate has simply been a real and observable phenomenon for years and years now. Documents such as An Anarchist FAQ resulted from it. Certain left-right anarchist collaborations have grown out of it. Wikipedia is shaped by it every day. As recently as the last deletion vote, there seemed to be a different sense of what the article was good for. If there is no longer that sense, then the vote will undoubtedly lead to its deletion. But this whole talk section is an exercise in assuming bad faith, which is a little ugly, considering the charge is deviation from Wikipedia rules. Libertatia 02:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

. . .and that's from an individualist / mutualist anarchist, thankee. Libertatia 02:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you state what community's patience was exhausted? Who is this community? Did he exhaust MSTCrow's patience? Or Anarcho-capitalism's patience? I would really like to know who's patience he exhausted? And from what I've seen, MSTCrow is correct. Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism is exactly a pov fork. Imagination débridée 01:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I guess somewhere here [12], but seriously I do not know. Intangible 01:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This isn't the place to reminisce about past injustices or debate the legitimacy of a different article. Raise your concerns at the Administrators' Noticeboard and that article's AfD page, respectively. -- WGee 01:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

WGee is right. Also, why do you insist on seeing everything as an attack, even a consipiracy? Wikipedia is not a battleground --GoodIntentions^talk 01:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

You can't just make bold, questionable statements without expecting a response. I personally tend to see things as they are, especially the glaringly obvious. Imagination débridée 02:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

You can expect a response all you want, but don't expect the response to be given here. -- WGee 02:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't saying that I expected a response. I was alluding to the statements of others - that they should expect a response. Never mind - this conversation is getting too weird and hard to follow. What about personal attacks? Are personal attacks allowed here? They are all over this page. Imagination débridée 02:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it's clear that users WGee, Good Intentions, and Donnacha are simply being disruptive, and continue to work in bad faith and then WGee and Good Intentions have attempted to wiki lawyer when called on their bad behavior. It's time they got booted from this article resolution, as they seek anything but. I came in after repeated requests for assistance from other users, and I've offered ideas, which have at times had majority support, but these users veto any attempt at resolution, and have not offered any ideas. Note I am not going after anarcho-collectivist users, only users that have lied and been dishonest. - MSTCrow 02:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Who the hell are you calling a liar? You, the person who's supported every wolf sock I can remember. Take a look in the mirror. Donnacha 08:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead and open an arbitration case, then; see what happens. I'm not going to bother to address your accusations in any detail, because they are so ridiculous and not based on policy. -- WGee 03:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Ditto to everything MSTCrow just said. This is exactly what I see happening here. It's pretty clear that all this is so. Is there a specific avenue we can take to stop, or at least, deter this activity? It's obvious that all this is only hindering any possibility of compromise. Wgee, you can't be serious...particularly this - "ridiculous and not based on policy" Imagination débridée 03:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

You're acting like a polemicist, Imagination débridée, and nothing more. What's the purpose of your comments, other than to rouse controversy? "Wgee, you can't be serious...particularly this - "ridiculous and not based on policy" Are you going to tell me why I can't be serious? Are you going to tell me what specific policies I have violated? Could you explain to me how I have disrupted the article with my copy-editing? Or are you just going to continue your trend of proof by assertion? -- WGee 03:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say you did anything that wasn't based on policy. I was merely quoting you. You seem to misread everything I say. Imagination débridée 05:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I am very close to requesting arbitration on this article. What you people seem to need is an admin who has powers like the ones that the admins on Neuro-linguistic programming had for awhile. And that was per an arbcom decision. MSTCrow, have you looked at Hogeye's block list? If that doesn't define "exhausting community's patience", nothing does. As for Anarchism_and_anarcho-capitalism, it's been around for a year and a half and even if it is a POV fork, it's not nearly as clear-cut as Hogeye's was. And Hogeye actually edited that article a few times over the last couple of weeks. This feels like "tit for tat". "Well you guys had a problem with these forks, so let's bring up what we consider forks". It just isn't as clear cut with Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism as it was with Hogeye's forks. Hogeye was clearly trying to get around protection by creating those forks. Unless I'm missing something, I don't think that was the intention of the Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism article. It'd be terrific if you people would quit the constant brow beating and actually work on trying to come up with a compromise. I can see why you've exhausted several admins. I'm getting close to joining the list. Bicker bicker bicker. That's all you people seem to do. And outside of blocking everyone, I don't see an end to it outside of something drastic like an arbcom mandate. --Woohookitty^(meow) 03:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

On what grounds do you say that Anarchism_and_anarcho-capitalism is "not nearly as clear-cut (a pov fork) as Hogeye's was"? I find that article to be a definite pov fork and Hogeye's suggestions of a disambuguation page a reasonable solution to the problem. Imagination débridée 05:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello Maggie/thewolfstar/shannon/lingeron/whiskeyrebellion/etc. How have you been? We have not missed you. anyway, welcome back...for awhile. Blockader 15:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I was about to say the same thing. Interesting that this account started 3 days after Disquietude was blocked. Hmm, I wonder... Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 05:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not as clear cut because it wasn't created to get around protection. It's been around for well over a year and a half and has been contributed to by both sides of the debate. It's just not as clear cut of a case. I bet that if you didn't have "a side" in this case you'd see it that way. But you don't. You have your POV and you see it from that lens. --Woohookitty^(meow) 08:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to point out to the puss that I have offered several compromises to implement or flesh out, but they have been vetoed. I have worked at compromise since I arrived at this talk page, but it is clear that several of the parties have no desire at a resolution. They veto, but never offer any solutions. If an admin was able to read the pages and pages of posted talk, I believe they would realize exactly what is going on. This has turned into a shell game due to a clump of users setting themselves up as pure obstacles. - MSTCrow 07:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

A whole lot of assuming bad faith in your post, MSTCrow. Including assuming that I don't realize what's going on. Sure I do. You have 2 sides with extremely strong POVs trying to get their way. Both sides seem to be obstructionist but yet both sides are saying that it's the other side that's the problem. Unfortunately, it's not unique in terms of Wikipedia. I'd like to see someone completely unbiased and who has alot of time on their hands come into this discussion...someone a bit more heavy handed than I am. I just don't have the time or the inclination. --Woohookitty^(meow) 08:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd disagree only with the concept that there are two sides pushing their POV. Virtually everyone on the left here wants correct and unbiased reflection of the facts. None of the main editors want "anarcho"-capitalism removed, we just want proper reflection of anarchism worldwide without Undue weight. "Anarcho"-capitalism is a minority position, regarded as an oxymoron by most anarchists. That is a salient point and the "anarcho"-capitalist view on most issues is irrelevant due to its minority position. Thus, the involvement of anarchists in the anti-globalisation movement is important, the minority opposition to that of "anarcho"-capitalists is not relevant to the topic. And the dispute between the historically-rooted active movement of anarchism worldwide and the minority dictionary definition of the "anarcho"-capitalists is worthy of a full explanation, in its own article, as long as "anarcho"-capitalism remains a disputed minority view. Donnacha 13:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I might disagree with that, too. Some editors who have since been banned have preferred to wrap this situation up in "side versus side" rhetoric (notably, "communists versus capitalists," "anarcho-communists versus anarcho-capitalists," "collectivists versus individualists," etc.). That's a misrepresentation. The point of contention has never been whether or not anarcho-capitalism should be treated; it has always been around how it should be treated. Further, many of the edit wars have been the result of now-banned editors attempting to give anarcho-capitalism a "pedigree" of sorts. Anarcho-capitalism exists as a philosophy created by an economist in the 1950s that never became very popular. It is not some grand movement that began in the 18th century and saw its culmination in a massive revolution of thought in the 20th century. Empirically, anarcho-capitalism's existence is proven only by a few university professors and some scattered web sites. It deserves a place in this article, but this article must not be a soap box (the anarcho-capitalism article already is).

That's all I have to say. I've really lost interest in this. --AaronS 18:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

That's not true. Anarcho-capitalism is very popular, at least in the United States. Some anarcho-communists are trying to push a myth that it's something obscure but it's not. As far as "pedigree" goes, I don't even see that as an issue. I'm on anarcho-capitalist and I don't need a pedigree. I'm a self-creation who came up with my own anarcho-capitalism before I ever heard of anyone else's and without ever having heard of Murray Rothbard, without consulting past anarchists. I don't need a pedigree to be an anarchist. Individualist anarchism is the logical conclusion of classical liberalism. People who believes in private property and as little government as possible - that government is a "necessary evil" - simply take themselves to the next level. If you come from a collectivist background, you're probably not going to arrive at anarcho-capitalism as a natural evolution of thought but would have to step outside the box so to speak. The number of anarcho-capitalists is no doubt huge in the U.S. They just don't don't engage in mass demonstrations and set off bombs.Anarcho-capitalism 18:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

You say that as if I am not also from the United States, and need a lesson in what is popular here. I am, and I don't. The only place that I have ever encountered anarcho-capitalism is on the Internet, and especially here on Wikipedia. Not in my town that I'm from, not in the cities that I've lived in, not in the many states that I've visited, not in the news that I've read, not in the books that I've read, not in my college courses, and not in my college materials. That's why RJII's missions was to "correct" all of this "repression." Sorry, but I don't buy it. --AaronS 19:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

That's not my point. My point was that if you had a classical liberal (laissez-faire liberalism) background that is native to the U.S. you would have come up with anarcho-capitalism on your own simply by taking it to its logical extreme. If you were raised by a family of welfare statists you would probably have to discover it in books or on the internet, because it would be alien to your train of thought.Anarcho-capitalism 20:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

No, your point was that anarcho-capitalism is very popular in the United States, a point that you have yet to substantiate. --AaronS 21:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't have to.Anarcho-capitalism 01:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Anarchism of any variety is outside the political mainstream in the United States (and pretty much every other country, except maybe Somalia), where moderate statism is the "mainstream" position, with lots of bickering about whether it should be moderately left-wing or moderately right-wing statism, and with politicians who basically try to enrich themselves and pander to special interests regardless of their stated ideology. However, I believe capitalist libertarianism, including its extreme "purist" form of anarcho-capitalism, to at least resonate better with the prevailing dominant beliefs of Americans than socialism (including its extreme form of anarcho-communism). *Dan T.* 04:28, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

youre all talking like you know everything going on in the US, which is why you can say this or this is or is not popular, but thats just alot of bullshit! Ive seen an discussion degerenating into this over and over again. Whats the matter with you people? It not about who started all this, but also who went along the same discourse of discussion. When ANYBODY say something like: "I know something to be unpopular" it shouldnt be about anything else than saying: "You simply dont know". So my point here is: lets talk in wikipedia terms of verifiability instead of truth, because the truth is not our concern here! Dont jump on the wagon saying: "I know what you think is unpopular is really popular" or the other way around. I dont care who starts or continues, its all the same shit! --Fjulle 14:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, that does make it clear you aren't in tune with what's been going on, but I didn't imply or say that you were somehow responsible as an admin for not resolving things. We already tried bringing in someone who was unbiased and objective days(weeks?) ago, but the idea was killed by two or three users. - MSTCrow 10:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't remember that. i remember thewolfstar clone whiskeyrebellion saying that you were going to graciously come "watch over" this article from a neutral stand point. i thought it was joke though. Blockader 15:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Anyway

I'm taking this page off of my WL. It's a waste of time to try to police this page. I have better things to do. --Woohookitty^(meow) 08:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Well thanks for trying anyhow. i thought you were fair and evenhanded. Blockader 16:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

At least it would be private policing.Anarcho-capitalism 16:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Well at this page its hard to tell if anybody lives up to being private, thinking and all!

Well, Anarchism has gone days without any dispute disclaimer tags at the top now. That's more than I ever expected. EbonyTotem 09:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)