Talk:Anarchism/Archive 63

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 62 Archive 63 Archive 64

Picture in "conflict with fascist regimes"

In the current picture visible in this section is not clear whether the people there are anarchist or not. Instead I propose adding in this section a picture of italian anarchist Camillo Berneri who died in Spain fighting as a volunteer againts the Franco uprising.--Eduen (talk) 01:33, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

As I check the article on Camillo Berneri he might actually have been assassinated by people close to the Spanish Communist Party and possibly on orders by Moscow. Then instead I propose adding the picture of german jew anarchist Erich Muhsam who died in a concentration camp during the Nazi regime.--Eduen (talk) 01:36, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Is there a reason "libertarian anarchism" -- apparently "referring to free-market anarchism" links to anarcho-capitalism?

I've asked this question before on the market anarchism article, and there's never a coherent explanation. Why are we linking and associating market anarchism with Rothbard and company? Why not Mutualism or market socialism, like Tucker's or Spooner's formulation, for example, which had been far more prominent in anarchist history? Is there a reason for conflating markets and capitalism? Finx (talk) 04:33, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I propose we delete the reference to "market anarchism" that you talk about. This mainly because of the controversy whether anarcho-capitalism can be considered at all a part of the anarchist movement and since the use of the word "market anarchism" itself is at most of recent use within a small sector of literature mostly only in the United States and absent in the most important historical works in the english language existing in english on anarchism. As far as mutualism, no significant controversy exists over it and as such it is dealt with extensively in the section of schools of anarchism.--Eduen (talk) 07:11, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I propose

to delete the sentence "Some individualist anarchists are also socialists or communists[21][22] while some anarcho-communists are also individualists.[23][24]" at the end of the second paragraph in the article. It seems out of place. An alternative would be to move it somewhere else? Any objections? Greybirch (talk) 05:32, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

since this particular sentence has been quite controversial as can be seen in other complaints about it as they can be seen in this discussion section then i agree that we could consider removing it since anyway individualist anarchism is mentioned in the introduction and also since the fact of there being individualist anarcho-communists is also mentioned in the section of "schools of anarchism" in the space assigned to anarcho-communism.--Eduen (talk) 07:14, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Merging paragraphs

"As a subtle and anti-dogmatic philosophy, anarchism draws on many currents of thought and strategy. Anarchism does not offer a fixed body of doctrine from a single particular world view, instead fluxing and flowing as a philosophy.[15] There are many types and traditions of anarchism, not all of which are mutually exclusive.[16] Anarchist schools of thought can differ fundamentally, supporting anything from extreme individualism to complete collectivism.[2]"

As I see it from reading the next paragraph it is clear that there are internal debates and disagreements within anarchism no there is no need for this sentence "Anarchism does not offer a fixed body of doctrine from a single particular world view, instead fluxing and flowing as a philosophy.[15] There are many types and traditions of anarchism, not all of which are mutually exclusive.[16] Anarchist schools of thought can differ fundamentally, supporting anything from extreme individualism to complete collectivism.[2]"

So I propose merging this paragraph with the next one in this way:

"As a subtle and anti-dogmatic philosophy, anarchism draws on many currents of thought and strategy. Anarchism does not offer a fixed body of doctrine from a single particular world view, instead fluxing and flowing as a philosophy.[15]Strains of anarchism have often been divided into the categories of social and individualist anarchism or similar dual classifications.[17][18] Anarchism is often considered a radical left-wing ideology,[19][20] and much of anarchist economics and anarchist legal philosophy reflect anti-statist interpretations of communism, collectivism, syndicalism, or participatory economics."

This also since this talk of "extreme individualism and complete collectivism" might be better put just by pointing out that anarchism is an attempt to reconcile individual sovereignty with horizontal social relationships and others have put it more simply as reconciling liberty with equality.--Eduen (talk) 19:17, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

In the article "anarchocommunism" the issue of individualism vs. society was dealt with in the following form:

"Some forms of anarchist communism such as insurrectionary anarchism are strongly influenced by egoism and radical individualism, believing anarcho-communism is the best social system for the realization of individual freedom.[13][14][15][16] Most anarcho-communists view anarcho-communism as a way of reconciling the opposition between the individual and society.[17][18][19][20][21]"--Eduen (talk) 19:20, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I also propose that we change this part where it says "reflect anti-statist interpretations of communism, collectivism, syndicalism, or participatory economics." for "reflect anti-authoritarian interpretations..." since it is clear that anrchism is not reducible to anti-statism as the first paragraph shows.--Eduen (talk) 19:38, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Edits on February 18, 2013

I reverted the changes made by User:BakuninGoldmanKropotkin because they don't belong in the lede.

According to WP:LEDE, "Apart from trivial basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." This was not the case here, where the only material about Israel or kibbutzim was added to the lede. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:47, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with a modified version of this proposal by User:BakuninGoldmanKropotkin to be added after the sentence in the introduction which says that "anarchism as a social movement..."

"Aside from the aforementioned Spanish Revolution, other examples of anarchist-related revolutions include the Paris Commune of 1871, Strandzha Commune of 1903, Mexican Revolution of 1910, Free Territory from 1919 to 1921, Tambov Rebellion from 1920 to 1921, Kronstadt Rebellion of 1921, Third Russian Revolution from 1918 to 1922, Revolutionary Catalonia from 1936 to 1939, and the Zapatista Uprising starting from 1994 continuing into the present."

Personally i will take out Strandzha Commune, Mexican Revolution and Zapatista Uprising since self-described anarchist participation in these is not too strong and as far as the Zapatista Uprising, non-existent.--Eduen (talk) 04:53, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Inclusion of Emma Goldman

This article seems to be written by men as it excludes many influential female intellectual anarchists such as Emma Goldman. Could someone please include Emma Goldman (and her picture) in this article (as she was far more influential than her Russian counterpart)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Combating Ignorance (talkcontribs) 21:05, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Emma Goldman is mentioned here various times. A photo of Goldman is included in the libertarian socialism article.--Eduen (talk) 00:19, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Consider this change

Both terms (NON-HIERARCHICAL ORGANIZATIONS AND VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATIONS) have diferent references, as diferent entities. Not because are opposed, maybe yes or maybe not, just because are diferents concepts and with diferent sources. [1] Common sense. --Sageo (talk) 17:18, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

APPROVE this change is deductive logic. Objective Reason (talk) 09:56, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Voluntary relationships on themselves are not forms of anarchy. Both employment in state offices and capitalist salaried work are voluntary relationships but no one has dared to call those things forms of anarchy. Anarchy means absence of hierarchies.--Eduen (talk) 00:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Etymology: “‘libertarianism’ to refer to individualistic free-market philosophy”

No, not all forms of libertarianism are capitalist, despite the common American usage of the word. “Minarchism” is a word you may want to look into. One way to classify the different forms of libertarianism is anarchism-versus-minarchism, which is a more pertinent fact to be pointed out in that section. EIN (talk) 17:55, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

All the forms of libertarianism are capitalist. Show a reliable source that use "libertarianism" (subject) as diferent from a capitalist/free-marketer view. There isn't. What you are trying to say is that there is an use of the word "libertarian" (adjective) both capitalist and anticapitalist in diferent contexts. But this last is an example of homonimia not an example of a taxonomy. The current article about libertarianism have this deep mistake that someday should be solved. Do not confuse libertarianism (liberal/capitalist/free-marketer) as part of the same family of libertarian socialism, do not misunderstand what is a subject, and adjective, a homonimia and a taxonomy. --Sageo (talk) 14:32, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
It's no homonimia; it's plain ambiguity. A word is not limited to a single definition. A source? Sure thing: [1]. I've just noticed that you aked me to cite a text where “libertarianism” is both unlimited to the capitalist definition and functions as a subject, which it doesn't in the particular referrence I provided, but what on earth could any of this have to do with phrase structure grammar? Anyway, just look up Left-libertarianism. Wiktionary may shed some light on this misunderstanding:
libertarian (plural libertarians)—
1. One who advocates liberty either generally or on a specific issue, e.g. "civil libertarian" (in favour of civil liberties).
2. (chiefly US) A believer in a political doctrine that emphasizes individual liberty and a lack of governmental regulation and oversight both in matters of the economy (‘free market’) and in personal behavior where no one's rights are being violated or threatened. Also 'classical liberal', akin to ‘anarcho-capitalist’.
3. (chiefly Europe) An anarchist, typically with socialist implications.
So, you see, we can safely blame the confusion on trans-Atlantic semantics. It's not an isolated case: “liberalism,” for example, is in the United States usually understood as social liberalism (a common restriction) and associated with redistribution, whereas in parts of Europe “liberalism” has the contrary connotations, being more closely associated with classical liberalism.
Moreover, for over 150 years “libertarian” and “socialist” meant almost the same thing. It wasn't until the 1970s that “libertarian” became seriously associated with laissez-faire capitalism—and even then only in the United States. EIN (talk) 16:20, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
By an ambiguity, however, that's an objective fallacy. The basis of context before interchanging these contradictory concepts must be inserted; continually. Eventually, intellectually honest people will come to the conclusion that up is not interchangeable with down; and that one is incorrect.


  1. ^ The historical roots of egalitarian-libertarian thinking can be found in various left-liberal and anarchist traditions. The epigraph from Mill suggests that he shared a vision of egalitarian-libertarianism. The notion that liberty could be consistent with the common ownership of at least some forms of property (in particular land) was shared by Thomas Paine and Henry George (1995).” —William A. Sundstrom “An Egalitarian-Libertarian Manifesto”; Murray Bookchin and Janet Biehl, The Murray Bookchin Reader (New York: Cassell 1997) 170; Mark A. Sullivan, “Why the Georgist Movement Has Not Succeeded: A Personal Response to the Question Raised by Warren J. Samuels,” American Journal of Economics and Sociology 62.3 (July 2003): 612.


I have begun re-writing this article-- (which now appears to be locked in order to prevent edits??)-- to include the idea that anarchism is not merely the political philosophy which *opposes* the existence of the state, but also that 'anarchist' political philosophy may include the recognition of the absence of the state, or the illegitimacy of institutions (such as political organizations such as a State, or state, or states). Also, the inclusion of the idea that anarchism may be the opposition or recognition of both legitimate as well as illegitimate authority or government. -- here is the beginning of the new article.

Anarchism may be defined as a political philosophy which opposes or refuses government, authority, or other rule-making organizations, or as political political stemming from the recognition of the illegitimacy, or absence of government. In the case of the ladder, 'anarchyism' expresses no preference as to whether government is fundamentally harmful or beneficial to society, but rather is the socio-political philosophy resulting from such illegitmacy and/or absence. Anarchyism may also advocate opposition to illegimate hierarchies, rules, laws, or corrupt institutions and authority, in such cases anarchyism may be seen as anti-authoritarian. Anarchist philosophy may also include the opposition of all hiearchies and authority irrespective of its legitimacy, and opposition to all rules and rule-making organizations. Anarchists, may be a group defined as including the people working in the opposition of government or hierarchial instutitons, as well as the thinkers or philosophers who's reasoning concerns the existence or non-existence or legitimacy of governments, authority, or institutions. For example, if for some purpose one were to define a period of time years 1-25 as defined by the absence of government, the political thinkers of this period of time could be described as 'Anarchists'.

As the existence or legitimacy of government is a central concern of 'anarchists', many schools of political philosophy may be seen as relating to 'anarchist' reasoning, including: socialism, democracy, republicanism, communism, and fascism.

As 'anarchism' is a political philosophy centered on the existence or non-existence of government, it does not concern itself with economic philosophy and neither advocates a monetary or non-monetary system of valuation, though the abolition of government necessarily suggests a non-monetary system of valuation. Some anarchist thinking concerned with the legitimacy of government, may advocate systems of valuation that do not derive their authority from the institution of dubious credibility.

Some forms of 'anarchism', which refuse the authority of government institutions such as correctional or justice systems, central banks, traffic administration, reglatory agencies, law enforcement groups or agencies,

-Anaceus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:00, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

A lot to debate with here. I can have to remind you that you will have to support almost every sentence here with good sources. Otherwise you can also propose a particular change in a sentence that is present in the current version. This is a wikipedia "good article" and it will be nice if it will stay that way.--Eduen (talk) 20:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Reliable Source?

Is AK Press a reliable source? Also Eduen seems to be engaging in Gatekeeping. Schonchin (talk) 20:45, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

AK Press is a publisher. The books they publish may or may not be reliable sources, but has anybody cited AK Press itself as a source? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:06, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Leaving aside AK Press. User:Eduen to be gatekeeping the anarchism page. He is reverting edits of unreliable sources. Please note that Wikipedia RS policy on self-published source:
"Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources."
I am removing Daibhidh's Anarcho-Hucksters: There is Nothing Anarchistic about Capitalism because it is not a reliable source. It is anonymous, self-published, and violates Wiki POV policy. I am removing Ecology or “Anarcho”-capitalism? because it is also self-published, thereby violating Wiki RS policy.
Eduen's fingerprints are all over Wiki anarchy pages, including edits to "Anarchy: A Journal of Desire Armed". Please do not revert my edits again. These sources are patently in violation of Wiki policy. Eduen clearly here to insert his own POV. Schonchin (talk) 18:19, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

My recent edits

Eduen, I've provided (albeit brief) explanations for my recent edits. What are your objections and what do you think would be better? I think the article currently has a very awkward structure. I'll be sure to not make any more edits (other than very small ones pertaining to grammar, etc). Thank you for being so passionate about this article. I look forward to working with you on this (since we're apparently the only two people who are interested in restructuring this page right now). Byelf2007 (talk) 13 February 2012

On my recent edits I have to question again some things that Byelf2007 never responded to. Instead he just went and edited the article as he wanted.

I will talk about his version visible here which I reverted some things back to their previous state.

1. Lets consider this sentence Byelf2007 added in the introduction. The individualist wing of anarchism emphasises negative liberty, i.e. opposition to state or social control over the individual, while those in the social wing emphasise positive liberty to achieve one's potential and argue that humans have needs that society ought to fulfill, "recognizing equality of entitlement"

It was from the "Anarchist Schools of Thought" section, so I just assumed this wouldn't be an issue (I was only moving content, not adding any). Byelf2007 (talk) 13 February 2012

The language of "negative liberty" and "positive liberty" is of relevance within liberalism and it comes from there and is it used mainly there (also not too important for example in marxism). Within anarchism there is not an important use of those terms as it can be seen in main historical works on anarchism as written by anarchist historians such as George Woodcock, Max Nettlau and Daniel Guerin. It is also not present within the main classical theorists of anarchism such as Proudhon, Stirner, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Malatesta, Tucker, etc. If these concepts have been applied to anarchism, they nevertheless do not belong to the anarchist tradition and so they don´t deserve a mention in this introduction. But even if we were to aplly the concepts of "negative liberty" social anarchism is also obviously an anti-state position and so it could also be said to be a negative liberty position in a way since it want liberty FROM the centralized nation state. And so for example the catalan anarchists during the Spanish Civil War tried to end connection with the Spanish Republican State after they took over Barcelona and adjecent areas. The Ukranian anarchist did the same in respect to the crumbling Tsarist Russian State and also rejected the Bolchevik Soviet state. And so at most these concepts become problematic in a context for which they were not designed.

2. Byelf2007 Deleted from the introduction this very importance parragraph "Anarchism as a social movement has regularly endured fluctuations in popularity. The central tendency of anarchism as a mass social movement has been represented by anarcho-communism and anarcho-syndicalism, with individualist anarchism being primarily a literary phenomenon[25] which nevertheless did have an impact on the bigger currents[26] and individualists also participated in large anarchist organizations.[27][28] Most anarchists oppose all forms of aggression, supporting self-defense or non-violence (anarcho-pacifism),[29][30] while others have supported the use of some coercive measures, including violent revolution and propaganda of the deed, on the path to an anarchist society.[31]

I didn't delete it--I moved it to overview. Byelf2007 (talk) 13 February 2012

I don´t want to guess why he did that. My point here is that this paragraph that User:Byelf2007 deleted shows anarchism has reached at some points mass movement status and even big anarchist militias and continues in some form or other to be an activist and radical direct action and organized movement. Anarchism cannot be reduced as a mere literary philosophical phenomenon as his proposed version of an introduction does.

3. As can be seen in this talk section of this article and in previous editions of this article (and not just because of my opposition), user Byelf2007 never got a consensus for his proposal for an "Overview" section. Nevertheless he continues to insist on this.

You didn't get consensus for your recent edits either (which taken together, amount to a big change), so what's the rub? Did you really object to every edit I made, or just some of them? Personally, I don't care about your editing without consensus because I'm a "be bold" editor, so I'm fine with other people doing this, as I can always revert if I have a problem with changes (I usually don't, and didn't with respect to your recent edits).
Furthermore, I already said I wouldn't do any more big edits without your permission, so I'm not sure how your point-3 comments are constructive. Byelf2007 (talk) 13 February 2012

4. On the inclusion of specific sections for the classical schools of thought of anarcho-communism, collectivist anarchism and anarcho-syndicalism, he seemed to agree with me and so I only made small changes to those parts.

first sentence should define topic, not argue about word definitions

A better first sentence would be "Anarchism advocates stateless societies based on non-hierarchical free associations." I made this edit but it was reverted. The current first three sentences weasel around a couple of different definitions of the word leaving the article without a topic. It's ok to argue about defining a word but without defining a topic in the first sentence you don't have an article. Bhny (talk) 23:43, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

since there was no objection, I fixed it again Bhny (talk) 20:06, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Since i have been too busy living i didn´t have the time to come around here but like i said in my reversion of your edit we can´t begin the definition of anarchism this way since etymologically anarchism means to negate rule. Non-hierarchical relations are an implication of this first sense and so it will have to go second. As it stands now the article begins in a very strange form and i have never seen a definition of anarchism beginning in the form you propose. I have to ask you to bring outside support for your proposal. But also in your proposal you are not even saying what anarchism is. The previous versions started with the obvious statement establishing anarchism is a political philosophy. I think your proposal is highly defective because of these things and i also hope we can avoid an edit war.--Eduen (talk) 02:24, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. It now says political philosophy in the first sentence. What I'm aiming for in the first paragraph is a structure like <topic> = <general definition>. <most common variation>. <next most common variation>. Previously the general definition seemed to come last which made it difficult to read. Bhny (talk) 16:46, 6 July 2013 (UTC)


User Knight of BAAWA says that "t *HAS BEEN* discussed on the talk page MANY MANY TIMES. The decision reached years ago was to not kick ideas out of the tree." We can very well ask him to show us where that "consensus" was reached.

Since we live in the now and not in the yesterday we can also decide to not include the Bizzarely titled radical neoliberal (and as such non anarchist) philosophy which a US economist decided to call it "anarcho-capitalism". I also remind everyone interested that there also exists another "innovative" union of disparate political positions called "national anarchism" which tries to mix anarchism with fascism. "national anarchism" has been left out of this article and as such we can also decide to leave out "anarchocapitalism". The article on anarchism on the Encyclopedia Brittanica does not mention at all "anarcho" capitalism for example just as the wikipedia article on christianity does not mention small highly controversial sects like Pelagianism, Donatism, Marcionism, Montanism or something more recent such as Christian Science. But while the Christianity article does not metion Donatism at all, wikipedia nevertheless keeps the donatism article. As such we can also decide something similar with "anarcho" capitalism. In this case to not mention it in this article will be clearly justified due to the exclusion of "anarcho" capitalism from most important sources on anarchism in the english language. Nevertheless that does not mean asking for the deletion of the "anarcho-capitalism" article from wikipedia and a good reason for that is that "anarcho-capitalism" as a political position is clearly more logical as a form of, and is clearly both historically and philosophically related with, economic liberalism. Hopefully this dialogue can help us avoid the edit war which has been going on in this article.--Eduen (talk) 15:28, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Ah yes, we can see that Eduen would not edit in good faith. Look: you can hate your misconception of what capitalism is all you like. You can try to strawman anarchocapitalism all you like. You can erroneously believe the equivalent that only roman catholocism is christianity, as it came first (fallacy of antiquity). You can do whatever you want, but you will not be allowed to marginalize something just because you hate it and want to use one source as your justification. In fact, if I were to put your stance into my terms, I think we should eliminate all other "anarchist" positions, since clearly only capitalists can be anarchists (notice how I'm mocking your use of scarce-quotes), as all others are oxymorons. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 22:45, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
The sources, history and logic will not support you on that but you are free to think that if you like. Your are free to try to sell things like Bill Gates or the Mexican drug cartels as anarchy in practice if you don´t mind the laughs. In fact pelagianism and monatism seem to be small discussions over christian doctrines while "anarcho" capitalism is similar to proposing a politheistic christianity or satanic christianity.--Eduen (talk) 16:46, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Once again: fallacy of antiquity. Just because something is older or was such a thing for years doesn't means it is the only way. Please stop committing fallacies. And you are free to peddle your hatred of anarchocapitalism in the same places that Chuck Munson (he of Infoshop fame) is now (he pretty much took his ball and went home when he wasn't allowed to vandalize this page by removing anarchocapitalism), but please don't think that you can get away with marginalizing it just because you hate it. Won't work. And seriously: do you think anything other than anarchocapitalism is actually anarchism? Really? "Anarcho"-communism? Nope. Collectivists cannot be anarchists. Nor syndicalists. Nor socialists. Nor any of the other so-called claimants. They are all oxymorons, for they all require a state. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 0:16, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
You should yourself stop. This is the name of a social and political movement, not a truth proposition. To say that a name for a movement is fallacious is to lack a basic understanding of logic, which doesn't at all speak about the supposed 'proper' way of naming things. It would be like complaining that other planets can be called Earth if they have earth in them, and that it's illogical and commits the fallacy of antiquity to want to call only this particular planet Earth. What you've argued shows a complete misunderstanding of what the other people here are arguing, and a huge misunderstanding of the proper application of logic. — Olathe (talk) 11:17, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't think you comprehended what I wrote, nor the reason for it. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 12:20, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Since no sources in the article support the claim that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism, it should be removed. TFD (talk) 17:24, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Actually, they do. You should try reading them. -Knight of BAAWA (talk) 23:16, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Knight of BAAWA againts history and logic. For your case i could suggest you to be less absurd. Stating your opinions and whims does not help your purposes. I feel ready to hear from this user that Bakunin was not an anarchist and that Murray Rothbard invented anarchism.--Eduen (talk) 23:40, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Again, Eduen trots out the fallacy from antiquity. When will you stop using that? And when will you stop thinking that anything other than anarchocapitalism is actually anarchism? All the rest are oxymorons (notice how I'm using that trite crap against you, just as Chuck Munson and others (including yourself) have tried to use it). This is what you get when you use scarce-quotes, Eduen (which also shows that you refuse to edit in good faith for this idea). Look: most of your edits are great; they expand the article and provide more information. But you simply will not be allowed push your narrow POV just because you have some misunderstanding of what capitalism is, and that you want to add more to anarchism than there really is (that it must be anticapitalist, when in fact it is simply only anti-state), just like the people who want to claim that atheism is communism or anti-theism, or that it must entail worship of Charles Darwin. It's really that bad, Eduen. I expect better from you, given the edits you make otherwise. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 04:21, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Knight of BAAWA, I read the sources and they do not support your position. I will therefore remove the text - please do not restore without reliable sources. TFD (talk) 04:30, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
They do support my position. You clearly did not read them. Once again: you oxymoron anti-capitalist anarchists will not be allowed to remove anarchocapitalism because of your misunderstanding of what capitalism is. Nor will you be allowed to not be truthful about the sources and get away with it. Won't happen. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 12:21, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
I have read them and am unable to find anything that says anarcho-capitalism is anarchism. I would be appreciative if you could point me to which of the sources makes that claim. I do not think that any special knowledge of capitalism is necessary in order to determine whether or not the sources make that specific claim. TFD (talk) 05:39, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Should we take a vote.?--Eduen (talk) 01:40, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Since no evidence has been presented to include it, I vote to exclude. TFD (talk) 01:53, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Of course i also vote to exclude "anarcho" capitalism from this article.--Eduen (talk) 01:56, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a democracy. Go by the citations alone. Voting is used in wikipedia only as a polling device to determine the position of an editor at a glance. Do not misuse an unnecessary voting process. Your goals as objective editors should be to seek out proper citation for or against your positions, and include your findings without bias. Please continue this discussion and your investigation into the sources without resorting to invalid processes.--Cast (talk) 03:31, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
"Despite anarcho-socialists' denials, anarcho-capitalism has 19th-century antecedents. The most clear-cut example is Belgian economist Gustave de Molinari, whose controversial 1849 article 'The Production of Security,' forcefully argued 'that no government should have the right to prevent another government from going into competition withit, or to require consumers of security to come exclusively to it for this commodity.' Individualist anarchists, especially Lysander Spooner and Benjamin Tucker, likewise maintained that the free market could and should take over functions of the nightwatchman state. Spooner and Tucker held stereotypically socialist economic theories about interest, rent, and wages, but insisted that laissez-faire was the solution for these supposed evils, not their caust. It was primarily Murray Rothbard and David Friedman, however, who rescued anarcho-capitalism from modern obscurity. In their respective 1973 classics _For A New Liberty_ and _The Machinery of Freedom_, they laid the groundwork for modern anarcho-capitalist literature" - from the Ronald Hamowy reference in the article, page 10. Do please learn to read the references, and not lie about them TFD. And we anarchists do not vote, right? RIGHT? That is what the statists do, silly statists. So you are clearly hypocrites for wanting to vote. Further, statists (socialists) wanting to vote to remove something non-statist is quite par for the course. So please---do continue to demonstrate that neither of you edit in good faith, and that you are, in point of fact, statists. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 23:50, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Accusing other editors of lying is a personal attack. No one questions whether individualist anarchism had an influence on anarcho-capitalism, the issue is whether anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism. The sources provided in the article do not support the statement that it is. If I am wrong, then please show me where they say this. TFD (talk) 17:21, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
It's not a personal attack because you claimed to have read the sources, said they do not support my position, and then I show you with a quote from a source that they do. It's just like if someone claimed to have read Marx and got everything wrong, and then someone said the person was lying for saying the person read Marx: there's no personal attack involved. I'll humor you one more time, though, only because I take pity upon you. Have a read of The Blackwell Dictionary of Modern Social Thought, page 13, left column. You can find a link to the text if you search for it in Google. And I know you can search, as your fingers aren't broken. If they were you wouldn't have been able to type all these responses. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 23:02, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Well. Knight of BAAWA has just called me and user TFD statists and liars. We already discussed a long time ago with this same user that anarchism cannot be defined as "anti-state" but as "anti-hierarchy". And so this is why "anarcho" capitalism cannot be taken seriously as anarchism since it mistakes anarchy as the non-existence of the state while the non-existence of the state can very well go alongside the existence of highly authoritarian structures at some cases even more authoritarian than states such as multinational corporations and private or ideological or religious militias who do not answer to communities but only submit them. As far as the liberal economist Gustav de Molinari, he never called himself an anarchist and he is never mentioned within the main general historical works on anarchism and as obscure an intellectual as he is he is mostly reported within the field of economic liberalism when he is mentioned as such by prominent british historian Eric Hobsbawm, not within anarchism. If an anarchist like Benjamin Tucker coincides in one thing with the liberal economist de Molinari Tucker can also be said to coincide with fascists in anti-parliamentarism and with maoists in adherence to the labour theory of value. ¿does that make Tucker both fascist and maoist? Clearly not. ¿Does that make maoism, fascism and "anarcho" capitalism instantly forms of anarchism? clearly not either.--Eduen (talk) 01:23, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Hey, when you decide to stop using scarce quotes, I'll stop mocking you for it with what I'm doing. Fair's fair, after all. Don't like it? Don't use scarce quotes! They show that you're not editing in good faith anyway. Further, anarchism is only anti-state, despite your claim to the contrary. To claim otherwise is like the claim that atheism entails communism. And to claim otherwise is to demand to not be taken seriously, for it would then mean that no anarchist could, for instance, watch the World Cup, since FIFA is a (gasp) HEIRARCHY! After all: there are officials and those who create the rules, which necessarily means a heirarchy (players must follow what the officials rule, for example). And I know many anarchists do love the World Cup. So clearly: anarchists like heirarchies (at least when it suits some of them, right, all soccer-loving anarchists?). - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 02:31, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Well. I have never heard anyone calling football rules a form of anarchy and anyone can decide to play football if they want without caring whether the FIFA accepts that or not. Association football existed way before the FIFA decided to establish itself. These are clearly not very good analogies and arguments that you are provinding here.--Eduen (talk) 08:47, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Of course it's not anarchy. But some anarchists like the World Cup. Which means they like HEIRARCHIES! SHOCKHORRORSHOCK! So it is a perfect analogy. Plus, even in association soccer there are still officials, i.e. a heirarchy. And I still don't understand how it is you want to complain about me supposedly lying about you and TFD when you do it to myself and all other anarchocapitalists when you use scarce quotes, thereby claiming that we are lying when we say we are anarchists. It does not foster good will for editing, Eduen. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 12:12, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Input from an ATF member perspective

The Anarchist Task Force was created some years ago to promote interanarchist cooperation in editing wikpedia. In recent years, the task force has come into disuse, but it's basic objective remains important, and I would encourage each of the editors involved in this discussion to recall its early principals. Even if a particular aspect of anarchist philosophy is seen as not being part of anarchism by an individual, or an entire sector of anarchists, the disputed branch must remain valuable in reference to anarchism by it's impact. For this reason, anarcho-capitalism remains an important part of this article if only for it's relationship to contemporary anarchist thought and history. The very nature of this controversy is proof that each of you are aware of this. I encourage the inclusion of information and appropriate citation for that point. The article should reflect at least that, if nothing else. --Cast (talk) 03:31, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I am not aware of the ATF - please provide a link. I have no idea why my replying to this discussion thread is proof I am aware of it. In any case, the issue right now is not whether anarcho-capitalism, but whether there are sources to support that. TFD (talk) 03:50, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
The task force can be reached via the shortcut WP:ATF, and I would encourage reading an essay composed by myself and a fellow founding member of the task force during a previous edit war over the inclusion of anarcho-capitalism in this article. Solidarity Among Rogues? (WP:solidarity) was written to promote cooperation among editors of anarchist related articles, and to clarify the position the task force would take in disputed aspects of anarchist philosophy. Of particular interest would be this point: "The Task Force also seeks to uphold Wikipedia's larger goal of objectivity. It is not our business as an encyclopaedia to engage in these disputes, only to chronicle them veraciously. We do so by adopting a neutral point of view and not misrepresenting opinions as fact. This Task Force has no business saying such and such an anarchist philosophy is not truly anarchist, though it can and should report on notable opinions to that effect (cf. "The status of anarchist communism within anarchism is disputed, because most individualist anarchists consider communitarianism incompatible with political freedom"; "Because of the historically anti-capitalist nature of much of anarchist thought, the status of anarcho-capitalism within anarchism is disputed, particularly by communist anarchists."), where they are supported by reliable sources. For further guidance on this, please consult the Wikipedia:Anarchism referencing guidelines." Further, I would point out that this entire discussion is on the merits of anarcho-capitalism's status as an anarchist branch, but misses the point of the disputed paragraphs. The paragraphs objectively note, across multiple citations, what anarcho-capitalism is as understood by definition, and then prominently included citations of its disputed status by various anarchists, and this is of value to researchers interested in the perspective held by non-anarcho-capitalists of an-cap, and is thus included. If the current discussion is whether anarcho-capitalism is anarchist, that war is already over. The citations are included and we can end the discussion now. The attempt to delete these citations in order to expunge reference to anarcho-capitalism from this page does nothing to further the assertion that it is not anarchist. Finally, I am surprised you do not follow my reference to your understanding anarcho-capitalism's relevance as a controversial aspect of anarchist thought. You are engaging myself and others in this dispute on this discussion. The dispute is cited in the disputed paragraph's citations. How are you not aware of the notability of the dispute?--Cast (talk) 04:26, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. My main point was that the sources used do not support the text in the article. Could you please check them. My understanding from what I have read, and I am not an expert, is that individualist anarchism was an influence on anarcho-capitalism, but it is not generally considered to be anarchism. Here is a link to a section on anarcho-capitalism in The Routledge Companion to Social and Political Philosophy. Do you think it reflects what we should be saying in the article? TFD (talk) 05:18, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for providing this resource. I think it may be useful as a building block. It's a singular source, but it's not necessary for us to tally citations and provide many for a single point. We only need the citations to be usefully verifiable. As it is, that section of the linked book covers both a description and early history of an-cap in its first three paragraphs, and conveys a rejection of it by socialist anarchists in the fourth paragraph. This would be a very useful citation for multiple points of importance that may satisfy readers. Good find. I want to stress again that this article would not be improved for the rejection of this information, so I would be glad to include it. A reader will at some point wish to know what the relationship between the larger house of anarchism and the smaller house of anarcho-capitalism is, and a link to the main article on this point is useful. Beyond a "see also" section entry, a short sub-section summary can be afforded as it exists now, with a link to the Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism article, so that this article needn't be bogged down in these details?--Cast (talk) 03:30, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Anyone can check my interventions in anarchist related articles in wikipedia and that person will see that i have been editing those articles in a continous form since more than 3 years ago. In all of that time the Anarchist Task Force has been completely a non acting entity as far as my experience. Discussions occur in the talk sections of the specific article and as far as my option i prefer them to occur there for transparency and for that reason i hardly use even my wikipedia User page at all. For this reason i am very surprised to hear an argument here for abiding to an agreement reached by something that died out a long time ago created by users who seems don´t even participate in editing wikipedia anymore and also i am not suprised at all that user TFD didn´t even know that such thing existed. Even the idea of an "anarchist task force" within an enciclopedia seems strange to me since here we are not writing panphlets or ideological presentations of "our" positions between "Rogues?" 'but something that tries to be as objective as possible as as such whether one is an anarchist or not is something that doesn´t matter. If i have the sources i can well go edit the Fascism or the nazism articles and have those articles keep the changes i made even though i personally despise those things and even though a nazi or fascist editor or the fascist or nazi "task force" might object to them.--Eduen (talk) 10:42, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

The ATF has been somewhat inactive for a time, though some of it's members continue their own activity. An entity such as this is only as useful as its members keep it. That hardly matters. What matters is that while it was more active, it was founded on these principals, in pursuit of these goals. If you didn't like it, you didn't have to join it. Or perhaps, since you're a member, you could encourage new membership to further stimulate the task force, rather than ignoring it. It's there for you, as much as everyone else. Use it. As for your point on the matter of objectivity -- I'm glad we agree. That's my point as well. Continue to edit the article from a perspective of objectivity, as opposed to your own biases in favor or in opposition to an element of anarchist philosophy or history. Please do not initiate a voting process again. --Cast (talk) 03:18, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
I heard once about the ATF but it never did anything. The anarchism articles are also edited by non-anarchists and that is how things should be done in an encyclopedia. Your suggestion to take into consideration what the ATF did should be taken as that. As a suggestion only since there is nothing really as far as my knowledge goes within wikipedia policy that tells us to follow something agreed in such a thing, in this case some sort of club of wikipedia anarchist editors. As far as the "anarchism" article of english wikipedia what goes should be what is agreed in this talk space at this present time in the space designed specifically for that and not something agreed a long time ago by a non functioning entity. Sources mostly ignore anarchocapitalism and the few anarchist sources that deal with it deny that it is a part of anarchism and instead say it is a part of right wing neoliberal economics. Go check in the history of this article and it is only with this thing that there has been a problem as far as whether it belongs at all within anarchism. And this is not the only fringe view that exists but there is also something that tries to mix anarchism and fascism and that simply is not mentioned here either so that is why i suggested that perhaps we should do the same with the highly problematic idea that anarchism and capitalism can be mixed.--Eduen (talk) 08:34, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Again, a Wikiproject, or a task force of a Wikiproject, is only what you make of it. You joined the task force and than proceeded to not participate in it. Now I'm not here to justify the task force's existence with a bullet point list of things it accomplished. If it accomplished anything, it was in the behavior it cultivated in its members at the time. Again, such an entity is only what you make of it. One thing it did try to accomplish was to promote civility and cooperation among its members, in keeping with Wikipedia policy. This was why the "Rogues" Wikipedia essay was written as an affirmation of existing policy which at times goes unappreciated. You may reject it as mere suggestion, but it was written with WP:MEANING. The essay references several policies, including WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and then explaining how these impact our common inter-anarchist philosophy debates as they pertain to Wikipedia. It also references several other essays on civility, including WP:WINNING, and though it doesn't include a link to it, I think I should have added WP:COOL. If nothing else, I certainly wanted to channel WP:COOL. The essay further notes that members of the anarchist task force are encouraged to work with fellow anarchists and non-anarchists in editing anarchist philosophy pages, so your mentioning this point is redundant. It was an essay written for everyone to consider, but specifically for editors in the midst of heated, sectarian debate to be reminded of. You may choose to disregard the essay in favor of the consensus reached on this talk page, but that assumes a consensus is being reached. I don't see that happening. I don't see enough outside participation in this discussion, which I can see is devolving into a petty argument in a response cascade above this one. A request for outside perspectives may be necessary soon, if not already. I think the tone of this entire discussion between yourself and Knight of BAAWA needs to be shifted before this article can benefit from any talk page consensus is reached. With that in mind, I urge you both to reconsider the original sentiments and "suggestions" within the essay. And on that note, I would just shift to your point on the inclusion of "fringe" perspective-- which feels forced, since all of anarchism is fringe. (We're not a major force in the world, after all.) Anarcho-capitalism is not a major force within some anarchist circles, but its history and publications, and the response to it, is well known and notable. The "national anarchist" current you refer to is less than a decade old, has a very minor publication history, and no history of participation in historical events or impact on political thinking, as anarcho-capitalism does. Those are not adequate comparisons. However, while it may not be necessary for this article to link directly to the article on national anarchism, it can include a link to Anarchism and nationalism in its "internal issues and debates" section. Perhaps you'd also like to see anarcho-capitalism moved to that "internal issues" section?--Cast (talk) 17:21, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
At some point when i first started to edit wikipedia i might have found some interest in placing my name in the ATF which can be very well seen as just a momentary action. All of that time i never saw it do anything and i guess i just decided to dedicate myself on other things besides giving that thing "life". I clarify here that any agreements with you i will reach in talk sections of articles and not anywhere else.--Eduen (talk) 04:27, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

"anarchocapitalism" vs. "national anarchism"

"And on that note, I would just shift to your point on the inclusion of "fringe" perspective-- which feels forced, since all of anarchism is fringe. (We're not a major force in the world, after all.)"

I don´t see the relevance of the being "fringe" of anarchism within the world in this discussion. We are dealing here with anarchism and its history which goes around 200 years and in 5 continents and not with the "world" which i guess is as old as the existence of planet earth. If we wanted to examine the being fringe not just of anarchism but of any other political ideology indeed all of human political discussion will have to be seen as a "fringe" phenomenon.

"The "national anarchist" current you refer to is less than a decade old, has a very minor publication history, and no history of participation in historical events or impact on political thinking, as anarcho-capitalism does. Those are not adequate comparisons."

I cannot claim a highly deep knowledge on "anarchocapitalism" but as far as "historical events" i really don´t see where that thing has had an impact in society that you claim it has had besides the discussion of a few right wing economists and neoliberal internet forums in the US. At least from what i read in the wikipedia article on it it seems like something that has not gone beyond some books and those previously mentioned internet forums and discussions of a few US right wing economists. Since you are making claims relevant to the discussion i can only ask you to support this affirmation that anarcho-capitalism had or has "participation in historical events". As i read the wikipedia article on the main proponent of "national anarchism" Troy Southgate it shows he is also a published author, he has had "Academic coverage" (as it literaly says in that article) just as the main proponent of "anarchocapitalism" Murray Rothbard and unlike Rothbard Southgate has recorded rock music also among his works so that might make him a little more famous than Rothbarth from what we can evaluate since Southgate must have reached not only some readers of books like Rothbard but also some fans of punk rock. So here you are asking us to not consider "anarcho-capitalism" and "national anarchism" as equal in importance. And so you say that "Those are not adequate comparisons." Please tell us why?--Eduen (talk) 03:58, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Since I have not received any response on this then we might need to start dealing with "anarcho-capitalism" and "national anarchism" equally within this article.--Eduen (talk) 20:08, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

No, we do not. You will not be allowed to vandalize the page just because you hate whatever misunderstanding of capitalism you have. Please do NOT push your POV. That is against Wikipedia policy. You have been told about this many times, Eduen. You make wonderful edits otherwise, but your hatred of whatever misunderstanding of capitalism you have means that you do not edit that section in good faith, and that you are just pushing your strange POV. It wasn't allowed for Chuck Munson, and it won't be allowed for you. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 12:32, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
For whatever it is worth, many anarchists don't consider anarcho-capitalism a valid subsetion of anarchism so Eduen's removal of the material isn't exactly vandalism. The An Anarchist FAQ says "While modern social anarchists follow Kropotkin in not denying Proudhon or Tucker as anarchists, we do deny the anarchist title to supporters of capitalism. Why? Simply because anarchism as a political movement (as opposed to a dictionary definition) has always been anti-capitalist and against capitalist wage slavery, exploitation and oppression."[2] From the Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism article Jeremy Jennings states that it is "hard not to conclude that these ideas [anarcho-capitalism] – with roots deep in classical liberalism – are described as anarchist only on the basis of a misunderstanding of what anarchism is."(Anarchism", Contemporary Political Ideologies, Roger Eatwell and Anthony Wright (eds.), p. 142) The article further notes that in response to the contention that anarcho-capitalists descend from individual anarchists of the early to mid twentieth century "Anti-capitalist anarchists tend to reject such claims, noting that many of the individualist anarchists called themselves socialists, and that all had a vision of a free society at odds with what they called capitalism." (Peter Marshall, Demanding the Impossible; John Clark, The Anarchist Moment; David Weick, Anarchist Justice; Peter Sabatini, Libertarianism: Bogus Anarchy)
In my opinion stating that he has a "misunderstanding of capitalism" because he is anti-capitalist is extremely arrogant. You have said that quite a few times in the course of this discussion. Are you honestly saying that anyone who disagrees with capitalism must be doing so from a lack of "true" understanding of the economic system and that anyone who truly understands capitalism would support it? Are you really blind to your own POV pushing with statements like that? Anarcham (talk) 13:05, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Knight of BAAWA check the wikipedia "capitalism" article and you will get this section "Capitalism#Wage_labor_and_class_structure". Obvious form of hierarchy. But anyway it seems you need to read this whole article and in the definition you get "Central elements of capitalism include capital accumulation, competitive markets and wage labor". You can have a market situation without wage labour and so you have something that proudhonian mutualism will defend. On the other hand when you get the element of wage labour you start to get capitalism and of course hierarchy, which is what anarchists oppose. Anyway please tell us your definition of capitalism. Hopefully it won´t be too much YOUR definition.--Eduen (talk) 15:38, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure whether the admonition to read the whole article was ironic, but it would seem that Eduen has not fully read the article on proudhonian mutualism in which some editors have been kind enough to include a section on criticisms. Not everyone accepted Proudhon's position. Also the request for Knight of BAAWA to debate his definition of capitalism on this page is clearly inappropriate. As far as I can see, there is every reason to cover anarcho-capitalism on this page, whether or not it is acceptable to the leaders of the anarchist movement: WIkipedia is not the place to reproduce their POV, but rather were those of us who use the internet can discover the variety of ways people have chosen to present anarchism to the world.Leutha (talk) 21:38, 20 August 2013 (UTC)