Template talk:Anarchism sidebar/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Closed discussion on "Real Poll" and implemented results

With the "Real poll" being open for a week (that poll is now archived), I went ahead and implemented the white design based on the consensus that had developed. As most were indifferent to the border and actual border-related opinions balanced out equally (one for, one against), I took a touch of artistic license and went ahead and added it.

I also archived the talk page again, since it was getting so long that it was becoming unwieldy. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for archiving the page. It was getting rather unwieldy. But we aren't ready to update the contents of the template yet; just the color scheme. Aelffin 00:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


Ok, so there is some disagreement over where to place this. It looks like Sarge and myself want it in the "Anarchism Today" section, while some others feel it should go in the offshoots. I think we need to come to a consensus on this issue, so this is the place to discuss it. Anyone have any thoughts? The Ungovernable Force 18:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree; this needs to be hashed out. As does the anarcho-capitalism issue. I think the new content is an improvement over the current template in that it makes a compromise on ancap (no disclaimer/no association), and it includes a few new hot topics in contemporary anarchism. I think there are two proper ways to go about organizing this information: Historical/Sociological or Theoretical/Philosophical. The first would organize based on which movements evolved from which while the second would organize based on the conceptual similarities between the different categories. --Aelffin 19:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Primitivism should go with *Capitalism (imho) - FrancisTyers · 19:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


Vision Thing said:

Anarcho-capitalism can't be in the "Offshoots" section since more than enough scholars say that it's a form of anarchism and those who deny that it also deny that it came from anarchist tradition - so who actually claims that AC is an offshoot of anarchism? Further, why is anarcho-primitivism in that section? Judging by its article, nobody is denying that it's a form of anarchism. Section "Historical approaches" also looks like an OR to me. What the "historical approaches" should mean? As for associated concepts, they are too numerous to be in a template. They might be added in "Relevant lists" in form of a special article. -- Vision Thing -- 20:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Those who deny that anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism do not necessarily deny that it was inspired by anarchism or came from anarchist tradition; moreover, hardly more than enough scholars say that it is a form of anarchism. It has also not been shown that anarcho-capitalism exists outside of the Internet. There are anarcho-capitalists, of course, but do they ever take their philosophy from their web sites and blogs and do something with it? How has anarcho-capitalism affected history? How has it changed politics? How has it changed philosophy? Perhaps the solution is to not have any divisions and simply list everything either chronologically or alphabetically, but I doubt it. --AaronS 01:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on verifiability, can someone provide sources that anarcho-capitalism is an offshoot (defined as "a natural consequence of development") of anarchism and at the same time not a form of anarchism? As for sources for claim that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism, I can provide a dozen of them. Further, anarcho-capitalism is an individualist philosophy and individualists, in general, are not very eager to join a mass-movements or organizations. Their self-reliance and independence from collective are characteristics that make them individualists. Idea that someone needs to be a party member to be taken into consideration is a collectivist bias. -- Vision Thing -- 11:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Quick question...if 99% of "verifiable" sources say that anarchism is chaos and destruction, then is that correct--should it be represented that way on Wikipedia? --Aelffin 12:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
If 99% of sources would say that anarchism is chaos and destruction than the article about Anarchism would need to be about chaos and destruction, and Anarchism (philosophy) about political philosophy.-- Vision Thing -- 20:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes! And that's exactly the way we should handle this debate. By splitting the page. Anarchism (movement) would be about the current movement on the streets which has its roots in 19th century social anarchism and Anarchism (philosophy) would be about all of the different philosophies that are related to anarchism. Aelffin 21:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Then we would have two banners? -- Vision Thing -- 19:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
It would be better to talk about movements which have a name, like Provo. Socialism in itself is not a political movement, neither is anarchism. This would also clean up the Category:Political movements. Intangible 21:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm really confused. First---anarchism has a name, it's called anarchism. Socialism is called socialism. Second---you clearly have a different definition of "movement" from mine. In my understanding (and everywhere else I've seen), both socialism and anarchism are political movements, philosophical movements, and social movements. I doubt you could find many sources that contradict this. Anarchism is also a minor cultural movement and socialism is a major cultural movement. Each consists of a large number of sub-movements, both internal and offshoots and each is a member of a number of larger movements, including libertarianism and Enlightenment philosophy. Even just looking on Wikipedia, we can see...
  • Political movement says: "Classic examples include abolitionism, anarchism, the women's suffrage, the Labour movement, universal suffrage movements and anticolonialist movements."
  • Social movement says: "Social movements are a type of group action. They are large informal groupings of individuals and/or organizations focused on specific political or social issues, in other words, on carrying out, resisting or undoing a social change."
  • Philosophical movement says: "What makes a movement identifiable and interesting as distinct from a specific theory is simply that a movement consists in a large flourishing of intellectual work on one or more ideas, in a fairly specifiable time and place."
  • Cultural movement says: "A cultural movement is a change in the way a number of different disciplines approach their work."
Aelffin 16:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
This is just an abstraction made in those articles. If you look at Wikiquote:Definitions of anarchism, you see that basically call it a doctrine. Abstractions are not really helpful when dealing with categories. I could even call conservatism or liberalism a political movement with some imagination, this does not help the category hierarchy. Intangible 17:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm still lost. None of the definitions on that page contradict my statement, and three of them explicitly label anarchism as a movement...I'm baffled by your reluctance to call anarchism and socialism movements. I really am. Just read the page you posted----
  • MS Encarta Encyclopedia (UK version by Carl Levy):[1] "...political concept and social movement that advocates the abolition of any form of State, which is regarded as coercive, and its replacement with voluntary organization"
  • The Ism Book (extended def):[2] "In popular usage, the term is often colored by the sometimes-violent anarchist political movement that was especially active in the years around 1900."
  • L. Susan Brown"While the popular understanding of anarchism is of a violent, anti-State movement, anarchism is a much more subtle and nuanced tradition then a simple opposition to government power."
Of course liberalism and conservatism are movements...in all of the senses above. This is trivial and universal. I can't believe you're arguing this, Intangible. If the definitions I've given are not enough, then tell me what is your definition of "movement"? Just tell me what you mean, because what you're saying is extremely confusing. Aelffin 17:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
There were of course more definitions at that page...Anyways, for me, for something to be a political movement, there needs to be a historic naming (such as "Provo") that separates people from other people. Although you probably would claim that anarchism would create such a separation, I beg to differ, there are certainly anarchists who have not been part of a movement. Come to mind, most individualist anarchists were certainly not, since they did not take part in any collective activism. Intangible 23:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
And, of course all of those other definitions fall well within the boundaries of one or more of the definitions of "movement" that I supplied several posts ago. Taking part in collective action (according to the Wikipedia article) is part of the definition of a social movement. At least some individualists were certainly part of the anarchist social movement. However, all individualists were part of the anarchist philosophical movement because they interacted with and based their theories on one another. While anarcho-capitalism certainly is a philisophical movement in its own right, but I have yet to see any evidence that it is actually based on the traditional anarchist philosophical movement. It certainly is not part of the current or historical anarchist social movement, nor the current anarchist cultural movement. Aelffin 13:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Where did anyone say "party member" ? - FrancisTyers · 12:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
But, Vision Thing, there are individualists who decidedly have changed philosophy, and who have become internationally known as a result of their application of their philosophy to their life, work, or legacy. Henry David Thoreau, who wrote "the book" on self-reliance, comes to mind; his tax revolt and experiment on Walden Pond are well-known, at least in the United States. From my understanding, individualists are not individualists because they don't like other people or don't like cooperating with others; they're individualists, because they do not want to be forced to do so, and would like to have a choice in the matter. In this regard, individualists and collectivists agree, which is why the individualist-collectivist dichotomy very poorly describes anarchism. All anarchist philosophies are individualist; even the most "collectivist" forms have as their pinnacle goal the complete liberation of the individual. Even Marxism -- the paradigm of collectivism -- has this as its final goal. So, I think that it's a lame excuse to say that anarcho-capitalism is not prevelant in the real world simply because it's an individualist philosophy.
You're correct that "offshoot" probably is not the proper term. But anarcho-capitalism is not yet a movement, never has been a movement, and its influence has been mainly restricted to the Internet, Wikipedia included. And when I say "movement," I do not simply mean social movement; I also mean philosophical and political movement. How has anarcho-capitalism changed philosophy? Politics? Society? It is a socio-political philosophy. It must be measured on socio-politico-philosophical grounds.
As for its relation to anarchism, it was inspired by anarchism. But anarchists, for the most part, have wholeheartedly rejected it. Consider this (probably very poor) analogy: pretend that the Protestant Reformation is occurring now. Up until this point, the only deal in town for Christianity was Catholicism. Martin Luther posts his theses on the door, and it causes a stir. Protestantism, however, has not yet swept the world; it has, for the most part, yet to leave that door. It is confined to a few circles, and the vast majority of Christians reject it as against their beliefs. If this were happening now, it would be unencyclopaedic for Wikipedia to give undue weight to Martin Luther's theses. Wikipedia would then be acting as a soapbox for Protestantism. Now, this of course is not how the Reformation occurred, and anarchism is not a religion, but I believe that the analogy provides some sense of where some of us, who are trying to be neutral, are coming from. --AaronS 12:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
You are right about individualist-collectivist dichotomy. However, as for influence of anarcho-capitalism on philosophy, politics and society, it seems that you don't apply the same criteria on anarcho-capitalism as on other recent anarchist movements. What is the influence of green anarchism or post-left anarchy on today's world? -- Vision Thing -- 20:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I have never argued that these should be placed prominently in any article on anarchism. --AaronS 17:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
This is template talk, right? I don't see that anybody is contesting place of green and post-left anarchism in "Anarchism today" section. -- Vision Thing -- 18:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
To the anarchists: While I agree that it's obvious that ancaps are not anarchists, I have to point out the fact that we--myself included--have not done our homework here. Vision Thing is acting in good faith, citing sources, doing the footwork. We need to do the same. Vision's sources may be totally naive on the subject of anarchism, but I have seen almost no sources at all from the anarchists here. Come on, we can do better than that. Sure, encyclopedias and dictionaries are always inaccurate about anarchism, but there are anarchist books out there and some of them must have dealt with the issue of anarcho-capitalism. Furthermore, there have been plenty of anarchist periodicals over the years, and these are probably more representative of the movement as a whole. Doesn't somebody have some back issues of Northeastern Anarchist laying around? If we can't resolve this through citing sources, I see no alternative but to split the page into Anarchism (movement) and anarchism (philosophy), keeping traditional anarchism in the first, and all the new upstarts in the second.
To the ancaps: Look, the confusion is understandable. It's called anarcho-capitalism, its ostensibly anti-government, even encyclopedias describe it as a type of anarchism. So why shouldn't it be called a type of anarchism on Wikipedia? Good question. Look at it from our viewpoint...imagine a doctor comes to your house one day with a hampster and announces that this is your new daughter. He presents a birth certificate and a blood test, "proving" the hampster to be your very own offspring. Normally, that sort of verification is hard to deny...but it's a hampster for god's sake! The idea that this could be your daughter flies in the face of everything you know about everything. You would insist that the birth certificate is mistaken, if not outright fake, the blood test must have been performed incorrectly. In short, you need a greater standard of evidence for such an unusual claim. The same is true here. All anarchists *except* ancaps know with total certainty that anarchism is anticapitalist and always has been. If you find some encyclopedia that says otherwise, it's obviously wrong. So, you need higher than normal standards of evidence...you need source material. Primary, not secondary. I think if you could find Goldman or Bookchin or somebody to explain exactly how anarcho-capitalism comes out of anarchism proper, or if you could explain in detail how Rothbard supposedly derived his philosophy from anarchism, or if you could find examples of anarchists working with anarcho-capitalists or anarcho-capitalists supporting other anarchists or having *any* sort of contact with the movement other than some tenuous theoretical link, then we'd accept a compromise. But short of that, it sounds like you and Rothbard alike are just making things up and using shoddy sources to back it up. And even in the unlikely event that it turns out to be some fringe sort of anarchism, then that still doesn't make it notable enough to dedicate an entire subheading in the article. --Aelffin 13:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy prefers secondary, not primary, sources but... For instances that I know of, anarcho-capitalist supported Noam Chomsky - he said (while criticizing anarcho-capitalists philosophy): "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." As for tradition, some scholars claim that anarcho-capitalism is a modern version of individualist anarchism, and anarcho-capitalists often see Benjamin Tucker and other individualists as important figures for contemporary ac philosophy. -- Vision Thing -- 20:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Maybe so but if a source says anarcho-capitalists are individualist anarchists, then they obviously didn't research what they were writing about because the individualists and all other anarchists are anti-capitalist socialists:
  • "...they must sell [their] labor for much less than the amount of wealth it produces. In this way ten, twenty, or a hundred men are literally robbed of an important portion of the fruits of their labor, solely that a single monopolist may be gorged with wealth." --Lysander Spooner, Poverty: Its Illegal Causes and Legal Cures
  • "...the names of the two schools of Socialistic thought [are] State Socialism and Anarchism." --Benjamin Tucker, Individual Liberty
  • "If a treaveller, in a hot day, stop at a farmhouse for a drink of water, he generally gets it without any thought of price. Why? Because it costs nothing, or the cost is immaterial...[t]he water or the wine must posess a value to the reciever...but to make this value or worth the measure of its price constitutes a glaring iniquity of the case, and would class the farmer among the wreckers of Norway, who first sink rocks in order to wreck vessels, and then demand of the crews all their cargoes and vessels for saving their lives...[and] it would class him with flour-dealers and every other huckster of provisions or clothing, with bankers and all other moneymongers and systematic speculators...[t]he only difference between them is that the wrecker must know that he ought to be shot, while the others may suppose that they are following a very 'legitimate business'!" --Josiah Warren
Aelffin 22:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
1) Your quotes prove that individualist anarchist supported labor theory of value, and today's anarcho-capitalists support subjective theory of value. However, labor theory of value is contested by most current economists, and even by some Marxists. Economic theory evolves and it would be self-destructive to support erroneous theories.
2) Writers of the An Anarchist FAQ claim that implementation of individualist anarchism would lead to capitalism. Also, by An anarchist FAQ, Kropotkin claimed that Tucker's ideas are "a combination of the anarchist Proudhon's and the liberal capitalist Herbert Spencer's".
3) Tucker supported private property and free market claiming that: "Anarchism is a word without meaning, unless it includes the liberty of the individual to control his product or whatever his product has brought him through exchange in a free market - that is, private property. Whoever denies private property is of necessity an Archist." And private property and free market are cornerstones of anarcho-capitalism. -- Vision Thing -- 19:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
What you're missing is that the labor theory of value is a statement of principles...it's saying this is how things ought to work. You know that the subjective theory itself says that there is no intrinsic value of an object...therefore, we are free to put any value on a product we want to, including one that takes labor into account. The individualists used the term free market in a way that is totally incompatable with what capitalists consider a free market. If you read any of their works, you will see that when they say "free market" they are referring to a system that by todays standards would be considered heavily regulated. The thing that made the system "free" to the individualists was that the rules would be enforced by the individual, and not a government. The capitalist version of what constitutes a "free market" was considered totally criminal by the people I quote above. The only reason ancaps think that they are somehow decended from these great thinkers is that ancaps misuse the terms "free market" and "anarchism". You have to read their work to understand what they meant by the words they used. They also had a very different notion of private property than capitalists do--they believed that large accumulations of wealth only happens if the government protects certain businesses, and they believed that their version of the free market would naturally lead to an evening out of wealth among people...that is precisely what makes their writings socialist in nature. As for the right to control the fruits of your labor, most anarchists would agree with this. However, we (including individualists) recognize that capitalism is a system whereby capitalists take the fruits of other peoples' labor. That is theft. If the laborer got all of the profit from their labor, then the capitalist would make no money at all except for getting paid equally for the time s/he put into doing actual work. Aelffin 19:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Sure, we are free to put any value on a product we want to, I agree with that. If in anarcho-capitalist system people would end up with roughly (or even absolutely) equal amount of wealth, I wouldn't have anything against that.
As for socialism, to the Proudhon, who was a great influence to Tucker, "socialism" meant "co-operative production". Also, to quote lead section in Anarcho-capitalism, "each individual has the right to own the full product of his labor when applied to his own justly acquired property". -- Vision Thing -- 19:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

As for anarchism being a "political movement." Where do the individualist anarchists fit into this picture? As far as I understand, they hated the organizational forms of the communist anarchists (and their tactics of violence!). No political movement for them. Intangible 16:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

By getting involved in what you believe in, be that opposition to taxes, or workers' rights, e.g. Joseph Labadie - FrancisTyers · 23:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

So me not paying my taxes constitutes a political movement? Intangible 00:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Sure, if you do it actively, and in cohort with other people who are doing the same — consider the movement against the Poll tax and Poll Tax Riots in the United Kingdom. For sure its a shame that more people don't stand up to taxes in the same way. - FrancisTyers · 00:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
That was a movement against specific kind of tax. Critical mass that would oppose all forms of tax doesn't exist; largely thanks to prevailing view that taxation has a positive role in a society. -- Vision Thing -- 19:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


There are two guys, One and Two. They both consider themeselves anarchists.

One supports a totalitarian ideology. He also supports nationalization and taxes, and therefore he supports hierarchy (somebody must collect those taxes.)

Two supports a liberal ideology. He believes in competition, entrepreneurship and economical freedom.

Then how come the anrchism of Two is disputed? Psychomelodic User:Psychomelodic/me 19:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Um, anarcho-communists don't support taxes, they support a gift economy. Big difference. Your understanding of anarcho-communism seems flawed. As for economic "freedom", how free do you think a person who is born poor can ever be, economically or otherwise? Economic freedom is merely a means for some to advance their self-interest at the expense of others, who lose their freedom. It's the freedom to be able to screw other people over. That's not what I consider freedom. Anarcho-communists advocate freedom for freedom's sake, and for people to be free, they need to have access to the basic needs of life and not forced to bow to the will of an employer. Anarcho-communism is about co-operation and voluntary sharing of resources, as opposed to the ruthless competition of the free market, or the forced "equality" of authoritarian socialism. Ungovernable ForceThe Wiki Kitchen! 00:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Dispute regarding consensus on template redesign

Copied from User talk:SchuminWeb:


Please refrain from such moves in the future. There was consensus about content of the template, just about its color. -- Vision Thing -- 18:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Going on what you intended to say and not what you actually said, as I took it, we were discussing the new layout and color scheme, so by that, yes, we had consensus. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
About how it should look we have consensus, we don't have it about content of the template. I advise you to read "Problems" section. -- Vision Thing -- 18:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Seen. Not new to me. Read it as it was happening. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
How can you claim that there is a consensus? Can you cite appropriate part of talk? -- Vision Thing -- 18:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I already have. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Where? -- Vision Thing -- 18:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Template talk:Anarchism/Archive 2#Real Poll, and mentioned closed on Template talk:Anarchism#Closed discussion on "Real Poll" and implemented results. Additionally, any further discussion on this topic should be taken up at Template talk:Anarchism so that the discussion is more visible to the entire group, vs. an individual user talk page. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
There has definitely not been a consensus on the content. The color scheme is clear to be implemented per consensus but the contents must be hashed out before we change it from the previous contents. Changes to the content slipped in as part of the color scheme update are certainly disengenuous. Aelffin 00:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

New discussion

Please add any new discussion on this matter here. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I object to anarcho-capitalism being separated from the other kinds of anarchism. It makes no sense to put it in a section called "Influenced by anarchism." That is POV because it is asserting as truth that it is not anarchism but just influenced by it. It is the mainstream view is that it is a form of anarchism. It is a fringe view that it is not. Wikipedia should not reflect the fringe view from anti-capitalists except maybe in a footnote. We all know that anti-capitalists do not like anarcho-capitalism and say it is not "true anarchism." But what is important is what the consensus of scholarly opinion says, and everything I've seen says it is anarchism. Consider the weight of the evidence. How many sources say it is anarchism and how many say it is not. You will find that the overwhelming majority of scholarly opinion says that it is. DTC 22:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I have presented even evidence for this on this talk page (see archives). Only one counter-source was presented, written by a free-lance author for a marginal publishing house, while my sources were from academia, some in refereed journals. I even showed that with the work of Albert Jay Nock, there is a linkage between the individualist anarchists and anarcho-capitalists. I think qua content, the template I gave ("collectivist" "individualist" "other") is a good compromise, I continue to reject the others. Intangible 22:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, we can't let the POV pushers override the weight of the evidence from scholarly sources. By the way, not only is there a link between individualist anarchists and anarcho-capitalist, but anarcho-capitalists are individualist anarchists. No one thinks the're collectivist anarchists. But you probably meant a link between 19th century individualist anarchists. Individualist anarchism is any anarchist philosophy that rejects the authority of the collective over the individual. They can be of the amoral Stirnerite variety, they can be of the anti-profit Tuckerite variety, or they can be of the pro-profit Rothbardian variety. DTC 22:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
All of the "scholarly" sources ancaps have provided are superficial comparisons based on the similarity between terms. If you read any of the individualist anarchist works cited, you can see that all of the individualists were anti-capitalists in the modern sense of the term, and read any anarchist writings and you will see that anarcho-capitalism was rejected from the start. If any old dictionary or encyclopedia entry counts as a source, then we might as well just write an article about how anarchism is about "chaos" and "disorder" and "terrorism". I'm willing to come to a consensus that leaves anarcho-capitalism on the template, but we haven't yet reached a consensus about how it ought to be classified. I am giving you the benefit of the doubt that you are acting in good faith, I would like you to do the same for me. I have also provided ample evidence that there is a difference between the Anarchist movement and various anarchist philosophies and I have suggested a number of compromises that would split the page to make a clear acknowledgement of the proper place of anarcho-capitalism within the philosophical range of anarchism while pointing out its seperateness from the anarchist movement proper. Nobody has yet come up with an adequate rebuttle to that suggestion, nor has any ancap tried to present a compromise. We're working for the same thing here: accuracy and NPOV. Besides, labeling it as "disputed" does not imply that the majority of anarchists are right, it just points out the fact that its place is not clear. Aelffin 00:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't think you understand. Your statement that "all of the individualist anarchists were anti-capitalists" is false according to the consensus of scholarly opinion. The anarcho-capitalists *are* individualist anarchists. But that doesn't mean that all individualist anarchists are anarcho-capitalists. An individualist anarchist can be anti-capitalist or pro-capitalist. All of the following sources that say that anarcho-capitalism is a pro-capitalist form of individualist anarchism. They don't just say that it is similar to it, but that it *is* a form of individualist anarchism. Individualist anarchism takes many forms. Anarcho-capitalism is one of those forms: Tormey, Simon. Anti-Capitalism, One World, 2004. - Perlin, Terry M. Contemporary Anarchism, Transaction Books, NJ 1979 - Raico, Ralph. Authentic German Liberalism of the 19th Century, Ecole Polytechnique, Centre de Recherce en Epistemologie Appliquee, Unité associée au CNRS, 2004. - Heider, Ulrike. Anarchism:Left, Right, and Green, City Lights, 1994. p. 3. - Outhwaite, William. The Blackwell Dictionary of Modern Social Thought, Anarchism entry, p. 21, 2002. - Bottomore, Tom. Dictionary of Marxist Thought, Anarchism entry, 1991. - Ostergaard, Geofrey. Resisting the Nation State - the anarchist and pacifist tradition, Anarchism As A Tradition of Political Thought. Peace Pedge Union Publications [3] - Barry, Norman. Modern Political Theory, 2000, Palgrave, p. 70. Now on your other point you're exactly right. Anarcho-capitalism *is* a philosophical movement, not a social movement. But that also applies to anti-capitalist individualist anarchism. All individualist anarchism is philosophical movement, not a social movement. This source says it explicity: "Anarcho-individualism is at best only a philosophical/literary phenomenon and not a social movement." Skirda, Alexadndre. Facing the Enemy: A History of Anarchist Organization from Proudhon to May 1968, AK Press, 2002, p. 191 Skirda is not talking about anarcho-capitalism but all forms of individualist anarchism. So if by "split the page" you mean that Anarchism page, then you would have to split anti-capitalist individualist anarchism into that category as well. But if you look at the Anarchism article that has already been done. DTC 02:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
A 1889 source already makes a difference beteen bomb throwing anarcho-communists and individual anarchists: "Yet, whatever may be true of their ideals, the methods of reaching them which are advocated and practised by the two anarchistic schools are wholly different. The one expects to attain success through a long process of peaceful evolution culminating in perfect individualism...But the Communistic 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 revolting forms. The method which they propose to use for the destruction of society and the institution of the new order is beneath scientific consideration. It is fit only to be dealt with by the police and the courts. It furnishes the strongest possible proof of the necessity of authority and of a government to enforce it. Thus the plots of one body of the anarchists are among the most serious obstacles in the way of society ever being able to assume that form which the other group [the individualist anarchists] desires." Osgood (1889). "Scientific Anarchism". Political Science Quarterly. 4 (1): 1–36. 
Anyways. This source also says "The anarchist is an extreme individualist...He subscribes to the doctrine contained in the opening sentences of the Declaration of Independence. He also claims that men who, like Jefferson and Herbert Spencer, express great jealousy of state control, would, if they were logical and true to their principles, become anarchists and advocate the complete emancipation of society." I can provide sources that say that individual anarchists wanted nothing to do with anarcho-communism. So maybe anti-communism should be the criteria to be used for the template, instead of "anti-capitalism"? Intangible 01:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
This just demonstrates that communism was already becoming a dirty word. Whatever the individualists thought of the tactics of some (not all) of the other anarchists, they still embraced the same core value of economic and political equality among people. Economic equality is the essence of socialism, so the individualists were socialists. They just thought that this equality would come about through a morality-governed market. Anarcho-capitalism rejected the individualist ideas of equality, so they were not individualist anarchists. This isn't a matter of debate, just look at the market ancaps describe compared to the market individualist anarchists describe. Aelffin 01:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
The individualist anarchist believed the free market would bring prosperity to all. The only equality they could find is that of individual sovereignty: "As an anarchist, he [Benjamin Tucker] maintained that even the best of economic systems would become oppresive and obnoxious if it involved the arbitrary distribution of goods according to statute law. He demanded liberty above all, including the liberty for man to control what he produced, as "the surest guarantee of prosperity." The policy of complete non-interference—enabling everyone to mind his own business exclusively—would permit wealth to "distribute itself in a free market in accordance with the natural operation of economic law." Such truly free competition would enhance the welfare of society without curbing the initiative and enterprise of the ambitious and the capable." Madison, Charles A. (1943). "Benjamin R. Tucker: Individualist and Anarchist". New England Quarterly. 16 (3): 444–467. . I don't see any notion of economic equality (egalitarianism) here. Only liberty and the prosperity of the free market. Intangible 02:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Exactly, a person should control what they produce. Capitalism allows business owners to control what the workers produce. Now, if anarcho-capitalism rejects the right of business owners to take profits out of workers' paychecks, then maybe it's form of individualist anarchism. Aelffin 02:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Tucker himself defined anarchism as a type of socialism. I already quoted this: "...the names of the two schools of Socialistic thought [are] State Socialism and Anarchism." --Benjamin Tucker, Individual Liberty. Clearly, anarcho-capitalists are using the terms differently from the individualist anarchists. Aelffin 02:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't think anybody argues that Tucker was anti-capitalist. But you don't have to be anti-capitalist to be an individualist anarchist. Numerous sources confirm that. There are anti-capitalist individualist anarchist and pro-capitalist individualist anarchists. There is also Stirnerite individualist anarchism which is opposition to the both anti-capitalist and pro-capitalist individualist anarchists because according to that philosophy, whatever you are able to take is your property. See my message to you above for sources saying that anarcho-capitalism is a capitalist form of individualist anarchism. One thing that could be done for the template is you could split the anarchisms by "social movement" and "philosophical" and put all the individualist forms under "philosophical." You could put mutualism under that too because it's not a social movement. But there would still be the problem with it looking like individualist anarchism is distinct from anarcho-capitalism when anarcho-capitalism is one of the forms of individualist anarchism. Unfortunately the anti-profit individualist anarchism of someone like Lysander Spooner doesn't have an official name. DTC 02:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
First, I commend you on doing your homework. That slew of sources was very interesting. However, I can cite any number of dictionaries that define "anarchism" as chaos and disorder. And in a loose sense of the word, they are accurate. Likewise, anarcho-capitalism is an anarchist philosophy in the loose sense of the word (i.e. "anarcism = anti-government"). These secondary sources may lump anarcho-capitalists in with individualist anarchists, but this is a very superficial treatment that doesn't take into account the words of the primary sources themselves. In Tucker's day, he may not have considered himself an anti-capitalist, but by modern standards he certainly was (see the quotes I posted in Archive 2). He, and the other individualists believed in strict limits on what capitalists could and could not claim as fair profit--this is completely contrary to the modern use of the term capitalism, and particularly the use of the term within anarcho-capitalism. Aelffin 03:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
You're still not absorbing what I'm saying. Yes Tucker was anti-capitalist. And yes anarcho-capitalism is pro-capitalist. But both Tucker's philosophy and Rothbard's philosophy are types of individualist anarchism. Individualist anarchists don't have to agree with each other on anything other than on rejecting the state and collectivism to be individualist anarchists. Being pro or anti capitalism is not what distinguishes individualist anarchism from social anarchism. You can't argue with the sources but have to accept them. They're all right there. Anarcho-capitalism is a one form of individualist anarchism. That is the consensus of scholars. DTC 03:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
All sources are not created equal, particularly in such a contentious area. Do I really need to cite all of the sources that say anarchism is chaos? Anarchism is also probably a good place to remember the "Ignore All Rules" rule, since much of anarchist history is recorded not in "official" encyclopedias and dictionaries, but in the literature of the movement itself. The individualists would disagree that "rejection of state" is the only thing that defines an anarchist--just read them; they would have attacked anarcho-capitalism faster than modern anarchists. Aelffin 03:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Well how convenient that you want to "ignore all rules" when the rules don't let you push your POV and override sourced material. I'm sorry but I'm not going to ignore the rules but enforce them. If you choose to ignore then you will be dealt with by administration. DTC 03:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I know, I hate myself for saying it because I know how it sounds, but in this case, it's appropriate. Or maybe I'm self-deluded. But I'll tell you this much: what I'm arguing for is far from what my actual POV is. By the way, this is not the only area where I think "Ignore All the Rules" makes sense...it also applies in many many cases where reality cannot be boiled down to a few quotes by carefully selected sources. Anyway, even if it were "my" point of view, it is also the point of view of nearly all modern anarchists other than anarcho-capitalists, and from reading thi individualists, it would have been their point of view too. Ancaps are a fringe minority, and anarchism is best defined by people who participate in it. Sorry, but if that's not the case, then the door is open to all sorts of bizarre takes on what constitutes anarchism. That's just the ground reality; the common perception of anarchism (and the anarcho-capitalist perception) is very very different from the historical use of the term within anarchism. Aelffin 03:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Anarchism is definitely not best defined by the people who participate in it. The individualist anarchists have historically denied that anarcho-communism was anarchism because they think the collective is a form of authority over the individual. Would you like me to push that POV and keep anarcho-communism out of the template? Believe me I can find lots of sources from individualist anarchists saying that anarcho-communism is not anarchism. The only way to be objective is to let scholars who study it give their opinion on it. You're obviously too wrapped up in your own POV to be objective. This is what the rules on Wikipedia are for. You must rely on reliable scholarly sources. DTC 03:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
1) Would you disagree that most scholarly sources define anarchism as chaos? 2) I am not arguing to keep anarcho-capitalism out of the template. Aelffin 03:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
No I would not agree with that at all. You won't find one source that defines anarchism as chaos. "Anarchy" yes, because that's a different word, but not "anarchism." DTC 04:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Now, as for splitting the template, I would suggest that Anarchism (movement) includes every branch of 19th century anarchism or its descendants that took any sort of active group action as per the Wikipedia article Social movement. This would include many but not all of the individualists, who after all did build anarchist communities. It would not include any group or individual whose sole contribution was theoretical. This would be put in the Anarchism (philosophy) section. Anarchism (philosophy) would include all theoretical approaches to anarchism under any sourced definition of the word "anarchism". Aelffin 03:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Only one individualist anarchist, Josiah Warren, formed some experimental communities. Individualist anarchism is widely considered to be philosophical movement, not a social movement. There are plenty of sources for that. DTC 03:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I agree the preponderance of individualist anarchism was solely philosophical. Aelffin 03:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
And, yes I do understand what you're saying perfectly well. What you're saying is that anybody who comes along and says they're associated with a particular theory or movement must be taken at face value based on anything they think constitutes the essential part of that theory without regard to the actual statements to the contrary of the originators of that theory. So long as some secondary sources are willing to take them at face value anyway. Aelffin 03:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
You think those sources are anarcho-capitalists saying it is a form of individualist anarchism? No, none of those sources are from anarcho-capitalists. Several of them are from anti-capitalists. I agree that it wouldn't make sense to present anarcho-capitalists as sources. DTC 03:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
No, I think those sources are largely uninformed outsiders who carelessly threw anarcho-capitalism in with individualism without carefully studying individualism. A few people who call themselves anti-capitalists, perhaps even a few anti-capitalist anarchists may like to include anarcho-capitalism within anarchism, again based on superficial understanding of the terms. But that doesn't change the fact that anarcho-capitalism rejects everything but the most superficial assertion of individualist anarchism. Aelffin 03:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
That's not the case at all. Those sources acknowledge that the individualist anarchism of Benjamin Tucker was anti-capitalist. They're are not saying Benjamin Tucker was pro-capitalist. They are saying there are various forms of individualist anarchism, some capitalist and some anti-capitalist, and some neither. One of them says explicitly "as much as I oppose anarcho-capitalism..." DTC 03:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Those sources represent a minority view, mostly among nonspecialists who treat the matter lightly. Within the body of scholars familiar with anarchism, that viewpoint represents an even smaller minority. See the quotes below. Aelffin 04:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
At any rate, though I personally believe anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism at all, remember that I am not arguing it should be excluded from discussion here. I want the facts presented clearly: anarcho-capitalism is disputed by many anarchists. It should be on the template because it is associated with anarchism, but grouping it closely with the other branches of anarchism will confuse people into thinking that they are a closely related philosophy. Aelffin 03:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Anarcho-capitalism is anarchism. It is a fringe view if any among scholars that it's not. OF COURSE anarcho-communists don't think it's real anarchism. But anarcho-communists that are not published scholars have no say in the matter. They are speaking from a non-reliable POV. With all due respect, just like you. You hate capitalism so therefore you're going to say anarcho-capitalism is not true anarchism. And your not a respected scholar on political philosophy. In other words, with all due respect, you don't know what you're talking about. I'm not saying I do, but I am going to defer to the scholars. It is Wikipedia policy. DTC 03:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate you POV, and I'm sure you're trying to act in good faith. I'm asking you to please follow Wikipedia guidelines and assume that I am acting in good faith as well; my POV is very different from what I am arguing here. I know you'll disagree, but what I'm arguing is NPOV as I understand it. To support this argument, I give you some definitions (see below). My sources (that is, the sources in my head) are actually back issues of publications by anarchist scholars, but since I don't keep piles of magazines around, I will have to be satisfied with thirty or so definitions from Wikiquote. Aelffin 04:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Now, should we defer to the sources and take anarcho-capitalism off the anarchism page just like Jews for Jesus gets excluded from the article on Jews? Aelffin 04:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

From Political Ideology Today: "Benjamin R. Tucker (1854-1939) was the leading American anarchist of the late nineteenth century. Like Warren, he also saw his ideas as socialistic, although he was much more committed to the free market, and even believed his socialistic anarchism to be consistent with classical liberalism." Clearly if the socialism of Tucker is consistent with liberalism, this is not socialism in the ordinary sense of the meaning. Even anarcho-capitalism would be a form of socialism with Tucker's notion. Intangible 18:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

From the WP NPOV tutorial

   A common source of obstinacy in NPOV disputes is the belief that one group "owns" a word and has     
   sole authority to define it:
   "The word liberalism was coined by political philosophers. Political philosophers are the experts  
   on liberalism, and not one of them alive today believes that liberalism is the same thing as 
   In fact, many words have multiple meanings, and it's not just that one person sometimes uses 
   "liberal" to refer to a political movement and sometimes to refer to generous use of an 
   ingredient in a recipe. Sometimes it means that different people mean different things when they
   say the same word.

--rehpotsirhc █♣█Talk 01:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

That is exactly what I mean. Anarcho-capitalists define "anarchism" in a different way. That's fine, they are perfectly within their rights to do so. But as long as we can acknowledge they have a different meaning of the term, then putting them on a page that uses the term differently is misleading and is a violation of NPOV because it implies that they are supporters of the same ideas as other anarchists, which they are not. All I'm saying is that we acknowledge the difference. Anarchists proper and anarcho-capitalists should be on seperate pages. It's simple: they mean one thing, we mean another thing therefore they belong in different articles. It is also in the interests of accuracy to point out that anarcho-capitalists and individualist anarchists use the terms "free market", "anarchism", and "individualism" in very different ways. Aelffin 01:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)t's a word.
Um, you're bending yourself into a pretzel here. Did you read the example? Two distinct groups use the same word to define themselves. As we've learned from the tutorial, neither group owns the term. Listing both groups in the term's template is the only NPOV solution. Allowing one group to dictate how the term is used is not NPOV. It's crystal clear.--rehpotsirhc █♣█Talk 01:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
As I said above, I think anarcho-capitalism belongs on the template. But only in a way that does not confuse the two different uses of the term "anarchism" and only in a way that doesn't give undue prominence to a small minority. That's NPOV. However, if we are unwilling to draw a clear distinction between the two uses of the term, then we have to include every other use of the word "anarchism" on the same template as well...so we must include links to "anarcho-monarchism" as well as anarchists as vandals and terrorists and all of the other definitions of the word. My proposal to split the page into Anarchism (movement) and Anarchism (philosophy) is a compromise that clarifies the issue and provides a place for multiple uses of the term "anarchism". Aelffin 02:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Anyway, go over to Talk:Jew and try to use your argument to make them put Jews for Jesus in the Judaism template. Aelffin 02:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Jews for Jesus probably isn't on the Judaism template because it isn't notable enough, not because we're giving a certain group of Jews the authority to define who is and who is not a Jew. --rehpotsirhc █♣█Talk 13:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Jews for Jesus is pretty well-known. It has some sort of organization and a presence in the real world. In that sense, it is more notable than anarcho-capitalism. --AaronS 13:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Not that any of this is relevant to the discussion, but let me point out for clarity's sake that you're comparing a word to a religious movement and finding one more notable than the other because it's more organized. Heh. It's like "Which is more notable, the San Francisco Giants or Brie Cheese?" --rehpotsirhc █♣█Talk 13:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
We're comparing a religious movement to a social movement. We're comparing a hostile outside group that wants to convert the Jews to a hostile outside group that wants to convert the anarchists. I think it's an apt metaphor. Aelffin 14:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Anarcho-capitalism is a word. JfJ is an incoporated legal entity that has a payroll, takes donations, and does other organizational stuff. Saying one is more organized than the other is patent nonsense. BTW, I have no idea where you're getting this "hostile outside group" business from in either case. --rehpotsirhc █♣█Talk 22:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Anarchism = Against All Authority

The preponderance of definitions from reliable resources, including anarchist scholars, is that anarchism opposes all forms of authority, including economic coersion... Aelffin 04:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

American Heritage College Dictionary:[4]

  • "The theory or doctrine that all forms of government are oppressive and undesirable and should be abolished"
  • "Rejection of all forms of coercive control and authority"

Encarta World English Dictionary:[5]

  • "doctrine rejecting government: an ideology that rejects the need for a system of government in society and proposes its abolition"
  • "resistance to all forms of authority or control"

Cambridge International Dictionary:[6]

  • "the political belief that there should be little or no formal or official organization to society but that people should work freely together"

Encyclopedia Britannica, 1910:[7]

  • "ANARCHISM (from the Gr. , and , contrary to authority), the name given to a principle or theory of life and conduct under which society is conceived without government - harmony in such a society being obtained, not by submission to law, or by obedience to any authority, but by free agreements concluded between the various groups, territorial and professional, freely constituted for the sake of production and consumption, as also for the satisfaction of the infinite variety of needs and aspirations of a civilized being"
  • "As to their economical conceptions, the anarchists, in common with all socialists, of whom they constitute the left wing, maintain that the now prevailing system of private ownership in land, and our capitalist production for the sake of profits, represent a monopoly which runs against both the principles of justice and the dictates of utility"

Columbia Encyclopedia:[8]

  • "theory that equality and justice are to be sought through the abolition of the state and the substitution of free agreements between individuals"
  • "Since the Industrial Revolution, anarchists have also opposed the concentration of economic power in business corporations"

Catholic Encyclopedia:[9]

  • "Anarchy means an absence of law. Sociologically it is the modern theory which proposes to do away with all existing forms of government and to organize a society which will exercise all its functions without any controlling or directive authority"

Henry Appleton: "It simply means opposed to the arbitrary rule of self-elected usurpers outside the Individual." (The Boston Anarchists, 1886).

Emile Armand: "As the word "anarchy" etymologically signifies the negation of governmental authority, the absence of government, it follows that one indissoluble bond unites the anarchists. This is antagonism to all situations regulated by imposition, constraint, violence, governmental oppression, whether these are a product of all, a group, or of one person. In short, whoever denies that the intervention of government is for human relationships is an anarchist."

William Bailie: "Modern Anarchism...is primarily a tendency - moral, social, and intellectual. As a tendency it questions the supremacy of the State, the infallibility of statute laws, and the divine right of all authority, spiritual or temporal. It is, in truth, a product of Authority, the progeny of the State, a direct consequences of the inadequacy of law and government to fulfill their assumed functions. In short, the Anarchist tendency is a necessity of progress, a protest against usurpation, privilege, and injustice." (The Anarchist Spirit, 1906)

Michael Bakunin - Anarchism is "stateless socialism."[10]

"In a word, we reject all legislation, all authority, and all privileged, licensed, official, and legal influence, even though arising from universal suffrage, convinced that it can turn only to the advantage of a dominant minority of exploiters against the interest of the immense majority in subjection to them. This is the sense in which we are really Anarchists." (God and the State, p. 35)

Alexander Berkman: "Anarchism means you should be free; that no one should enslave you, boss you, rob you, or impose upon you. It means you should be free to do the things you want to do; and that you should not be compelled to do what you do not want to do. (...) That is to say, that there should be no war, no violence used by one set of men against another, no monopoly and no poverty, no oppression, no taking advantage of your fellow-man. In short, Anarchism means a condition or society where all men and women are free, and where all enjoy equally the benefits of an ordered and sensible life."

L. Susan Brown: "While the popular understanding of anarchism is of a violent, anti-State movement, anarchism is a much more subtle and nuanced tradition then a simple opposition to government power. Anarchists oppose the idea that power and domination are necessary for society, and instead advocate more co-operative, anti-hierarchical forms of social, political and economic organisation." (The Politics of Individualism, p. 106)

Noam Chomsky: "a tendency in the history of human thought and action which seeks to identify coercive, authoritarian, and hierarchic structures of all kinds and to challenge their legitimacy, and if they cannot justify their legitimacy, which is quite commonly the case, to work to undermine them and expand the scope of freedom". That includes political power, ownership and management, relations among men and women, parents and children, our control over the fate of future generations (the basic moral imperative behind the environmental movement, in my view), and much else. Naturally this means a challenge to the huge institutions of coercion and control: the state, the unaccountable private tyrannies that control most of the domestic and international economy, and so on." [11]

Voltairine de Cleyre: "Anarchism, to me, means not only the denial of authority, not only a new economy, but a revision of the principles of morality. It means the development of the individual as well as the assertion of the individual. It means self-responsibility, and not leader worship." (A speech in defense of Emma Goldman)

"Anarchists work towards a society of mutual aid and voluntary co-operation. We reject all government and economic repression." (mission statement for Freedom)[12]

Bill Christopher, jack Robinson, Philip Sansom and Peter Turner: "Anarchism is a philosophy of freedom. It is a body of revolutionary ideas which reconciles, as no other revolutionary concept does, the necessity for individual freedom woth the demands of society. It is a commune-ist philosophy which starts from the individual and works upwards, instead of starting from the State and working downwards. Social structure in an anarchist society would be carefully and consciously kept to a minimum and would be strictly functional; where organisation is necessary, it would be maintained, but there would be no organisation for its own sake. This would help to prevent the hardening of organisations into instututions - the hard core of government." (published in Freedom in 1970, included in The State is Your Enemy)

Daniel Guerin: "Anarchism is really a synonym for socialism. The anarchist is primarily a socialist whose aim is to abolish the exploitation of man by man. Anarchism is only one of the streams of socialist thought, that stream whose main components are concern for liberty and haste to abolish the State." (Anarchism: A Matter of Words) [13]

Ursula K. Le Guin: "[A]narchism. Not the bomb-in-the-pocket stuff, which is terrorism, whatever name it tries to dignify itself with; not the social-Darwinist economic 'libertarianism' of the far right; but anarchism, as pre-figured in early Taoist thought, and expounded by Shelley and Kropotkin, Goldman and Goodman. Anarchism's principal target is the authoritarian State (capitalist or socialist); its principal moral-practical theme is cooperation (solidarity, mutual aid). It is the most idealistic, and to me the most interesting, of all political theories." ('The Day Before the Revolution', in The Wind's Twelve Quarters, New York, 1975)

John William Lloyd: "For, what is Anarchism? It is logical human liberty. It is the ideal of human life without a master." (Anarchist Socialism)

Errico Malatesta: "Anarchy is a word that comes from the Greek, and signifies, strictly speaking, "without government": the state of a people without any constituted authority." (Anarchy: a pamphlette)

"Anarchists generally make use if the word "State" to mean all the collection of institutions, political, legislative, judicial, military, financial, etc., by means of which management of their own affairs, the guidance of their personal conduct, and the care of ensuring their own safety are taken from the people and confided to certain individuals, and these, whether by usurpation or delegation, are invested with the right to make laws over and for all, and to constrain the public to respect them, making use of the collective force of the community to this end."

Peter Marshall: "Anarchism as a political philosophy seeks to dissolve all forms of authority and power, and if possible, wishes their complete abolition." (Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism, p.47)

Saul Newman: "Anarchism is, fundamentally, an ethical critique of authority – almost an ethical duty to question and resist domination in all its forms." (From Bakunin to Lacan, p. 166)

Donald Rooum: "Anarchism is opposed to states, armies, slavery, the wages system, the landlord system, prisons, monopoly capitalism, oligopoly capitalism, state capitalism, bureaucracy, meritrocracy, theocracy, oligarchy, governments, patriarchy, matriarchy, monarchy, oligarchy, protection rackets, intimidation by gangsters, and every other kind of coercive institution. In other words, anarchism opposes government in all it's forms." (What is Anarchism?, ISBN 0900384662)

Donald Rooum: "Anarchists are extreme libertarian socialists, "libertarian" meaning the demand for freedom from prohibition, and "socialist" meaning the demand for social equality. /../ Complete freedom implies equality, since if there are rich and poor, the poor cannot be permitted to take liberties with riches. Complete equality implies freedom, since those who suffer restrictions cannot be the equals of those who impose them." (What is Anarchism?, ISBN 0900384662)

Donald Rooum: "All anarchists believe in worker's control, in the sense of individuals deciding what work whey do, how they work, and who they work with. This follows logically from the anarchist belief that nobody should be subject to a boss." (What is Anarchism?, ISBN 0900384662)

"Economic coercion" is just a propaganda term from a specific camp of anarchists. You might as well try and get Unitarianism taken off a Christianity template because it rejects the Trinity, then post a bunch of Theologians pontificating aout God existing in three persons. One group's propaganda does not define another group out of existence, at least on Wikipedia. --rehpotsirhc █♣█Talk 13:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
If Unitarianism were a minor philosophy regarding religion that existed only in books and on the Internet, and which nearly all other Christians rejected, and which many neutral observers rejected as not actually Christian, then I don't think that there would be any problem with treating it differently, even if there were some people who thought that it was the pinnacle of Christianity. --AaronS 13:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
"Economic coercion" is one term for a concept that almost all of the definitions I give above acknoledge explicitly or implicitly. Further, nobody is trying to define anarcho-capitalism out of existence. It certainly exists. But it's a seperate movement from anarchism proper, as defined by credible sources above. Aelffin 13:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
The issue of whether or not A-C is notable enough to be in the template has never really been in dispute. It:
  • exists in many think tanks (VMI), university faculties (University of Chicago Econ) and activist organizations (Bureaucrash) outside the internet, or books.
  • actually gets more google hits than any other flavor of anarchism listed on the template--test it out yourself
--rehpotsirhc █♣█Talk 13:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it is certainly a philosophical movement. Nobody says it doesn't exist. It's simply not a part of anarchism proper. So, I demonstrated my thesis using the "reliable sources" criterion that you were pushing for. Are you suggesting we change the criteria now? Aelffin 13:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Google hits don't matter, but we've been there, done that. Search for "anarchism -'anarcho-capitalism'" -- or pages about anarchism that make no mention of anarcho-capitalism -- and you get over four million hits. A search for anarcho-capitalism returns only 189,000. But it doesn't really matter, in my opinion. The Internet is not a good indicator of notability or significance.
The notability and significance of anarcho-capitalism has always been in question in these discussions. Bureaucrash does not appear to be an anarcho-capitalist organization, and it's not clear that it's significant, either. VMI is not specifically anarcho-capitalist, and is not necessarily significant, either. As for U Chicago, are you speaking of the entire department, or a few faculty members? Again, that's not quite significant.
It is unclear that anarcho-capitalism has significantly affected economics, let alone philosophy, politics, or society in general. There is no indication that it is anything more than a blip on the map of the 20th century. --AaronS 14:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I should note, as an aside, that this level of insignificance is glaringly obvious in anarcho-capitalists' attempts to give anarcho-capitalism an anarchist pedigree. Anarcho-capitalism does not have a presence of its own; this does not mean that it can exist vicariously through a completely different philosophy and movement that merely shares part of its name. I have nothing against anarcho-capitalism -- I hope that it grows, and that it thrives, and that it comes to define itself and provide an alternative to the current discourse. The more, the merrier. I do have a problem, however, from an academic standpoint, with attempts to claim that it is something that it is not. If anarcho-capitalism were significant, we would not be having this discussion. It could stand on its own. --AaronS 14:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Well said. Though I can't say I wish the best for anarcho-capitalism, I will say that I'd rather live in a world where the poles are anarchism vs. anarcho-capitalism rather than republicrat vs. republicrat. Aelffin 14:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I didn't say A-C gets more Google hits than "anarchy" or "anarchism." I said it "gets more hits than any other flavor of anarchism listed on the template." And this is true.
Anarchist communism:73,100
Christian anarchism:31,500
Collectivist anarchism:751
Green anarchism:14,400
Individualist anarchism:60,700
Now that you mention it, I'm sure you can find about 4 million pages about anarchy that make no mention of Eco-anarchism, Green anarchism, or Christian anarchism, or Anarcha-feminism. I guess we should remove those, as well. "Collectivist anarchism" only gets 751 hits! I think that's well below Wikipedia's standards of notability, not mention to mention any selectively applied standard dreamed up by social anarchists to try and censor the Anarchism template! "What's that you say? Only a few Nobel Prize winning UChicago economists are Anacaps? Not all of them? Not notable enough! My social anarchist friends and I have never heard of the Von Mises Institute or Bureaucrash, so they must not be notable enough!" Gimme a break. --rehpotsirhc █♣█Talk 22:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
No need to be so inflammatory. I take no stance on whether or not those belong in the template, although some of them, like anarcho-communism and anarcho-syndicalism, are obviously significant when their historical context is taken into consideration. They have had affects on world history and politics, which cannot be said of anarcho-capitalism. On that note, my issue has always been with anarcho-capitalism's significance, not the significance of eco-anarchism or anarcha-feminism, etc. Further, I did not say that I have never heard of VMI or Bureaucrash; I said that they don't appear to be anarcho-capitalist, now, do they? You're swinging at straw men, and I ask that you address my actual arguments, and not try to paint me as a "social anarchist" with some kind of vendetta. Who are these Nobel Prize winning UChicago economists that you speak of? Did they win their Nobel Prizes for writing about anarcho-capitalism? I do not deny that some economists are laissez-faire liberals, or anarcho-capitalists, but, again, what is their impact on the field of economics? --AaronS 14:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
See the Von Mises Institute stats here: [14]. Although interesting, and refuting some of the claims made here by others, it's largely irrelevant indeed to the real discussion here. Intangible 00:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Anarcho-capitalism is certainly one of the most active philosophical movements of the libertarian right. However, you can't compare a philosophical movement with a social movement. Most of the branches of anarchism listed above are social movements that are currently active or were very influential to the history of anarchism. Anarcho-capitalism has never been a social movement, nor has it been influential in the history of anarchism. Anarchism (movement) a specific historical phenomenon that includes all the active anarchist movements while Anarchism (philosophy) is a broad conceptual category that includes any theory that can be derrived in whole or in part from Proudhon's conception of anarchism. Aelffin 18:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Who is comparing a philosophical movement with a social movement? Just because anarcho-capitalism is not a social movement, doesn't mean it's not anarchism. Benjamin Tucker's anarchism was not a social movement, but a philosophical movement. It was still anarchism. All individualist anarchism is "philosophical anarchism." Anarcho-communists like to go out and parade in the street, or torch things, or blow things up. Individualists anarchists just write philosophy. DTC 19:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

In your quotes you missed two most relevant sources - Merriam-Webster says that anarchism is:

a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups;

and today's Britannica:

cluster of doctrines and attitudes centred on the belief that government is both harmful and unnecessary.

Also, it's your point of view that there exists something like economic coercion. In my view, only legitimate notion of coercion is physical coercion. -- Vision Thing -- 19:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I think what he means by "economic coercion" is the claim from some anti-capitalists. They argue that if you require someone to pay you for food if they're hungry, you're coercing them. But obviously you're not coercing them. Their own body is coercing them, not you. Their own biological makeup requires them to eat to live. Who is coercing a person alone in the wilderness to perform labor to catch a wild animal for food? Nobody. Likewise, who is coercing the person to perform labor, or pay with goods or money, in trade for your food? Nobody. Coercion is act peformed by a human agent, not nature. DTC 19:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
The whole "economic coercion" thing is begging the question. To anarcho-capitalists, capitalism is not coercion; to anarcho-communists it is. To anarcho-mutualists collective control over individually-produced product is coercive; to anarcho-communists it is not. And so on. What you consider coercion depends on your theory of property. Hogeye 16:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


Does anyone else find this doesn't belong on this bar? Better yet- can anyone explain why it's included?

Macho Philipovich 22:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Taking a break

I'm taking a break from these articles. There is far too much sock puppetry going on. Those involved might find it amusing, for whatever reason, or might believe that they're spreading the Truth, but it's actually quite silly. I've never understood why so many evangelicals were attracted to Wikipedia, as if people came to Wikipedia to do scholarly research, rather than the leisurely perusal of articles for their own enjoyment. But, people are strange. I had my fun with this article, but I feel no need to engage in the kinds of games that some people here, and their sock puppets, seem so fond of. Engaging in arguments for the sake of argument, or to keep track of points, and engaging in hot-headed Internet disputes, are two things that I grew out of at the end of high school. --AaronS 19:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry hmm? Are you taking Blockaddr with you? DTC 19:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
That's fresh, RJII. I'll be keeping an eye on you, because it's just so easy. --AaronS 19:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Minor reformatting

I did some minor reformatting so the words would fit better in the boxes and the template would be shorter (so it would fit pages better, especially in short articles). It's not really necessary to have "Anarcho-" this and "Anarcho-" that when the headings clearly say that this is about anarchism. I also deleted the "disputed" comment after Capitalist Anarchism, because it's not necessary, and looks confusing in a template.Spylab 01:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)Spylab

I reinserted it as it's not a part of the anarhcist tradition apart from in name. // Liftarn

Disputed label

All forms of anarchism have been disputed by someone or another. Communist anarchism was disputed by Tucker and Proudhon;Xtian anarchism by some socialists, Individualist anarchism by some commies, and so on. Rather than putting "disputed" by every school, I think we should maintain the NPOV standard by leaving off such silly disclaimers. Save it for articles where it is more appropriate, e.g. Anarchism and capitalism. Hogeye 16:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

We've already had this discussion above. The other schools aren't disputed near as much. Ungovernable ForceGot something to say? 18:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
But they are disputed. So for NPOV, we can either label all as such or none. Hogeye 02:56, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Seems Hogeye does have a point there. If they're all disputed to an extent, then he's got a very valid point. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:05, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, but none of them are rejected by virtually all other self-described anarchists. Hell, even Christian anarchism is usually accepted, even if it's a bit strange. But no one except an-caps and a few individualists except it as a proper form of anarchism. I'm sure both of you know this. It used to be that an-cap wasn't even in the template. We've been making a damn lot of compromises with the an-caps, but this is too much. Ungovernable ForceGot something to say? 07:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Compromises? The discussion has not moved one iota when it first started. There is a positive claim being made (orginally by User:FrancisTyers) without sources being provided. Sources that say a-c is anarchism have been provided plenteously... Intangible 12:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
I was pleased when we had proposed that new template layout a while back, because it seemed to contain a good compromise, but a few people just wouldn't let it through, even reverting it back when we tried to implement it with the color change. My bottom line is that I want to see the "(disputed)" tag go because it looks bad on the template. SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Ditto, the proposal was pretty good. I still think it's the best option, but as you said, some others didn't let it go through. Ungovernable ForceGot something to say? 04:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

So far it's 3 to 1 "consensus" that the disputed label should go. I've already used my three reverts for now, so will someone else change it back? Oh, there's the "issue" about alphabetizing, too, but it seems pretty obvious that taking a school you don't like out of order is POV. Hogeye 15:56, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Wait a sec... before you lump me in with any particular faction, let me clarify. I personally don't care whether the an-cap link is on the template or not. I just don't like the "disputed" tag. SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Right - that's what I said. You agree the "disputed" tag should go. This isn't a faction thing; it's an NPOV thing. Hogeye 18:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm also for removal of disputed tag. -- Vision Thing -- 19:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
How is including a philosophy that virtually all anarchists reject neutral? You're pushing a minority view and trying to make it seem like it somehow has just as much place within anarchism as anarcho-communism or something. That's not neutral. Ungovernable ForceGot something to say? 04:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
What does it matter if all other anarchists reject anarcho-capitalism? That doesn't mean they should be allowed to control Wikipedia. What does the "disputed" label mean anyway? How is anyone supposed to know what it means?Anarcho-capitalism 04:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Majority view among academics is that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism. It doesn’t matter what most of other people think or don’t think about it. This is encyclopedia, not some populist pamphlet. -- Vision Thing -- 11:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I am as well. It doesn't make sense to single out anarcho-capitalism like that. I see three sources in the Anarchism article from anarcho-communists that say anarcho-capitalism is not a legitimate form of anarchism. But there are also just as many, or more, sources from individualist anarchists that say that anarcho-communism is not a legitimate form of anarchism. So why wouldn't there be a "disputed" tag on anarcho-communism?Anarcho-capitalism 03:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Latest Hogeye's solution looks like a good one to me. Any other opinions? -- Vision Thing -- 19:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

It looks good to me too. It seems to comply with the POV policy.Anarcho-capitalism 19:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Maybe the grammar could be more technically correct though because it's not really the forms of anarchism that say that but certain anarchists. Maybe it should say something like "Some self-described anarchists argue that some self-described forms of anarchism not bona-fide forms of anarchism."Anarcho-capitalism 19:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not in favor, and like others have already done, I am inclined to revert it. It's just too weasel-y in the wording. The KISS principle (Keep It Simple, Stupid) comes to mind here. I really just want to get any philosophical arguments off the template. We already have criticisms of the concept under three headings in the Anarcho-capitalism article. Thus we've covered the fact that it is disputed in the article. With that in mind, the "disputed" tag or any other weasel words on the template are essentially POV-pushing. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Possible NPOV solution

I'm going to rename "Types of Anarchism" to "Navigational Portal." This way, the template does not endorse any view with regard to the authenticity of any of the various subsections. Then, there should not be any problem with removing the "disputed" label. --AaronS 00:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Calling the one section "navigational portal" seems a bit of a misnomer, as that's the point of the template as a whole. I'm going to twiddle with it, though, so let's see what we come up with... SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Okay... I went back a little bit and pulled up a design that I like, and then changed "Types of Anarchism", which was more recently named "Navigational Portal", to "Schools of thought". This will hopefully smooth things over, as we don't even touch on whether or not it's anarchism. Also, as for removing the Anarchism link, it's already linked at the top, so it's redundant here. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I think that the average visitor to Wikipedia doesn't have a clue with regard to the metastructure, and therefore what templates are and are supposed to be, and so might not assume that they are navigational. Although we understand the whole thing as a navigational template, they might not. --AaronS 01:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I think that since links are underlined and blue, that anyone with a brain will realize they can navigate. I like the current version, without the POV "disputed" label. "Schools of thought" works for me. Hogeye 03:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
As usual, you're missing the point, intentionally or not. Yes, users can navigate using the template. No, it's not clear whether or not the template is endorsing the categorization. I do not like the "schools of thought" heading. --AaronS 02:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, it's not the greatest title (I'll be the first to admit it's somewhat clunky), but it does skirt the issue causing the contention. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Order of schools of anarchist theory

I disagree they should be put in alphabetical order. Sure it is the criterion within which there can be no dispute (a comes before b and c after b), but it is not necessarily the fairest approach and it is definitely not consensual. I believe there are other things to consider. There could be a case where a school that is much less representative, and most far off of what is generally considered to be the core principles of anarchism, appears on top. Some people might find this criterion more reasonable.

I propose to try to put the names of schools in order of historical importance. I think we can find a relatively objective criterion that goes behind personal conviction. Speaking on my part, even though I am pretty much "pro-leftist", for example, I believe that perhaps anarcho-syndicalism should be on top.Maziotis 16:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

My suggestion is that the first schools should be "Syndicalist and Individualist", where you will find the fundamental anarchist debate around individualism vs collectivism, and where most of the anarchist principles are found within the context of the first currents to be formulated in anarchism. Then there could be the femminist school, which is old and points out to principles that cannot be found in the first two. Next, I think it would be fair to choose something outside the sphere of “collectivist” or “socialist” anarchist schools, like Primitivist and Eco, which may be consider more recent, but are on their own solid anarchist conceptions. I believe this four are the fundamental schools in which most people see themselves. The other schools should be put next and are of course of importance. “mutualist” school, for example, comes from Proudhon, a father of anarchism, and historically has its weight. Capitalist is much more of a curiosity within the anarchist movement than anything else. The historical argument is most of it base on libertarian ideas, which are not the same thing.

This is simply a suggestion that I would like to discuss with the rest of you.Maziotis 17:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Once you order by alleged "importance", it becomes POV. Sorting alphabetically helps maintain NPOV, since it shows no preferences for any one idea. SchuminWeb (Talk) 12:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Would it be possible to make a tree view? // Liftarn

Please see discussion in "anarchism" article. Most people participate there.Maziotis 20:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Alphabetical is NPOV. The current ordering is neither historical nor alphabetical. It is appartently syndicalist POV. So I'm changing it back to NPOV alphabetical. PhilLiberty 22:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Syndicalist POV?! Please explain... And please check discussion page on "anarchism" article. We have covered that along with many other users.Maziotis 22:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Before I changed it back to alphabetical order, someone had put "syndicalist" first, and the rest in some unknown (random?) order. PhilLiberty 21:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Because it is first, it means that it is POV-related to it? By that same logic, right now the article is capitalist POV. There was no random order. It was historical, and you can see that other articles, of other countries, have similar approaches. Please read the "anarchism" article to see the order to which the different schools are addressed.Maziotis 01:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Anarchism and animal rights

Hi all, I think it'd be a good idea to add Anarchism and animal rights to the template, though I've no idea where, and I've never worked on this template before. Hope it makes it in somewhere! File:Icons-flag-scotland.png Canæn File:Icons-flag-scotland.png 09:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

That page totally sucks, I hate whoever wrote it. It needs so much work. Ungovernable ForceGot something to say? 09:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
You dork. :P File:Icons-flag-scotland.png Canæn File:Icons-flag-scotland.png 07:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)