Talk:Anarchism: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 10:52, 18 September 2006 editVision Thing (talk \| contribs)7,574 edits →Nocommie version ← Previous edit		Revision as of 11:09, 18 September 2006 edit undoDonnachadelong (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users1,812 edits →Nocommie version Next edit →
Line 969:		Line 969:

	:Edit warring is not a good way to go. Maybe arbitration is only real solution? ] 10:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)		:Edit warring is not a good way to go. Maybe arbitration is only real solution? ] 10:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

			::Hypocrit. You say edit warring is not a good way to go, yet remove perfectly valid sources on globalisation. Yes, I wrote some of them, but the site is that of a national broadcaster in Ireland. There's nothing invalid about any of them, they're news pieces perfectly relevant to the topic. ] 11:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

	== My role here ==		== My role here ==

Revision as of 11:09, 18 September 2006

Philosophy Unassessed

	Philosophy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Template:Controversial (politics)

Template:FACfailed is deprecated, and is preserved only for historical reasons. Please see Template:Article history instead.

This article (or a previous version) is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination did not succeed.
For older candidates, please check the Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations.

A full list of talkpage archives can be found here:Talk:Anarchism/Archives

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

Further information: Talk:Anarchism/Archive41 § A proposed guideline to capitalism and an-cap in Anarchism article

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

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

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

Extra ward quotes on anarcho-capitalism

Id like to add a couple of points from Ward about anarcho-capitalism. The first's his point about their solution to social and political problems in US. There are none or they are regarded by most anarchist as a "pathetic evasion of the issues raised by the anarchist criticism of American society". Also id like the point about some writers and their books from this tradition: "Robert Paul Wolff's In Defence of Anarchism; Robbert Nozick's Anarchy, State and Utopia; David Friedman's The Machinery of Freedom; and Murray Rothbard's For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto. This Phalanx of authors have provided the 'ideological superstructure' of the swing to the Right in federal and local politics in the United States, and in British politics for the aim of 'rolling back the frontiers of the State', which was actually a cloak for increased subservience to central decision-making." Stating that its a "different form of libertarianism" isnt really saying anything about anarcho-capitalism in-it-self. I think theres a need to write statement from the sources rather then only references. In Ward's case also because his view about this topic seems to be very steady and to the point. --Fjulle 23:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the ancap section is fine at the moment and those suggestion, all of which sound good, would be better suited on the ancap article where more detail is likely warranted. Blockader 23:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Religion section (again)

They both reject organized religion so again, I took the 'on the other hand' out. Read the section. "most anarchists" and Christian anarchists all reject organized religion and hierachal structures. This is simple. Just read it! Most anarchist are athiest. Thus going well with the anti-opression ideology aspect of the theory. Whiskey Rebellion 05:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, anarchocapitalists

Through running through the sources in an attempt to find sources saying that the sun rises in the east, I have read some things I haven't since I was a dewy-eyed kid proud of being an anarchist. Communism and Anarchy by Peter Kropotkin - just look at that beauty! --GoodIntentions 05:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

"Their true place (anarcho-capitalists) is in the group of right-wing libertarians described in chptr3" : (using political ideas by barbara goodwin ISBN 0471935840). standard ist yr politics text book in uk universities maxrspct in the mud 20:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Archived talk page

At a piffly 352kb (aren't edit wars fun?) I thought it was necessary: Talk:Anarchism/Archive41 --GoodIntentions 05:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Bogus sources

"Goodintentions" you're putting in bogus sources again. You're putting this in as a source saying that ancap is not a form of anarchism: "Although individualistic theories of anarchy are often identified with laissez-faire capitalism (anarcho-capitalism) the connection is not a logical one Barry, Norman. Modern Political Theory, 2000, Palgrave, p. 70" That does not say say that anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism. Let's look at the fuller quote: "Although individualistic theories of anarchy are often identified with laissez-faire capitalism (anarcho-capitalism) the connection is not a logical one. Rather, it is the case that capitalist relationships tend to emerge from the withdrawal of the monopoly state; there is, however, no necessity for this and, indeed, if property rules turn out to be communitarian this would be perfectly legitimate. The individualist anarchist (Rothbard, 1970) rejects the state on grounds of efficiency (the private market, it is claimed, can deliver public services effectively according to price) and morality (the state claims by its authority to do things that are not premitted to ordinary individuals)." Barry is saying that if you remove the state, capitalism will tend to emerge, but that's not necessary because it's always possible that people will be communists or "communitarians." He even refers to Rothbard as an "individualist anarchist." So that's not a source of someone saying that anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism. DTC 06:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Attack me personally again. Do it. I want you to. The quote is clear as day: go away and stop bothering me. --GoodIntentions 06:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The author is saying that it is not logically necessary that capitalism will emerge if the state withdraws. He obviously is not saying anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism. You've been putting bogus sources in this article, and we're not going to stand for it. DTC 06:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The source says that the connection between individualist anarchism and anarcho-capitalism isn't logical - what could possibly be clearer? When I originally pointed out that this quote doesn't say what you claimed it to you removed it! --GoodIntentions 06:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

You can't understand what he is saying from that one sentence. Read the following sentence. He is saying that it's not necessary that capitalism will result of the state is withdrawn. He's not saying that individualist anarchism is not a form of anarchism. You see, anarcho-capitalist individualist anarchists think that if you remove the state that capitalism will naturally emerge. He is disputing that and says that communitarianism could emerge. It's not logically necessary that capitalism will emerge. DTC 06:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Irrelevant! --GoodIntentions 06:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Let me lay it out for you, nice and clear:

laissez-fair capitalism exists, and is often called anarcho-capitalism
individualist anarchism exists
a connection is sometimes identified between them
that connection is a bogus one

Then, it goes on to say:

capitalism tends to emerge as the state shrinks
this isn't a necessary event
communitarian property emerging from anarchy would also be plausible
Rothbard exists
Rothbard was an individualist anarchist (this doesn't say that the link between ancap and IA is logical)
Rothbard opposed the state because etc.

Only the first amount of claims are of interest to this article. You are saying that the claim that Rothbard was an individualist anarchist overrides him earlier saying that ancap and IA aren't logically connected. He's merely stating a claim, not judging it, where earlier he had judged explicitely that the two aren't a cogent claim. A bad claim is still a claim, and Rothbard certainly claimed to be an indiv anarchist - this is cited as a source saying this is a bad claim. Which is does! For the sake of all that is holy, stop bohering me! --GoodIntentions 06:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

You've got it all wrong. He is saying that there is no logical necessity that the withdrawal of the state that individualists want will result in capitalism. He says though that would "tend" to happen, what MAY happen is that a communitarian system would result. You're dead wrong to claim that he is saying anarcho-capitalism is not a form of individualist anarchism. Notice the "Rather" after that sentence. That means the next sentence applies to the previous sentence. Don't take the sentence out of context. What you're doing is inexcusable and highly disruptive. DTC 06:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

What you are arguing is irrelevant - I've made my argument, which you have not addressed. What this author considers the logical outcome of statelessness does not matter for what he has been sourced for. --GoodIntentions 07:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Look at the quote: "Although individualistic theories of anarchy are often identified with laissez-faire capitalism (anarcho-capitalism) the connection is not a logical one. Rather, it is the case that capitalist relationships tend to emerge from the withdrawal of the monopoly state; there is, however, no necessity for this and, indeed, if property rules turn out to be communitarian this would be perfectly legitimate." He is saying that it's not logically necessary that if the state withdraws that capitalism will emerge. "Rather" capitalism will "tend" to emerge. There is no logical necessity that it will. He even says straight out that anarcho-capitalism is an "individualistic theory of anarchy." DTC 07:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

No he fucking doesn't. Read it: Although individualistic theories of anarchy are often identified with laissez-faire capitalism (anarcho-capitalism) the connection is not a logical one. He says, straight out, that the link between ancap and IA isn't logical. He says the link is often made, but that it's wrong. Stop lying. --GoodIntentions 07:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Stop taking the sentence out of context. You have to read the following sentence, which says "Rather, it is the case that capitalist relationships tend to emerge from the withdrawal of the monopoly state; there is, however, no necessity for this and, indeed, if property rules turn out to be communitarian this would be perfectly legitimate." When he says there is no logical connection between individualist anarchism and laissez-faire capitalism is not saying saying that anarcho-capitalism is not individualist anarchism AT ALL. He is talking about a logical connection between cause and effect. There is no logical necessity that capitalism will result if the state is withdrawn. Rather, that "tends" to be the effect. He's saying what individualists want (the withdrawal of the state) could result is something non-individualist...something "communitarian." That's what he's saying. That could be something to put in the article, and is a good point. DTC 08:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

What are you doing, DTC?

What is possibly, possibly lacking in the section you are striking? I nicely sourced it, I had explanatory footnotes, it was cogent, meaningful and informative, it wasn't POV, it explained the dispute, what is wrong with it? Perhaps you dislike the wording "offshoot of libertarianism" - but then you could have changed it to "closer linked to libertarianism than anarchism" - which is a claim, and plainly identified as one, and a sourced one! Explain it to me, please, because you are driving me up the walls. Not only are your versions misleading, but they read badly. --GoodIntentions 07:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Ward is not saying what you're saying he's saying (no surprise there). He is not saying that anarcho-capitalism is libertarianism rather than anarcho-capitalism. He is saying that anarcho-capitalism is a "different form of libertarianism" than 19th century libertarianism. He says the 19th century individualist anarchists are libertarians too. He uses "libertarianism" interchangeably with "anarchism." They are often used a synonyms in anarchist literature. He also calls Kropotkin a libertarian: "The libertarians of the Right have, nevertheless, a function in the spectrum of anarchist discussion. Every anarchist propagandist finds that the audience or readership is perplexed by the very idea that it might be possible to organize human life without government. That is why Kropotkin, as a libertarian of the Left, as we saw in Chapter 3, insisted that anarchist propagandists should identify new forms of organization for those functions that the state noew fullfills through bureaucracy." DTC 07:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh come off it. He notes the difference between right-libertarians and left-libertarians - on wikipedia libertarianism refers almost exclusively to those on the right (libertarian socialism is self-explanatory as a left-wing term). We could change it to right-libertarian, but I thought I was being nice. In fact, I thought I was being awe-fucking-inspiring in my reasonableness, considering the POV pushing you lot have done here. --GoodIntentions 07:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes he does note the difference between left and right libertarians. But he does not say that libertarians are not anarchists. "Libertarianism" is simply a synonym for anarchism. Yes anarcho-capitalists are libertarians. But so are 19th century individualist anarchists, and so are anarcho-communists. Don't make it look like he is using it in the sense as it's used in the Misplaced Pages article. He does not use it in that way. DTC 07:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

What else does he mean when he says ancaps appropriated the term libertarian? Because the term libertarian no longer is a straight synonym for anarchist. Anyway, I said that those who reject ancap's claim to anarchism make a distinction between "libertarianism" (right-libertarianism) and "anarchism" (left-libertarianism) but those who claim ancap's anarchist pedigree don't. This argument seems like an excellent example. I'm trying to explain things in the article, DTC, please try to play nice with others. --GoodIntentions 07:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

No he is not saying that "libertarianism" is no longer a synonym for anarchism. Obviously he's still using it as a synonym and many other writers do as well. The article already said that Ward said that anarcho-capitalism was a "different style of libertarianism" from 19th century individualism. DTC 07:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Not obvious: show me where he says it. Outright. He makes a distinction between right- and left-libertarianism. It's that distinction that I was trying to represent. Reword it if you want, but don't strike it out. --GoodIntentions 07:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

"In the 1970s, a series of books, from academics rather than activists, proclaimed a different style of American libertarianism." Chapter 7, page 66. He is saying that anarcho-capitalism is a different style of libertarianism that 19th century individualism. But, both are libertarians. DTC 07:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Right of left libertarianism? Libertarianism is neither left nor right by nature and definition. Whiskey Rebellion 07:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

You are not coherent. We are not talking essentialism, but the typical use of the term. And if Rothbard and Kropotkin mean the same thing by libertarianism and anarchism, then I will by Whiskey's date to his senior prom. --GoodIntentions 10:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Strange, DTC, that you would do multiple edits to reach the same version as before, plus whatever we forced you to accept under pain of death. Trying to make it appear like you aren't reverting? I really wish your stable versions were legible and informative. --GoodIntentions 10:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I know that I'm supposed to be a ghost, but I couldn't help but notice, while lurking, that DTC had inserted "anti-capitalist" into the sentence "than the kind held by 19th and 20th century anti-capitalist individualist anarchists." Unfortunately, Ward makes no mention of any such thing as a "capitalist individualist anarchist." He writes only of individualist anarchists, tout court. He refers to anarcho-capitalists, whom DTC views as capitalist individualist anarchists, once, pejoratively, in reference to "anarcho-capitalist apologists" -- the rest of the time he refers to them as "Right libertarians" or some other such thing, but only after noting that they had appropriated the term "libertarian" from anarchists. RJII should really stop bastardizing this source, even though its conclusions contradict the hard-wiring in his brain, which, after being marinated in anti-aging chemicals, probably misfires quite a bit.

I also suggest that some of the less biased people editing this article purchase a copy of this very reasonably-priced book (it's pretty easy to find) instead of relying on the substantial quotations that I provided in previous discussion. Although my quotations made all of these points obvious to anybody who did not already have the same prejudices as RJII/DTC, a full read of the book will make them all the more clearer. Also, it's pretty obvious that RJII/DTC is relying solely on a strange interpretation of the quotations that I have provided, and has not actually read the book. Ta ta, --AaronS 12:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't believe in ghosts. DTC 16:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Opposition to AC as anarchist a "minority view"

The view that Anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron with no place in anarchism is so widely accepted that it's difficult to find direct sources that state it. Opposition to capitalism is a fundamental part of anarchism for virtually all scholars, activists and writers around the world. Of course it's easy, in any disagreement, to find a key selection of pieces arguing the minority view, but the fact that many theorists have no reference to Ancaps does not mean that they would ever agree with the idea that it's part of anarchism. Any scholar, activist or writer who puts forward the principle that anarchism is, by definition, opposed to capitalism would logically reject anarcho-capitalism. Donnacha 08:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The article stated as much, before DTC and That'sHot came along. --GoodIntentions 10:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

You're simply wrong. It's a minority fringe of scholars that say anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism. Mainstream academia regard ancap as anarchism. Also note that you will find almost no definitions of anarchism that has anything to do with rejecting capitalism. "Anarchism is the name of a political philosophy or to group of doctrines and attitudes that are centered on rejection of government, or the state, as harmful and unnecessary and support its elimination," according to the sourced definition in this article. Yes most types of anarchism oppose capitalism but that's not necessary to be an anarchist. DTC 16:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Real anarchism is opposed to coercion, hierarchy and wage slavery - it has been in all cases until a bunch of nutty Austrians tried to hi-jack the term and argued for a form of anarchism based on hierarchy and wage slavery with intrinsic coercion. Opposition to the state is actually secondary in most cases, the state is opposed because it its existence prevents a social revolution, not because it's the primary target. Anarchism is defined by anarchists, from Godwin and Proudhon, through their descendents of all shades. "Anarcho"-capitalists rape the bones of the individualists and claim it's a tribute. Donnacha 16:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

No, you're making up your own definition of anarchism. You can't say that because most anarchists oppose such and such that therefore that's what makes them anarchists. That just happens to be what most anarchists oppose. The only thing that makes someone an anarchists is that they oppose the existence of the state. And you're wrong about how anarcho-capitalists treat the 19th century individualist anarchists. They explicitly say they reject their economics. What they agree with is that the state should withdraw and that liberty and property should be protected by competing businesses. Opposition to the state is also secondary for anarcho-capitalists. They reject it because they reject coercion. DTC 16:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

And yet, they accept the more coercive power of industry. Bourgeois industrialists created the state to defend their new industrial power. Only persistent pressure from anarchists, among others, softened the state. The battle for reasonable work hours was won when anarchists, among others, succeeded in forcing the state to stop industrialists working them to death. Thus, the coercive power of industrialists is and has historically been, the big bad. Anyone who ridiculously believes that, if you remove the limited protections afforded by the state without dismantling big business and capitalism, is living in cloud-cuckoo-land. And that's not just my view, it's the view of the world's most renowned anarchist academic, Chomsky. Donnacha 17:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

So, your point is that use the state to coerce the coercers is what marks "true" anarchism? Use the machinery of the state to enforce hard limits on a business is anarchism?? —Memotype::T 19:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The purpose of anarchism is not simply some remote, meaningless future. It's about maximising freedom. If a state offers a National Health System, free to all-comers at the point of use, and a bunch of private companies push for privatisation so they can charge people - which maximises freedom? Ignoring the private companies and destroy the state? Or campaign against the companies and maintain the access to health services for all? As Chomsky points out in "Chomsky on anarchism", the state, at least, provides some element of democracy and should be pushed to provide ever more. Corporations provide no element of democracy at all and the idea that the state should be destroyed without dismantling corporate capitalism is insane. Donnacha 21:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Another point. Most anarchists oppose what individualists support, which is private police, militaries, and prisons. Does that mean individualist anarchists are not anarchists? No, because opposition to police, armies, and prisons is not how anarchism is defined. Albert Meltzer, who is cited in this article, says the Benjamin Tucker and his contemporaries are not real anarchists. But that is an extreme fringe POV. Those who say ancap is not a form of anarchism usually put the 19th century individualists in the category of non-anarchists too. Mainstream scholarship regards them both as anarchists. DTC 17:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. Most anarchists of all shades do accept the individualist tradition, though the non-individualists do criticise it as being unworkable (just as the individualists do to the communists). The very fact that leads to both shades being defined as anarchism is their opposition to the capitalism, because their views on what constitutes the state vary. This piece needs, as I pointed out elsewhere, a piece on the synthesis of both trends. Donnacha 17:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't dispute that most anarchists oppose anarcho-capitalism and would say that it's not a form of anarchism. But these are anarchists in general. Those anarchists can't define anarchism for an encyclopedia article, unless they're published anarchists. Definitions of anarchism and whether a philosophy is anarchist or not has to come from scholars. Most scholars, both non-anarchists and anarchist, say anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism. That is the mainstream view. The statement that "most anarchists don't think anarcho-capitalism is a legitimate form of anarchism" is probably true. But that is different from this statement: "Most scholars don't think anarcho-capitalism is a legitimate form of anarchism." The first statement is trivial. Of course most anarchists, if they're anti-capitalists, would reject anarcho-capitalism. But, they're not the ones who matter. What matters is what published scholars say (which may include anarchists). Just as there is a minority of scholars that say anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism, there are a minority of scholars that say Benjamin Tucker wasn't a real anarchism. Albert Meltzer says in his book Anarchism For and Against: "The second line of descent from Godwin is responsible for the 'Pacifist Anarchist' approach or the 'Individualist Anarchist' approach that differs from revolutionary anarchism. It is sometimes too readiy conceded that this is after all, anarchism. Pacifist movments, and the Ghandian in particular, are usually totalitarian and impose authority (even if only by moral means); the school of Benjamin Tucker - by virtue of their individualism - accepted the need for police to break up strikes so as to guarantee the employer's 'freedom'. All this school of so-called individaulists accept, at one time or another, the necessity of a police force, hence for government, and the definition of anarchism is no government." He also opposes anarcho-capitalism for the same reason and says it's not real anarchism. DTC 17:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The actual mainstream of academics tends to be full of Marxists, who have every interest in defaming anarchism. It's also full of capitalists, who have every interest in defaming anarchism. Also, I'm fairly confident that the majority of non-American and non-Austrian political academics have never said anything at all about "A"C because they recognise it as an oxy-moron. Anarchism is an historical tradition, "A"C doesn't fit. Any attempt to force it in is a wrecking attempt. However, I've not once tried to delete it from this article. I have, however, tried to undue the attempts of "A"Cs to imply that only a minority opposes it. Anarchism is defined by anarchists and the vast majority reject "A"C. Donnacha 18:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

But you're just saying this. The sources indicate otherwise. Look at the sources in this article. These are widely-distributed mainstream books and encyclopedias about anarchism. And there are not written by anarcho-capitalists. Many of them are written by anti-capitalists, but they still say ancap is one of the several forms of anarchism. Anyone who researches the sources can't come to any other conclusion than that it's a minority POV among scholars that ancap is not a form of anarchism. By the way Meltzer is not a Marxist but an anarcho-communist. DTC 19:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

So now you attempt to circumvent wp policy about sources by saying that all of the sources have some hidden agenda. Boogie-man logic does not apply here. —Memotype::T 19:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Again, have I tried to delete the section on "A"C? No. Do I want proper reflection of the fact that most anarchists do not accept it? Not even that. Do I want proper reflection of the reality that most anarchist activists and notable scholars do not regard it as part of anarchism and that that opposition is not a minority view? Yes. There is opposition here to using the infoshop Anarchist FAQ as a source because it's "biased", yet there's automatic acceptance of the judgement of scholars, many of whom have views opposed to anarchism. Donnacha 20:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you have evidence that most scholars do not regard it as a form of anarchism? No you don't. The evidence indicates otherwise. Very few scholars consider it non-anarchist. The FAQ is not unreliable because it's biased but because it's an internet FAQ. Anyone can write a FAQ and post it on the internet. There are all sorts of FAQs floating around the internet. But they're not published documents and few are written written by scholars. DTC 20:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I never said most scholars, I said most activists. The FAQ will be published by AK Press in a few months, will it magically become more reliable then? The infoshop FAQ is not any old FAQ, it's a core part of modern anarchist theory. It is a scholarly work, as I pointed out below, I know at least one of the contributors. Donnacha 21:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I have not accused you of trying to delete the section, perhaps you are confusing me with someone else. My point is merely that your argument attempts to refute the scholarly acceptance of anarcho-capitalism on the grounds that the scholars have some kind of agenda for "defaming" anarchism. Misplaced Pages has a policy on sources, and scholarly sources will be accepted above non-scholarly sources. —Memotype::T 20:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but when have I objected to the sources in the article? I disagree with them and do reckon many have something against anarchism, but I haven't attempted to change anything in the article based on that. It's my own view. The way I've put it in the article is that within the anarchist movement, it is not a minority view to reject "A"S. Which is accurate and the view of non-anarchist scholars has nothing to do with it. Donnacha 21:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

American individualist anarchism

Are there any experts on Goldman and de Cleyre's attempts to synthesize egoism/individualism with the more left-wing varieties of anarchism? It would be good to add this in if someone could put it together (I'd have to do some research and I don't really have the time to do it). Donnacha 10:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Goldman reject individualist anarchism. De Cleyre was an individualist anarchist for awhile and opposed Goldman's philosophy: "..Miss Goldman is a communist; I am an individualist. She wishes to destroy the right of property, I wish to assert it. I make my war upon privilege and authority, whereby the right of property, the true right in that which is proper to the individual, is annihilated. She believes that co-operation would entirely supplant competition; I hold that competition in one form or another will always exist, and that it is highly desirable it should." But, later De Cleyre rejected individualist anarchism saying "Socialism and Communism both demand a degree of joint effort and administration which would beget more regulation than is wholly consistent with ideal Anarchism; Individualism and Mutualism, resting upon property, involve a development of the private policeman not at all compatible with my notion of freedom." So, she turned to anarchism without adjectives. DTC 19:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, not completely accurate, as Goldman became more interested in individual liberty as she grew older. Her ideas brought the concept of personal liberty from the theoretical to the personal in very real sense, pioneering the now core concepts of true gender equality, sexual liberty and personal freedom - borrowing from Stirner, Nietzsche and Freud, among others. Donnacha 20:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

"most activists"...

The assertion in the Anarcho-capitalism section that "most activists" reject a/c is unsourced. Just because most of the activists you happen to hang out with reject a/c, does not mean you have a necessarily accurate cross-section of anarchists. If this has been varified with research, please cite a source, otherwise I will ensure that it is marked "dubious" until then. —Memotype::T 13:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales specifically says to clear unsourced statements aggressively, rather than just put a cite tag on them. And my sentiments exactly. Whiskey Rebellion 14:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Most anarchists are anti-capitalist, thus, by definition, they reject the oxymoronic "anarcho-capitalism". The world's largest anarchist organisations are anarcho-syndicalist, thus reject the oxymoronic "anarcho-capitalism". "Anarcho-capitalism" is "outside the mainstream" of anarchist theory, thus is not accepted by most anarchists. Most anarchists are so dismissive of the oxymoronic "anarcho-capitalism" that they don't even bother talking about it. Donnacha 14:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Uh yes, anarcho-capitalism is supposedly not in the mainstream of anarchists and most anarchists reject it. They don't like it. So what? That doesn't meant it's not a form of anarchism. All individualist anarchists reject anarcho-communism. Does that mean anarcho-communism it not a form of anarchism? DTC 16:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

"Most activists", by definition, means the mainstream. Those within the mainstream do not accept accept that "A"C is anarchism. Thus, what I put is correct. Accepting "A"C as anarchism is akin to accepting a uniformed cop as an anarchist if he waves a red and black flag while hitting you with his truncheon. Donnacha 16:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Um, Whiskey, I don't think Jimbo says that, or you've quoted him way out of context. The overwhelming majority of Misplaced Pages statements are unsourced, and that's mainly because they're obvious or otherwise non-controversial. Jimbo probably doesn't want 90% of Misplaced Pages to be aggressively deleted. Just a thought. That said, though, when it comes to what "most anarchists" believe, it's very important to pin down how this is determined and what the source is. MrVoluntarist 14:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't say "most anarchists", it says "most activists" and, other than web warriors, I'm not aware of major AC activist groups or individuals. Anarchist opposition to capitalism is plain to see on every anarchist news site, at every major anti-capitalist protest, etc - this is where you find the views of anarchist activists. The infoshop Anarchist FAQ puts forth the view of most anarchist activists:

"F.1 Are "anarcho"-capitalists really anarchists?

In a word, no. While "anarcho"-capitalists obviously try to associate themselves with the anarchist tradition by using the word "anarcho" or by calling themselves "anarchists", their ideas are distinctly at odds with those associated with anarchism. As a result, any claims that their ideas are anarchist or that they are part of the anarchist tradition or movement are false." Donnacha 15:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Most anarchists don't work for a group that works with the United Nations while protesting United Nations suborganizations at the same time. Most anarchists are also big time against arms control campaigns. You keep calling ancap "oxymoronic". Well, plenty of anarchists say the same for communist-anarchism. If there ever was an oxymoron there is an enormous one. And to MrVoluntarist, Jimbo Wales most definitely says to wipe out uncited sources. (Not well known obvious ones like Africa is a continent. Whiskey Rebellion 15:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Good stuff with the personal attacks, as you're not an anarchist your definition is meaningless. "A"C is oxy-moronic because anarchism is anti-capitalist, has been since the beginning and the hijacking of the term by a bunch of academics changes nothing. infoshop is a widely accepted guide to mainstream anarchism and what it says about the oxymoronic "A"C is what most anarchist activists think. As for whether anarcho-communism is oxymoronic, you'll find that most arguments on that level are strawman arguments. "A"Cs want unbriddled corporate capitalism and wage slavery to continue, while all shades of real anarchists want voluntary co-operation based on equality. The idea that Anarchist Communists want to force anyone to do anything is a contractiction in terms, thus claims that anarcho-communism will be oppressive is, quite frankly, wrong. It is a theory about the best way to organise an anarchist society, if the people in that society don't want it, then it won't happen. "A"C, on the other hand, by arguing against the dismantlement of hierarchical capitalism and, in fact, fighting on the side of corporations against any attempts to restrict their abuses, would lead to the most horrific society imaginable where nobody would be free. Donnacha 16:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you seriously using that FAQ as a source? That's laughable. It's a POV piece written by anarchy kids on the internet. DTC 16:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

"Squawk! Squawk!" goes the RJII parrot. --24.34.81.12 21:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

So you know them, do you? I know at least one of the contributors, and to call one of Ireland's most experienced and knowledgable anarchists, Andrew Flood an "anarchy kid" just shows how ignorant you are. Yes, it's a POV piece, it's a written from an anarchist point of view. Donnacha 16:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

His viewpoint is irrelevant. That's like you putting up a web page. Just because you put up a web page and write articles on post them on the internet it doesn't meant that your view counts for anything. DTC 17:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Nice shifting of the goalposts. He's also been published in books, and stuff. Isn't Andrew great? Donnacha 17:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

If a publisher has published his work then cite it. There is no way to know what words, if any, came from him in that FAQ anyway. That FAQ can't stand up as a reliable source here. DTC 17:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

For the record - Flood, Andrew: Dreaming of a Reality Where the Past and Future Meet the Present, in Chapter 2, "We are everywhere", Verso, 2003. Nothing relevant to this article in it, though (and strangely no articles for the Encounters).

If a publisher has published his work then cite it. There is no way to know what words, if any, came from him in that FAQ anyway. That FAQ is not a reliable source here. DTC 17:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

That is rather ridiculous. In the past the Anarchist FAQ was excluded from inclusion becuase it was only published online and i agree with that decision. Now, however, it is being published and must again be considered for inclusion as a source. I am for inclusion personally as it represents the majority beliefs of the majority of anarchists. No I don't have a poll confirming that most anarchists are anti-capitalist, it is simply a fact backed by the weight of historical and academic record and by contemporary observation. Donnacha is right in all that she says. Blockader 17:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Yup, because any project based on free co-operation among individuals is unreliable. Why exactly are you here, other than to cause trouble? Granted, that does seem to be the purpose of all "A"Cs, it doesn't make any sense. You take a broad historical tradition, with contradictions and disagreements because it's a lot of humans, and you decide, despite rejecting all but the simplest dictionary definition of anarchism, that you want to be part of it. It's irrational and the only reason I can see for it is to undermine and discredit anarchism by associating it with its opposite, capitalism. Donnacha 17:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't start attacking me and my motivations. Stick to the subject matter. But since you bring it up, let's get something straight. I'm not an anarcho-capitalist. I'm not an anarchist of any kind. This article needs more people like me, who aren't so entrenched in their anarchist POV ("my anarchism is real and yours is not, nya nya, and all that") and can have a more objective look at things. DTC 18:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Donnacha attacks on a regular basis. It's okay, you see, becuase he's Irish or so it says here. I am not an anarcho-capitalist either but am an actual anarchist. Whether I am or am not an anarcho-capitalist should have nothing to do with whether it gets included in this article in a factual manner as you realize, DTC. There is incredible POV and bias in almost this entire article. There is also WP:OWN. Anarchists do not work for arms control, Donnacha. Being able to obtain arms, so one can have them when necessary, is as rudimentary an anarchist concept as is imaginable. It's called self defense against an oppressive state. And you tell me I'm not an anarchist? You have been warned, Donnacha, by two admins for WP:NPA, WP:3RR, among others. You also keep saying that you'll stop doing these things but keep doing them anyway. Keep going. Whiskey Rebellion 18:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

No, my dear, I've attacked you before. I'm not going to bother again, because I don't care what you think or say. As for whether or not anarchists work for arms control, I've told you time and time again that the Control Arms campaign is about the arms trade, not personal ownership, and opposition to the arms trade is one of the most prominent anarchist campaigns worldwide. So you're showing that you know nothing about real anarchism. Donnacha 18:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

You just attacked me again. It's sorta obvious that if the trade is stopped it'll be a lot harder to own. You just said it all,"opposition to the arms trade is one of the most prominent anarchist campaigns worldwide". I am floored at this statement. Now we're getting to the bottom of all this contention. These are not anarchists. Whoever you're talking about here are just not anarchists. I can tell you right now the Black Bloc are not campaigning for arms control. If they are now campaigning for arms control they are not the Black Bloc anymore. But I find that real hard to believe. Now if you told me that the G8 and the U.N. are campaigning for arms control I would believe you because we already know that. The U.N. and it's corrupt monetary and military power is the G8. Something a little off here, folks? Whiskey Rebellion 19:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

No, honey, I criticised you. No wonder you've got such an obsession with guns if you regard every criticism as an attack. The arms trade is attacked by every right thinking anti-capitalist for profiting from human misery. The vast majority of anarchists no longer believe in armed violence. Self-defence is the obsession of the scared. I've already said I'm Irish, I grew up in a society where violence was rife only a hundred miles or so to the North. An armed population leads to an armed state, which leads to greater violence. An unarmed population with a less armed state is easier to control. But, hey, look at how much control people in the great armed USA have over the government, how much freedom they increasingly have, compared to us poor oppressed non-gun owners in Europe. Donnacha 20:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not your honey. And you are extremely confused about an awful lot of things. F the U.S. state, I'll agree on that. And f those European states that want to control the arms trade and are bunch of total hypocrites. Also. Look up the word anarchist. I think you may have it confused with totalitarianist. Too, for a northern Irishman you sound awful British. Whiskey Rebellion 20:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Look, dahlink, a hundred miles or so to the North would imply that I might be a Southern Irishman (which I am, Dublin born and bred). And Jaysus, are ye after sayin' dat I sound like one a' dem Brits, are ya? Fer fuck's sake, bud! I've said it before and I'll say it again, you don't know what real anarchism is and I don't care about your opinion. I'm happy to remain in the company of other real anarchists who don't think having guns all over the place is freedom, people like Noam Chomsky. Donnacha 21:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Settle down

Please, everyone settle down and absolutely no personal attacks. The discussion in the above thread has strayed beyond the civility line. Please keep further discussion within the appropriate limits of civil discourse. Thank you -- Samir धर्म 01:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, please return to the thinly-veiled threats and abuse of Misplaced Pages policy that satirize civil discussion. I love it. --LordTimothyDexter 02:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree with Samir. Any more straying from civility or NPA and I will be handing out blocks. Everyone involved in the discussion above really should be ashamed of themselves. It is not a requirement that one be an anarchist to edit this article. It is also not a requirement that one be a particular type of anarchist. It's all "argument for the sake of argument". Stick to making this a good Misplaced Pages article and keep the attacks out of the equation. --Woohookitty 04:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

LOL! And there was me thinking my attempts at uber-campness would take the sting out of it! Donnacha 08:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

It was probably not the best course of action, Donnacha. --GoodIntentions 13:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

There is no best course of action with Mr Whiskey, as I've already learned from his blatant POV pushing on the Amnesty International page. Donnacha 13:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

And all the gun talk hardly helped any of us. --GoodIntentions 13:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

You can't blame me there, he's the one who brought it over from the AI page, where he had been pushing his anti-gun control POV on the Control Arms Campaign, refusing to accept the difference between opposition to the arms trade and gun control. As I quite correctly pointed out, opposition to the arms trade is a major anarchist activities, in Europe at least, see the DSEI protests each year. Donnacha 13:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I protected the page

Hopefully it'll be for just a short time. Time to enforce a cooling off period. I'd suggest that everyone take some time off from this article, simmer down and then come back. I'd say "work things out" but I'm not sure that's even a possibility. --Woohookitty 04:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

When we come back DTC/RJII will make this article unmanagable again. Acting unilaterally and in dishonesty. What are we supposed to do? You can see the efforts of myself and others in an attempt to be constructive and all that. I've even (in the proposal at the top of the page) offered those advancing ancap something they've argued for years, and the school does not really deserve. Immidiately the goalposts get shifted - not only must we give a fringe-view equal representation to movements that attracted millions, but now we can't mention that it's a fringe view. This gamesmanship, misrepresentation and single-minded dishonesty is driving me up the walls - what am I supposed to do? Look at where he calls a source I added bonus - personal attack, lies and conscious misrepresentation. Ban DTC and this goes away. --GoodIntentions 12:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

If you have a problem with anarcho-capitalism getting equal representation then why do decrease the representation of other movements in this article? Here we see you cutting down the information on anarcho-communism to where it's not very informative anymore: It seems to me that if you think ancap is equally represented then it seems to me that you would be increasing the representation of the other schools. Also, you have been adding sources that don't back up things you're saying in the article. They don't say what you say they say. DTC 16:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Look at this and this - POV pushing, blatantly. WHat am I supposed to do with this monomaniacal liar? --GoodIntentions 12:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Good Intentions was blocked for 3 hours for the above comments. Any more incivility for people who have been warned in the past for incivility and they will be blocked. Something has to stop people from sniping each other on this page. --Woohookitty 13:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I hope you plan to make a full time job of this, because this article really needs someone with the authority to keep the discussion in line (this was not intended to be a direct reference to the immediately above comment, just in general). Hope you stick around. :) —Memotype::T 14:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm making an attempt. --Woohookitty 04:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with those edits. The first one was remove a redundancy. It's already said in the section that anarcho-capitalists themselves say it's a different form than the 19th century individualism (they explicitly reject the 19th century form) so why repeat it with another source? The second edit was because you were using it as a source for a "notable anarchist" who says that anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism. But that would be a false source. He was saying that "anarcho-capitalism for this domain of right wing libertarianism is generally regarded as a political oxymoron by anarchists." He's not the one making the claim that it's not a form of anarchism. He's saying that most anarchists are making that claim. He doesn't put himself in that category. I don't think he's even an anarchist. He says that anarcho-capitalism is individualist anarchism. So, I moved the source to a place where it represents the claim that most anarchists refuse to accept ancap as anarchism, and away from backing the claim that notable anarchist scholars say it is not a form of anarchism. You misinterpret, and therefore misrepresent, sources over and over. I fix them, then you complain about it and start accusing me lying, and start making threats against me etc. It's ridiculous. DTC 16:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

There is much to much anti-U.S. libertarianism or anti-U.S. individual anarchism going on around here. Period. If one looks back in the archives it goes back at least to 2004. The battling to keep a fair representation of it should not have to be happening, never mind for 2 years! It shouldn't matter what some anti-ancap says about it. Certainly not to the extent that it dominates the an-cap section of the article. (Same for the individualist section.) what Woohoo says is correct. You don't have to be an anarchist or any type of anarchist to edit this article. What we all are and what we all like or dislike should have no bearing on what is included in the article. Otherwise it is clear POV pushing. This is an encyclopedia. Let's respect it and treat it as such.

You accused me of bias with my update to the communism section - which is ridiculous. I removed nothing, simply balanced the piece with absolutely accurate information about Anarcho-communism. Leaving that out of the section on communism is seriously biased. I have no problem with individualist anarchism, in fact, I see any anarchist society being a mixed system with a variety of different communities with different systems. I have an issues with anarcho-capitalism (and anarcho-primitivism for that matter) in that they damage the reputation of anarchism. Leninists have long opposed anarchists and called them "bourgeois individualists", et voila, we have a new trend of people who insist on calling themselves anarchists who are actually bourgeois individualists. Donnacha 21:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, I apologize to Donnacha as I was just as antagonistic to him as he was to me. Whiskey Rebellion 19:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Apology accepted and reciprocated. I honestly was not trying to be antagonistic here.Donnacha 21:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. And I believe you. Whiskey Rebellion 21:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Incidentily, Anti-US bias is not the right phrase because many editors here are anarchists and are therefore obviously anti-United States since it is a hierachical and centralized governmental body and organiztion. At the same time, there is also neither an anti-American nor an anti-individualist bias on this page. The Individualist anarchism section is rather extensive and, when compared to the collectivist section, only excludes info on social movements because indiv anarchism never had any social movements (by their own choice). There is also a fairly lengthy section on ancap, so where do you see all this bias, whiskey? I identify more bias in your persistant anti-communism and staunch nationalist POV. As far as your statement, "You don't have to be an anarchist or any type of anarchist to edit this article. What we all are and what we all like or dislike should have no bearing on what is included in the article. Otherwise it is clear POV pushing. This is an encyclopedia. Let's respect it and treat it as such" I think you should take your own advice. Blockader 21:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

So you think there is an anti US libertarianism bias/anti-U.S. [[All active members of Wikimedia projects are invited to vote in the 2006 Election to the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Individualist anarchism]]? Well, when we tried to include a bit about Lala Hardayal and the Ghadar Party, we were faced by the an onslaught from so-called mainstream anarchists who wanted refrences to this revolutionary movement of thousands removed . . . largely because it did not fit their eurocentric views about anarchism. Of course we shall return to this topic burt after more work has been done on people like Bakunin and his involvement with the League of Peace and Freedom. I think this p

Thanks for your input, Harrypotter. Of course it will always be controversial. As will those of any political parties, religions, etc. Have you checked out Astrology? That is a center for controversy and heated debate, amazingly to me. There is definitely a bias against US libertarianist and individualist anarchy here. Peruse the article. It's loud and clear. There seems to be a confusion being made by some between fake Libertarians (like the extreme right-wingers that call themselves Libertarians) and libertarianism itself -- the logical conclusion of which is anarchism. I dont doubt that there has been some similar confustion from both ends of the debate. But the fact remains that..well, read the article. Whiskey Rebellion 21:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't even have a nationalist attitude nevermind a "staunch nationalist pov." Where do you get that? Whiskey Rebellion 05:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Its just my general impression of you, sorry if I have impressions. Blockader 15:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Well, a suggestion would be, next time you get ready to accuse someone of having a pov, make sure they have it first, based on something more than a vague impression. And it's silly to apologize for having an impression. You might, though, apologize for the statement. Whiskey Rebellion 19:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The last three statements do not warrant their own new section, so they are here now. EbonyTotem 22:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I think info on Lala and Ghadar Party was excluded because this is an article on anarchism in general and must cover a large amount of information in a relatively brief and coherent format. It already has to hit a vast amount of points to satisfy a reasonable cross-section of editors here so including detailed info on relatively minor personages and groups is not feasable. The best compromise would be to add a "Anarchism in India" link in the side bar at the right with some info and wikilinks to those issues. Also, someone with more knowledge on the subject than I should really do something about the "Anarchism in China" article in the sidebar, it is awful. Blockader 21:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I take your word for it, but I find the claim of bias hard to believe. I'd welcome more information in this about anarchism in other parts of the world and in other communities (particularly Jewish anarchism such as in the London's East End and Emma Goldman/Alexander Berkman). I'm not that aware of the Ghadar Party, but would definitely be interested. I've already asked for some stuff on attempts to synthesize individualist and communist anarchism by Goldman and De Cleyre. There's also nothing on Japanese or Argentinian anarchism, which would also be good. Donnacha 21:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that there should be more about anarchism in other parts of the world. Like Africa, also. U.S.-type would be great, too. :) Whiskey Rebellion 21:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

So, are you gonna write the bit on Michael Albert, Z Communications and then? Donnacha 21:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Who me? Whiskey Rebellion 01:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, the cooling off period seems to be helping. Good. Keep at it. :) --Woohookitty 05:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

So far, God bless us. I hope it can continue. That would be awesome! Whiskey Rebellion 05:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Lala Hardayal was active in the USA mainly, and I do not see why Blockader made the comments that they made. Of course, Hardayal is of more significance than people like Jason McQuinn, Bob Black, Hakim Bey, Saul Newman, Todd May, Wolfi Landstreicher, Alfredo M. Bonanno, David Graeber, Andrej Grubacic, Howard Zinn, Edward Abbey, Robert Anton Wilson, Alan Moore,

Jeff Monson, Derrick Jensen, John Zerzan, Theodore Kaczynski, Ashanti Alston, Lorenzo Komboa Ervin, Sam Mbah, Randolph Bourne, James Guillaume, Murray Rothbard, David Friedman, Robert Nozick, Stephen Pearl Andrews, Victor Yarros or indeed Josiah Warren. Indeed a stamp was made after him in India, and the Ghadar party mounted an armed insurrection involving thousands of people, whereas most of the people aboveare simply 'lieterary' anarchists. Indeed perhaps Blockader would like to explain why they feel Asian anarchists should be "deported" from the anarchism page?Harrypotter 13:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, the list under "Cultural Phenomenon" is prefaced by the sentence, "The following figures are examples of prominent publicly self-avowed anarchists:" Thats why those people are included there. Personally, i didn't add but two of them, neither of whom you mention above. I do think Howard Zinn belongs there no matter what. Most of the other people you mention are "creators" of more recent anarchist "idealogies." Of those I certianly think that at least the post-left theorists/activists have been very influential around the world. Honestly, i am no expert on the specific subjects you are mentioning regarding the Indian/Indian American anarchist movements, but I stand by my assertion that this article cannot contain information about everything anarchist. That is why there is a sidebar and links etc. Maybe a section on "other (than the large ones discussed like CNT)" anarchist movements is appropriate. I've always felt info on the Free Municipalities (Zapatista) and the Kibbutz were appropriate but never inserted them due to considerations over length and focus. If everyone wants to make the article bigger and broader in scope than fine, but where does it end? Also, if you have a source for the statement, "the Ghadar party mounted an armed insurrection involving thousands of people" than you should add that to the Ghadar article as right now it doesn't make the movement sound like it included large numbers. It states, "Promptly 61 Ghadarites, led by Jwala Singh, set sail from San Francisco, via Korea, Canton and Singapore to start an uprising in India. Joined by over a hundred others (including British spies), they were nearly all arrested upon arrival" and "Ghadar activists undertook what the British described as political terrorism, but what was revolution to most Indians. Ghadar activists were responsible for bombs planted on government property, and targeted assassinations of British and police officials." Nothing about scope or actual accomplishments. Those inclusions would inhance the article. Blockader 15:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'll probably get the book about the Ghadar out of the library again in a while. I fact I have been concentraing more on developing the Bakunin page as there seemed to be so many wikipdeia contributors to teh anarchism page who have managed to preserve a state of complete ignorance about Bakunin's nationalism.Harrypotter 18:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

"there should be more about"

A wikipedia article is not supposed to be a book. According to WP:article size, after 32 kilobytes of "main text," additional information should be in separate articles. The main text of this article is already over 36 kilobytes. (The article "as a whole" is at 66 kilobytes, including footnotes, image captions, markup, etc.) Thus adding more material on anything either means the article stretches further away from the guideline or else it means something else needs to be taken out. EbonyTotem 03:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

It's just a guideline, man. It's not a policy that every article must follow. Anarchism includes a lot of different philosophies, so I think we can forget about the guideline for this one. But, look at the huge amount of references. That takes up a lot of space, but it's necessary in an article with so much controvery. So that's something to take into account.DTC 06:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The main body of the article, not including references etc., is 36 KB, 4 KB over the target length. EbonyTotem 09:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

It is a guideline and only a guideline. Most articles on an expansive subject such as this are over the 32K. I'm not sure this article could be trimmed more. --Woohookitty 05:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Whatever. Perhaps somebody would like to suggest an alternate target length before planning or enacting substantial expansions on obscure subfields. Otherwise one would expect future editors to come along saying "there's too much about _____" and rip out the parts they don't like. Again. EbonyTotem 07:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Please be civil. Just trying to be as help as I can be. --Woohookitty 03:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Article needs a lot of work

Indivdualist anarchism should be the first type in the schools section as it predates the others. Also, Thoreau, an anarchist who influenced so many other anarchists, should have his own section along with Godwin and Proudhon. Tolstoy was another great influence on other anarchists and there is only a quick mention of him towards the end of the article. Whiskey Rebellion 20:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Right. So, if everybody agreed this article should ultimately be 200 KB long, or whatever, then adding Shannon's old Thoreau section back might make some sense. All the previous drama about it would not have to be reiterated, and it wouldn't end up being removed again. Lingeron|Shannon seems to have started the last incarnation of the Thoreau section on July 24, adding Thoreau's picture on July 26. Shannon was indefinitely blocked on July 30, quickly returning anyway as KingWen, and was indefinitely blocked again. The section persisted until August 9, after which VoluntarySlave removed it for the last time, as far as I know. All relevant discussion is at Talk:Anarchism/Archive40. EbonyTotem 00:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but if you want Thoreau, then the Diggers (True Levellers) beat him by a few years. I'm thinking there might be sense in splitting this article between philosophy and movements. Donnacha 00:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The diggers were Cristian Communists. This is an article about anarchism. And Jesus beat them by many more years. That's where a whole lot of people got their ideas. There are also Christian anarchists. Whiskey Rebellion 11:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The Diggers were revolutionary communist egalitarians, so they retrospectively fit the definition of anarchist communists. However, my point is that, if you want to include Thoreau, who as a transcendetalist was important in the development of individualist anarchism, you should include the Diggers who were equally important in the development of anarchist communism. And, of course, you can keep going back and back and back, which is why the generally accepted geneology is Godwin -> Proudhon -> Warren/Bakunin, and so on. Everything before are influences, but not actually anarchists.Donnacha 12:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Thoreau was an actual anarchist! The Diggers were actual communists. Communism is not anarchism. Thoreau was not only an anarchist he was the most influential anarchist ever, with the exception of Jesus. The only trouble with Jesus is way more people and way more churches didn't follow his words of anarchy at all, (or any of his words). On the other hand, Lao Tsu is in the origins section and Jesus should be in there, too. Thoreau was a big time anarchist. His influence was enormous. He should have his own section right along with Godwin and Proudhon. He influenced more than they did! Whiskey Rebellion 12:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Please stop with the sectarianism. Communism without authority and leaders is anarchism. I'm not disagreeing that Thoreau was an anti-authoritarian and advocated direct action. However, the transcendentalists were somewhat elitist, they were not necessarily aiming to create a broad-based movement or change the world. All through history, there have been drop-out sub-cultures. However, for anarchism as an ideology and a political movement, the Diggers are as close to the Jura Federation as Thoreau is to Warren. I agree about Jesus, by the way, it was a short step from "No Masters but God" to "No Gods No Masters" (Proudhon -> Bakunin). Warren is generally recognised as the first actual individualist anarchist in the US, as Proudhon is recognised as the first real political anarchist (Godwin was a philosopher). Donnacha 13:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

One thing that you said, "Communism without authority and leaders is anarchism". U.S. Libertarianism without authority is anarchism, too. The difference is U.S. libertarianism calls for complete liberty for everyone, while communism does not. A true anarchism would include the freedom to live with or without an individual's selling stuff. Communities would inevitably sprout up that rejected or accepted individuals' selling stuff. Freedom from authority is freedom from authority. Period. ..authority in any form. Whiskey Rebellion 14:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think Proudhon should have his own section. He is the first to call himself an "anarchist." So what? That doesn't make him all that special. He certainly wasn't the first anarchist. He should be included in the Mutualism section which is his philosophy. It doesn't make sense to have two separate sections. hot 19:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

You, like I pointed out in the piece on Communism, are completely ignoring the "voluntary association" part of anarchism in all its forms. Communism cannot be enforced in an anarchism, so it will only come about if everyone, or at least the majority, wants it. Anarchist communism, like all other forms, is a theory - an outline of what those proposing it regard as the most egalitarian and thus free way to live. It's not a dogma, it's not a rule book. When I imagine an anarchist society, I fully expect communes beside individual holdings, with craft shops and minority interests and relationships between them. Individualist anarchism and Communist anarchism are only mutually exclusive within the same unit, not on a broader scale. So-called "anarcho"-capitalism, on the other hand, by defending the monopolisation of capital by corporations, is inconsistent with all forms of socialist anarchism, whether individualist or communist. Finally, my point about the Diggers is that you can find numerous examples of all forms of anarchism in history, Thoreau and the Diggers being just the forms just before the formation of anarchism as a political philosophy. However, retrospective characterisation of these groups is not useful in the context of the article. They came before anarchism was formulated as anarchism, they're influences, not anarchists in a factual sense. Donnacha 16:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

First, there's no reason why anarcho-capitalism needs to be consistent with socialist anarchism. Then, I don't see anywhere that anarcho-capitalists defend the monopolisation of capital by corporations. The state is what is called a coercive monopoly.

These two statements come from their respective articles and are both sourced.

anarcho-capitalists reject any level of state intervention, defining the state as a coercive monopoly and, as the only entity in human society that derives its income from legal aggression, an entity that inherently violates the central axiom of libertarianism.

Socialism refers to a broad array of doctrines or political movements that envisage a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to social control.

Social control is control. Control is control. You have control you no longer have anarchism. This is just basic stuff. I haven't found one source from an anarcho-capitalist that says they advocate the monopolisation of capital. Whiskey Rebellion 18:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Whiskey is right. Anarcho-capitalists, like all individualist anarchists oppose monopolization of capital. That's one of the reasons that they're anarcho-capitalists. You have to understand that anarcho-capitalists do not define capitalism in the same way that the old anarchists defined it. Benjamin Tucker and his buddies defined capitalism as the state protecting capital from competition. Anarcho-capitalists do not define it that way. They define capitalism pretty much like it is ordinarily defined today, which is a free market system where the state does not intervene to protect business from competition: "an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market" (Merriam-Webster) "Anarcho-capitalism" is confusing to many anarchists because they're so used to defining "capitalism" in a non-standard way, that frankly is just wrong in our modern english language. Fred Foldvary says, "there is individualist or atomistic anarchism. Its adherents like to confuse people by also calling it anarcho-capitalism." All individualist anarchists, including anarcho-capitalists, think that the state intervention is the cause of monopoly. There is no real way for a business to have a monopoly unless the state is causing it by having laws against competition, subsidies, etc. hot 19:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Voluntary communes operated on a communist/socialist model would be perfectly capable of existing within a larger society that is anarcho-capitalist, as there would be no authority to suppress them even if their ideology wasn't "politically correct" to outsiders. On the other hand, would a capitalist Galt's Gulch be allowed to exist within a larger society that is anarcho-communist? One would expect the outsiders to forcibly expropriate their wealth to force them to "share" it. *Dan T.* 19:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Anarcho-communists don't like people having more than they "need" and will expropriate wealth and redistribute it "according to need." Anarcho-capitalists let people have whatever kind of economic system they wish as long as they don't initiate coercion. It's just they think that capitalism, rather than voluntary communism, will naturally result if no one initiates coercion, because it seems to be human nature to want to trade and to want to own the product of one's labor. It's easy to concieve of truly voluntary communism being allowed to exist under an anarcho-capitalist legal system but very difficult to concieve of the converse when anarcho-communists explicitly say they support expropriation. I personally don't believe that anarcho-communism is anarchistic, but is fascistic, with the exception of the rare anarcho-communist who opposes expropriation of wealth acquired by others through non-coercive trade and business. Expropriating what the state has taken is fine, because that's just taken back what was stolen from the private sector. But expropriating the fruits of the labor of another person and his business, who has acquired his wealth through free market capitalism, is not anarchist but fascist. hot 19:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, thank you, thank you, Dan T. and hot. Whiskey Rebellion 19:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

In other words, you people reject the fundamental principle of Proudhon's anarchism - "Property is theft" and support the maintenance of an inegalitarian oligarchy. By opposing "social control", which means nothing more nor less than control by the people, you are not arguing for "no control" (which is impossible), but, instead, are arguing for a truly fascistic oligarchy free from any external control. Because, you can't give the workers the actual fruits of their labour without expropriating them from the leeching shareholders. You can't give workers the actual fruits of their labour without ending the hierarchical system of ownership and wage slavery. Freedom for all is inconsistent with inegalitarianism, free trade is impossible with inegalitarianism, thus is impossible. If I have more food than I need and you don't have enough, that's not free trade. I can steal from you, because you need the food and I have what I need. But, hey, let's wait until the revolution - the US can go all anarcho-capitalist and you'll have the return of all the horrors of the industrial revolution until the masses rise up against it. Whatever about Tucker et al, it was the IWW and Emma Goldman who created a truly mass anarchist movement in the United States. Hope lies with the Proles, people, everything else is just talk. Donnacha 21:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

You don't understand Proudhon do you? Yes he said "property is theft." Did it ever cross your mind that if someone says "property is theft" then that presupposes a right to property? You can only steal property. Proudhon was aware of that. He was using poetic license when he said property is theft. That's why he also said "property is liberty." He also said ""property is the greatest revolutionary force which exists, with an unequaled capacity for setting itself against authority..." and the "principal function of private property within the political system will be to act as a counterweight to the power of the State, and by so doing to insure the liberty of the individual." (Theory of Property in Selected Writings of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon p. 136)."Proudhon did not believe in equal wealth distribution. You are wrong about that. He was opposed to communism, both state communism and utopian communism. Unequal wealth distribution is natural in anarchy. With freedom comes unequal wealth distribution, because some people are more productive than others. Any anarcho-communist that expropriates the fruits of the labor of someone else is the thief. That's when "property is theft." Proudhon never advocated expropriation. He even said " I never meant to... forbid or suppress ground rent and interest on capital. I believe that all these forms of human activity should remain free and optional for all." hot 22:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

This is to Donnacha: Actually, no. And you haven't heard or understood a word of what we have been saying. The U.S. the way it is now would never go anarcho-capitalist any more than it would go anarcho-anything. We are talking about an anarchism -- not the present U.S. state of dictatorship. But the U.S. was not always a dictatorship. In the early days of our history only the colonies that gained independence eventually were controlled by a government. The entire continent was as close to anarchism as any civilized nation has ever been. It actually was anarchism. There was blessed little, if any, government intervention in any affairs. And you know what? People were free. They weren't economically equal to the wealthy manufacturer or plantation owner of the governed eastern part of the U.S. The large majority had nothing, not even a penny. But they had freedom. Freedom from oppression -- freedom from control. Some made it eventually as farmers, etc. some didn't. The small farmer and small businessman back east was getting the shirt taken right off his back, losing his farm or small store, and getting thrown into debtors' prison, or even getting executed. If freedom from oppression and coercion is not anarchism, I don't what is. And you what else? That anarchism that we had worked real well. People took care of each other. I wish I could live back in those days, just so I could have that freedom.

Anyhow, don't say all this is just theory because it clearly isn't. We had freedom and then lost it due to the greed of a few and the government sanction of that greed. Whiskey Rebellion 22:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Why haven't you been banned, yet, Thewolfstar? Why can't any substantive discussion occur without you turning it into the Newbie/Antagonists Forum on ASC? --69.164.74.68 22:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Just to add to what Hot said. I agree with what you are saying except that it isn't always intentional lack of productivity that causes poverty. There are lots of other circumstances like illness, harsh weather for a farmer, etc. But in the days of U.S. freedom family and friends took care of each other. Churches helped people. If we had anarchism and freedom people would still do that as we are way more good than bad. There lies the whole rationale for anarchism. We are more good than bad. We don't need the enforcement of their oppressive laws to control our actions. That's anarchism. And in better be freedom or I don't want it. Whiskey Rebellion 22:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

1. I've read Proudhon and what he objected to was the person who sat back and paid others to do his work for him - in other words, the capitalist. Those who own the means of production and charge others for their use. 2. If slavery and racism, mass murder and persistent banditry (major characteristics of the early United States) are anarchism, then I want nothing to do with it. Thankfully, though, the vast majority of anarchists through history (as I've pointed out, including the mass movements in the US) have been true anarchists, who know that inequality breeds authority and repression. The early US was anarchic because it was fresh and new and largely empty of people (because luckily, the natives weren't "people"). The only way that will be recovered is when we go off planet - I'd recommend Ken McLeod's "The Stone Canal" for a fabulous attempt to describe what that will be like. What amazes me about "anarcho"-capitalism, as well as "anarcho"-primitivism, is that they are such unbelievably elitist concepts. The thing that prevents both of them happening is actually the people who would be forced to live under them. Neither will ever be the mass movement necessary to bring about anarchism, simply because most people will not freely sign up to something that means their almost instant subjugation or destruction. Donnacha 23:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and that's the difference between individualism and collectivism. The individualist respects individual liberty and doesn't think someone should be forced to help someone else but that it should be voluntary. The communist thinks people should be forced to help others. Proudhon said in response to the communist dictum "to each according to his needs", "To each according to his works, first; and if, on occasion, I am impelled to aid you, I will do it with a good grace; but I will not be constrained." hot 22:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Wrong, anarchist communists do not believe anyone should be forced to do anything. If you can't win your arguments without blatant lies, then you can't win your argument. Donnacha 23:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

To hot: Wow. And Kropotkin said something like "A family should be allowed to own a teeny little house -- just barely enough room to stretch in. I thought that was real generous of him -- to allow us that. Don't you? Not too fascistic, huh? Whiskey Rebellion 23:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Coming from the background of Russian feudalism, where peasants were not allowed to own their own lives, that was an improvement. You know, it's a fundamental point of political negotiation - a minimum is not the maximum. Do you disagree that every family should be allowed to own at least a teeny little house? That would be better than the position many find themselves in today. Donnacha 23:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course I agree that people should be allowed to own a house. I don't oppose owning houses. (I do oppose urban and suburban sprawl, though, and that's another topic. I believe in the freedom of all living things. This world was not just made for us people.) I don't believe in coercion of any kind. Our U.S.-libertarian anarchists had a taste of freedom. We want it back. Freedom for everybody. Whiskey Rebellion 23:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Honestly? I think you should sample a bit of European social democracy. Smoke some dope in Amsterdam, go to a fetish club in London, walk the streets of Stockholm in broad daylight at 3am, protest about something in Paris, get pissed in a Dublin pub. The social achievements of anarchists and socialists in many things make Europe a more free place in many ways than the US. Again, I agree with Chomsky - to dismantle the state without dismantling capitalism would undo all of the good things activists have dragged from an unwilling state over the years. A five (if not four)-day week, free health care, a proper social welfare safety net, public transport, etc, etc, etc. The US right libertarian urge for a return to the wild west, where women were chattle, blacks were slaves and injuns were target practice - where WASPs dominated and the Irish and Italians were bandits or servants... Jeez, man, that's not free, it's chaos. Anarchism is evolution, and we're moving ever closer - ideas that had Emma Goldman imprisoned and deported from the US are now mainstream. Donnacha 23:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe a problem and a disagreement we are having has to do with the concept of liberty versus equality. I doubt we will ever have perfect equality and it can't be forced. Liberty does not = equality. The price of freedom is responsibility. Whiskey Rebellion 23:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Without equality, liberty will only be the province of some. Anarchism is about the maximising of freedom for all, not just for the few. Some of Kropotkin's suggestions about a future society are, of course, somewhat dated and laughable at times (grey clothes anyone), but the fundamental principle that liberty without equality is just for the few still holds true. Donnacha 23:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Read what I wrote about the American frontier. They did have liberty and it was anarchism in practice. They had liberty. Whiskey Rebellion 23:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

All of them? The blacks? The natives? The women? The Irish? The Jews? The Germans? As I wrote, the American frontier was also a place of slavery, mass murder and banditry. Donnacha 00:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Freedom and equality are not generally compatible; you can't achieve one without some loss of the other. Absolute equality would require massive coercion to force everybody to be the same (see "Harrison Bergeron"), while absolute liberty allows people to do all sorts of things that lead to their being inequal. *Dan T.* 23:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

And anarchism is an attempt to maximise both liberty and equality. Of course, you can't have absolutes in both, but absolutes are abstracts anyway. Absolute freedom and absolute liberty will never and can never exist. But, societies can be built to try and maximise both. Too much focus on liberty leads to inequality, which leads to a lack of liberty for those less equal. Donnacha 00:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually when you think about it, what's a time that we seem to be most free? Free as in free from being, and being as all that we are. Id say that pretty much sonds like death or at least what might be death if not somebody's right somewhere about what it really is. Absolute freedom = something like death. --Fjulle 22:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

This discussion has no place, here. --69.164.74.68 00:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you have no place here as you are nasty and accusatory, 69.164.74.68. And why don't you just come out and say who you are instead of hiding behind an ip address? Everyone but you, blockader and Ebony Totum are talking civilly now. Try to be nice. Whiskey Rebellion 00:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

To Donnacha: The American frontier had no slavery and banditry is not an argument. There was little banditry going on. People watched out for each other. The Irish and the Jews and the blacks had freedom in the frontier. The ones who got ripped were the Indians. That was mostly sanctioned and enforced by the government of that time. Now it is not a question as it is not happening. It already happened. The Indians should get a huge chunk of US soil back, though. None of your argument holds any water as far as libertarianism goes. Whiskey Rebellion 00:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not any one of the editors who are editing this article. You speak of accusation as if it is an inherently bad thing; it is not. I accuse you of bringing substantive discussion of this article to a standstill and replacing it with barely pseudo-intellectual theoretical discussion that belongs on an Internet BBS. This may hurt your feelings and upset you. Allow me to thinly sugarcoat it in bureaucratic Misplaced Pages platitudes: "Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia. :) Perhaps we should discuss the article at hand, and not engage in theoretical discourse. :) I am not accusing you of doing so, as I would not want to assume bad faith! :) But maybe you should shut up. :) Happy editing! :)" --69.164.74.68 01:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, enough with the theoretical discussions. I'm sure you know whiskey that that was one of the reasons Lingeron was blocked (other than being a sock of course). Ungovernable Force 03:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Solution to problem

Ideas? Anyone? I think it's about time for an RfC. We're going nowhere fast. I still think Marinus/Good Intentions' proposal from a few weeks back was good. This seems more than fair, considering that all the other encyclopedias I've seen focus on anarchism as a form of socialism or as a closely related idea. Most encyclopedias don't even mention anarcho-capitalism. Brittanica mentions it, but only in the libertarianism article (not in the anarchism one). Yet some editors want to make it seem like it deserves as much space and detail as the other forms, which are overwhelmingly more notable and influential, both today and in the past. The fact that anarcho-capitalism has virtually no social movement attached to it makes it not nearly as important as others for inclusion in this article as the others. There is an attempt to push what is an extremely minority position within anarchism and try to make it seem as common and well-accepted as the more common forms of anarchism. This is getting ridiculous, and it making it nearly impossible to say anything more about anarchism than it's anti-statist, which simply is not true. Just because a small group of modern self-described anarchists think capitalism is fine and dandy, does not mean we shouldn't emphasize the strong anti-capitalist tendency within virtually all forms of anarchism. Ungovernable Force 03:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC) Another idea, is to mention in the intro that many people use the term as a catch-all for "anti-statism", but that most self-described anarchist ideologies are a lot more narrow than that (ie, advocating an end to all hierarchy and authority, including capitalism, organized religion, etc). Then proceed with the article as Good Intentions suggests. Ungovernable Force 03:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Well the fact that anarcho-capitalism (US libertarianism) actually is anarchism might be a consideration, also. And the fact that capitalism is not authoritarian but socialism is authoritarian would probably be an important factor to consider. I do agree that an Rfc is a good idea. Misplaced Pages is not Britannica and there are all sorts of sources out there that are just as, if not more, reliable than Brittanica. Whether a school of anarchism has or hasn't a social movement attached to it isn't relevant as this is an article on anarchism, not the social movements of anarchism. Thoreau, who was just as much an anarchist, if not more, than anyone listed here, had more influence than all of them put together. As has been said, the eurocentrism in this article is a real apparant.

You are saying that "most self-described anarchist ideologies advocate an end to organized religion?" What you are describing is not anarchism. It sounds like a totalitarian state, specifically Stalinism. If you are learning about anarchism from sources that say this, I would suggest to you that the sources are as confused as hell. You are not describing anarchism. You are describing communism. I can't even believe I am hearing this. Anarchism is freedom from authoritaranism. I'd rather live in the present oppressive fascistic state that we're in now than the one you are advocating. It sounds a thousand times worse.

You also say a lot that most anarchists are socialist anarchists. Can I see the statistics for that?

Most of the editors that recently commented here don't seem to go for Good Intentions suggestions, either. Whiskey Rebellion 04:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

DTC agreed with that proposal. In fact, you're the only person I can see in that section who said it wasn't a good idea. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like most people agreed with it. And you don't have a clue what I'm advocating or how I advocate it. Most anarchists see organized religion as inherently authoritarian and coercive. Anyone who tells me I'm going to hell because I don't believe X and then tries to force me to believe and act that way is no friend of freedom. I don't have a problem with personal spirituality or religion (I myself am an animist), nor do all anarchists (and the ones that do are authoritarian in my opinion) but I'll be damned if I'm going to let a group of Christians/Jews/Muslims/Hindus/Buddhists/Scientologists/Insert Name of Group Here try to force their beleifs on me (and that goes for atheists as well). And even if I wanted to do away with all spiritual or religious beliefs, it doesn't necessarily require authority. It could also be done by engaging with people in discussions and getting them to believe something else. Of course, that's virtually impossible to do with everyone, nor is it needed. As for most anarchists being socialists, I'm going based on most people who have come to this page (even if you don't count all the sockpuppet repeats for you capitalists, there have been far more editors here who have agreed that anarchism is usually socialist/anti-capitalist). I'm also looking at all the encyclopedia's I've seen, all the self-described anarchists I've met and all the instances of anarchists in the news and at protests. Yes, an-cap has no social movement, and as such, it does not deserve as much discussion here. It has it's own page where you can go into all the philosophical stuff you want, but it really does not all belong here. The anarchist movement as a whole is anti-capitalist, and this article needs to clearly reflect that. Because an-cap has no social movement, it is relegated to the shelves of academics and philosophers, but has little expression in the real world in terms of advocacy, therefore it is not as notable. Ungovernable Force 05:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't belong to any organized religion, but I grew up and live in a country where 80+% of people are declared Catholics. However, I never had an impression that Church is coercing me to something.

Anyway, back to the article. Anarchism is first and foremost a political philosophy, not a social movement. All definitions that I have read emphasize that. As it was suggested before, maybe a solution to all this would be to have a another page that deals with anarchism as a movement. -- Vision Thing -- 20:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Anarchism is meaningless if it's only a philosophy. It's a bunch of web warriors pissing in the wind. Anarchism is Bakunin and the Jura Federation, anarchism is Makhno and the Ukrainian revolution, anarchism is the CNT and the Spanish revolution, anarchism is Paris in 1968, anarchism is Class War, Reclaim the Streets and the core of the "anti-globalization" movement. Anarchism is strikes, direct action and the TAZ. Donnacha 21:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The following quotes are all from the 3 1/2 page entry on anarchism in New Dictionary of the History of Ideas Volume 1 edited by Maryanne Cline Horowitz, published by Thomson Gale (who publish many textbooks). The author of the specific entry is George Esenwein from the University of Florida, Gainsville. " leading anarchist social theorists have tended to offer critical analyses of (1) the state and its institutional framework; (2) economics; and (3) religion." "From an economic standpoint, most anarchists have identified themselves as members of the anticapitalist socialist movement. Accordingly, anarchists argue that the emancipation of the worker will only be achieved by completely destroying the pillars of capitalism." "Though most anarchists are materialists, they are not opposed to spirtuality per se Rather, anarchists condemn organized religion, which they see as an agent of cultural repression." "Perhaps because of its shock value in an age crowded by political neologisms, the anarchist label has also been applied to groups that do not properly belong to the anarchist tradition. For example, the term "anarcho-capitalism" is sometimes used to refer to the libertarian economic and social thinkers such as Ayn Rand, David Friedman and other pro-capitalists who hold strong anti-statist views. But even though they share the anarchist's contempt for state authority, their commitment to free enterprise and laissez-faire principals places them completely at odds with classical anarchist thinking and practice" (and yes I know Rand wasn't an anarcho-capitalist). This is really the final word of this debate, but it is another example of a neutral and reliable source that not only says most anarchists are anti-capitalist, but clearly says anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism. It also backs up what I said about religion. Ungovernable Force 20:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think someone who thinks Ayn Rand was an anarcho-capitalist knows anything about anarcho-capitalism. If Ayn Rand's philosophy was anarcho-capitalism then he would be right to say that it's not anarchism. But it's not. So he's really not saying that saying that anarcho-capitalism is not anarchism. He just doesn't know what anarcho-capitalism is. That source can be promptly tossed in the garbage. InformationJihad 20:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree with above comment. If definition of anarcho-capitalism encompasses Ayn Rand's philosophy than nobody can deny that such philosophy can't be a form of anarchism. However, I never heard that anybody talks about Rand as an anarcho-capitalist. This Maryanne Cline Horowitz obviously doesn't know about what she is talking about. -- Vision Thing -- 20:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree with the two comments above. But I'd also like to point out that saying anarcho-capitalism is not in the anarchist "tradition" is not the same thing as saying it's not a form of anarchism. The anarchist "tradition" is anti-capitalist, but anarcho-capitalists are non-traditional anarchists. hot 01:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you kidding me Hot? As for the Rand thing, I've seen a few other sources call her an an-cap, so it's a relatively common error. The fact of the matter is, Rand was a free-market capitalist with a contempt for the state, and although she may not have gone all the way to an-cap, she was sort of close. Anyway, lets forget that he mentioned Rand for a second. He says why an-cap is not a form of anarchism proper (in his view), and it's exactly the same reason everyone else here has been citing. I doubt you will deny that an-caps fit the description he gave as anti-statist free-market supporters. I also want to say, I made a mistake. My second-to-last sentence above was supposed to read "this isn't really the final word...". As for the error with the source, like I said, it's understandable and has been made by others. There is even a discussion about Rand in the archives of this page. Also, the section on this article says that an-cap was influenced by Rand. Calling her an anarcho-capitalism seems to make about as much sense as saying Thoreau was an anarchist IMO. Neither claimed the label, but there are at least some similarities to anarchism and/or anarcho-capitalism (I will say, Thoreau is probably a bit closer, but still...) Anyways, no source is infaliable. There is no point though to throw the baby out with the bath water as they say. This source, even if it's flat-out wrong (which I don't think is the case), shows that some "neutral" and "reliable" sources (as defined by wikipedia) say that an-cap is not a form of anarchism (or at least anarchism proper) and that most anarchists are anti-capitalist. You asked for sources. Ungovernable Force 04:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Didn't you read what I wrote? It has nothing to do with Rand. I said that saying anarcho-capitalism is not traditional anarchism is not the same thing as saying that it's not anarchism. Your source says anarcho-capitalism is "outside the anarchist tradition." Sure, anarcho-capitalism is outside the "tradition." But that doesn't say or mean it's not anarchism. It's simply a non-traditional form of anarchism. (This is my last edit since school is starting back up. I can't afford to waste any more time here.) hot 15:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I did read what you said and you seem to be playing a semantics game. Ungovernable Force 18:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

It doesnt seem like semantics. Theres a difference between a anarchism and a traditional anarchism because as theres many different parts of the anarchist tradition, there might be many other parts of anarchism thats not a part of the anarchist tradition. Fx anarcho-punk is a kind of anarchism without being traditionel. Can you make a circle named traditional anarchism and a bigger one called anarchism around it you got the difference, and id say thats possible, or even necessary today as theres been lots of discourses in the history of anarchism which isnt traditionel. --Fjulle 19:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Has there ever been made criterias for when a anarchism isnt or is a traditional anarchism? --Fjulle 19:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I found this: "Bookchin indentifies four similar principles of traditional anarchism in terms of an opposition to statism; advocacy of confederated, decentralized municipalities; commitment to direct democracy; and the goal of attaining a libertarian communist society." (Light, Andrew, Social Ecology After Bookchin, page 331) Individualist anarchism in general is non-traditional, whether it's Benjamin Tucker's type or Murray Rothbard's type. hot 19:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I think Indiv Anarchism is generally considered one of the two traditional schools of anarchism, the other being socialist anarchism. It might not appear to be so due to its limited impact (in the direct sense) but I believe most scholars do consider it a traditional form of anarchism. ancap would not be traditional because of its acceptance of capitalism, which both social and indiv anrarchists reject and due to its relative youth. Can any political idealogy with only ~40 years of history be considered traditional? I don't know. Blockader 20:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the scholars who are communist anarchists accept individualist anarchism as traditional anarchism, such as Metltzer who is referenced in the article. He says it's not in the tradition and is not real anarchism. About anarcho-capitalism it's been around for more than 40 years. Rothbard wrote is first paper on it in 1949 or 1950. Also there are 19th century individuals who had basically the same philosophy like Molinari. They opposed the state and thought defense should provided in a competitive free market, but they weren't influenced by the labor theory of value to think there was something wrong with goods trading at any price both parties were willing to trade them at (not caring about how much labor was put into a good). That philosophy is also anarcho-capitalism. hot 20:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Nearly every scholarly piece i have read on anarchism in general has discussed anarchism as having individualist and socialist branches. If by "scholars who are communist anarchists" you mean folks like Kropotkin who largely founded the "modern" anarchist communist movement, than i would point out the 1910 Encyclopedia Brittanica article on anarchism, which he wrote, where he states, "On the other side, individualist anarchism found, also in Germany, its fullest expression in Max Stirner (Kaspar Schmidt), whose remarkable works remained quite overlooked until they were brought into prominence by John Henry Mackay." this seems to acknowledge the existence of individualist anarchists though he generally tends to refute their actual beliefs. he continues, after admonishing indiv principles, to write, "This is why this direction of thought, notwithstanding its undoubtedly correct and useful advocacy of the full development of each individuality, finds a hearing only in limited artistic and literary circles." He also states, "A prominent position among the individualist anarchists in America has been occupied by Benjamin R. Tucker," again confirming that he acknowledges the existence of indiv anarchism though he doesn't personally subscribe to their principles. Further, An Anarchist FAQ identifies the two branches of anarchism as socialist and indiviualist. Berkman, de Cleyre, Guerin, and many others who would be generally considered social anarchists also made such distinctions without dismissing individualism as nontraditional. Modern scholars such as Ward have followed suit. Lastly, regarding ancap development, i don't think it can be dated from the first paper written on it but even if it can than that is still only a decade older than i said, not a significant difference. As far as the precursors to ancap you mention, that is exactly what they are, precursors. Just as the Enlightenment was a precursor to anarchism. Blockader 21:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely agreed. In Emma Goldman's time, serious effort was put into trying to synthesis both strands of anarchism. Previous to Goldman, collectivist/communist anarchists had put little thought into the specifics of individual liberty - Kropotkin's outline of how people would live in an anarchist commune are slightly comical. She was the one who brough individual liberty to the forefront of anarchist communism - issues such as sexual freedom, gay rights, etc. So, not only did she (and many others) recognise that individualist anarchism was a form of anarchism, but they recognised its importance in anarchist thought so much that they sought to unify both trends. Even today, probably the most influential individualist anarchist alive is Robert Anton Wilson, who is read by all types of anarchists, including myself - an anarcho-syndicalist. He and I discussed the two strands online when I did his Non-Euclidean Politics course and, while he clearly favours the individualist trend, in no way did he claim that I wasn't an anarchist.Donnacha 22:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure Emma Goldman failed in any attempt to synthesis individualism and collectivism. Individualism can't be reconciled with collectivism. Individualism is the rejection of any type of authority over the individual and property is not owned by the collective but by the individual. No one can reconcile them without twisting the meanings of individualism and collectivism. That doesn't mean that individualist and communist systems can't exist side by side in peace in theory but they are not compatible in any other way. InformationJihad 22:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Voluntary co-operation, voluntary co-operation, voluntary co-operation. Why do so many people here have such a difficulty understanding two simple words? There is no coercive authority in a commune or a collective based on voluntary co-operation. Christ, all the pro-market people here seem to think that the freedom to sell is the most important. If you've got three people in a room, one of whom wants to be a capitalist shopkeeper, the other two decide to create a commune and share equally among each other, the shopkeeper will fail. He'll have no supplier and no customer. That's not coercion, it's not authority, it's the majority rejecting capitalism and the minority having to accept that because capitalism fails. Donnacha 23:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

In that scenario you are right, but the scenario is extremely unlikely in the first place. It's against general human nature to let others take what they want of what you have produced with your own hard work. Few are so foolish. Private property is natural. The super majority will never reject private property. If someone wants what I created through my own hard work, they need to offer me something I want in return. If I think it can serve me well I'll trade. If I don't think what they have to offer is good enough, they can go to hell. That's anarchy at it's finest. InformationJihad 23:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, post-leftism is a pretty good modern example of a mix of collectivist and individualist anarchism (and it's probably the best way to describe me). And Goldman did do a lot to synthesize both trends. If you think individualism and collectivism are completely incompatible, read The Politics of Individualism. I'm about half-way through it and it touches on these issues a lot (plus a lot on feminism as well). I also agree about voluntary co-operation, that really is the key distinction between anarchist communism and authoritarian communism. As for human nature, I always get a kick out of capitalists when they make that argument. As an anthropology major I can assure you, human nature is far more complex than you people make it out to be. Look at foraging societies, which until quite recently (relatively speaking) were the only type of society around. They had gift economies and had no sense of personal ownership of land or resources. The concepts were completely alien to them. That's part of the reason foraging (as well as herding) societies today get into a lot of sticky issues with agriculturalists. They don't recognize the idea of land ownership and will go wherever they please to get food for themselves (or in the case of herders, their animals). The point: human nature is flexible and depends at least partially on the culture you're raised in. I know, I'm being a hypocrite for getting involved in a theoretical discussion, but hey, since Whiskey just got blocked, I feel a need to let loose. If you want to discuss the issue more, perhaps take it to the coffee lounge. Off topic discussion are allowed there. I have the page watched, so just make sure your edit summary reflects the issue. And please, since it's on the Esperanza pages, keep it polite and friendly. Ungovernable Force 04:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

A "gift economy" is a pipe dream. People are smarter than that today. Trade is more efficient than gift giving. Reversion back to that primitive state of affairs will never happen. InformationJihad 19:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Yay for ethnocentrism! Ungovernable Force 01:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Failed featured article

I just checked this (This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed.) The following was why it failed:

Anarchism
- Reads like a string of unconnected sentences in parts. Bmills 14:13, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Not ready yet, its still trying to pass itself off as a synonym for "communism" ;) Sam Spade 12:36, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Okay. Looks like not much has changed in the last two years. Whiskey Rebellion 04:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd be interested to know what the ";)" meant. Ungovernable Force 05:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't know. Doesn't seem real important. Maybe he was trying to say it in a kind manner. Whiskey Rebellion 15:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I still am interested in seeing the statistics that show that most anarchists are socialist-anarchists. Someone saying that anarcho-capitalism isn't real anarchism means just that -- that someone with a bias against anarcho-capitalism says that it's not real anarchism. I want actual statistics, preferably worldwide, that show the number of people that identify as socialists, libertarians, any kind of anarchists, or with those anarchists of no adjectives.

And I would seriously like to know why, two years ago, an editor said that this article was not ready for featured status because it was trying to pass itself off as a synonym for "communism"? Does this ring a bell with anyone?

There are no authorities on this page that have a special right to tell us when a debate is still ongoing or not. You and 69..who sounds an awful lot like AaronS do not own this article. Whiskey Rebellion 21:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

You're the last person to accuse someone of seeming like someone else. Besides, Aaron has resigned, so even if it is aaron, it's not a sock of an active user. And I doubt Aaron would use socks. He doesn't have a history of it. Thewolfstar is another story. Ungovernable Force 04:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Statistics that most anarchists are socialists? Are you serious? Name one anarcho-capitalist movement in the real world. Just one that equals the CNT in Spain, Class War in the UK or Reclaim the Streets worldwide. Point to all the black flags flying at pro-capitalist rallies that compare to the red and black flags at anti-capitalist gatherings. Where are the parallels of the organisations listed on the anarcho-syndicalism page. Where are the anarchist book publishers like AK Press? Where's the "anarcho"-capitalist Chomsky with thousands of people turning up to his talks worldwide? Where's the "anarcho"-capitalist Z Communications? Before I encountered web-warriors on Nationstates a few years ago, I had no idea anything as nonsensical as pro-capitalist "anarchists" existed. It's not even a concept that's considered in Europe where there are still thousands of active anarchists, all socialist of one kind or another. Anarchism is anti-authoritarian socialism, according to history, according to the vast majority of published anarchist material, according to the vast majority of living, breathing and acting anarchists. In fact, I'd say that Robert Anton Wilson has turned more people on to individualist anarchism than any "anarcho"-capitalist has corrupted people to the oxymoronic variant. And I still fail to understand why right-wing libertarians felt the need to try and appropriate the term and try to pervert it.Donnacha 22:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Try to talk civilly. You're attacking in your speech again. From what you just said you didn't read a word that Hot, I, DanT and others just said. The true authoritarianism would occur in socialist or communist anarchism and would therefore not be anarchism at all. The freedom for the rights and existence of all would happen in an anarcho-capitalism. Again, this is an article on anarchism not anarchistic movements. And yes, I would like to see actual worldwide statistics. In all due respect, I don't think what's happening in Europe is any more important than what's happening in America. Also, anarcho-capitalism is just another name for a U.S.-libertarian-anarchism. Whiskey Rebellion 00:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you honestly think there are any stats out there for something like that? And what is US-libertarian-anarchism? I've never even heard that term. And even still, where are all the pro-capitalist anarchists here in America, other than on the computer? This is an article about anarchism as a philosophy and a social/political movement. Anti-capitalists have had more influence on anarchist philosophy and practice than pro-capitalists. The fact that no encyclopedia I've ever seen gives more than a few sentences to anarcho-capitalism (if any at all) in either the philosophy or movement sections is telling. Ungovernable Force 04:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, as mentioned many times, this isn't the place for a theoretical discussion of "which type will lead to authoritarianism?". If you want to get involved in that, go somewhere else. Lingeron already argued that to death, and I think she lost pretty badly. Ungovernable Force 04:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Fascism and socialist-anarchism

Here's an example of state sanctioned capitalist theft.

"It's a dark day for American homeowners. While most constitutional decisions affect a small number of people, this decision undermines the rights of every American, except the most politically connected. Every home, small business, or church would produce more taxes as a shopping center or office building. And according to the Court, that's a good enough reason for eminent domain." - Dana Berliner, senior attorney with the Institute for Justice, A Non-Profit Libertarian Public Interest Law Firm.

Socialism has a lot in common with Bush's U.S. government, in it's complete lack of regard for the individual and his property rights. People aren't important. Their property's not important. Freedom's not important. Like Hot said, socialist-anarchism is downright fascistic. Whiskey Rebellion 02:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep on topic: Talk pages are not for general conversation.
Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article.

Keep headings on topics related to the article. It should be clear from the heading which aspect of the article you wish to discuss.

WP:TPG

This isn't the place for this and you know it. You are really looking more and more like Lingeron/Thewolfstar everyday. Just a coincidence I'm sure. And like Lingeron, you don't understand what socialist anarchists advocate at all. Ungovernable Force 04:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Neither do most of the last 10 editors that commented here, apparantly. I can't help it if there are similarities between fascism and socialism. That'sHot pointed it out a couple of times, too. And read what DanT says about editing this article. He calls it a "snakepit". I'm not Lingeron. I'm not Thewolfstar. You accused DTC and That'sHot of being RJII and Thewolfstar, too, or maybe Hogeye. Whiskey Rebellion 05:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, and I stopped saying it about them because it's not as clear. I still think That's Hot and DTC are socks of someone, but I'm not sure of who, and I'm not nearly as sure as I am with you. Ungovernable Force 05:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Are we discussing whether the article should say, "Socialist anarchism is fascistic"?

Which section do we put it in? Is this going in the lead? EbonyTotem 07:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I think Whiskey Rebellion is conveniently showing how little about anarchism he knows as an aid to anyone deciding who's capable of editing the article. Each post, since yesterday, has been strawman after strawman - "prove most anarchists are socialists... sorry, you lose, because socialism is fascism, so anarchists can't be socialists." This is directly relevant to the article as Whiskey et al insist on downgrading the majority view in anarchism and overemphaising an extreme minority view in serious contravention of the NPOV principle. Donnacha 08:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I've been saying that since he showed up conveniently right after Lingeron/Shannon/TheWolfStar was blocked. Blockader 15:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Most Anarchists are opposed to 'Anarcho'-Capitalism

OK, once again people have tried to cut that statement from the article. The majority of anarchists do not view 'anarcho'-capitalism as anarchism. Peter Marshall says it in Chapter 36 of Demanding the Impossible. It is cited in a book. Therefore, it is good enough for this web page. I added it before, and was removed. Here's the link - . Whenever this page gets unprotected, feel free to add it. Supersheep 13:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Thats obviously incorrect. Peter Marshall is a communist spy. Haven't you ever been to a protest? All those red and black flags represent fans of the Georgia Bulldogs, a predominantly anarcho-capitalist group. Get your facts straight man. Blockader 15:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

How does Peter Marshall count as a reliable source on this? He seems to have a dog in the race. And where is his data to back this up? MrVoluntarist 15:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

It's in the article: "Most anarchists refuse to accept anarcho-capitalism as anarchism." It's right at the end of the anarcho-capitalism section, and Marshall is the reference. hot 15:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

This is Hilarious

Found this on ThatsHot's talk page in responce to assertions made by WhiskeyRebellion that wikipedia is dominated by people who are "anti-American and decidedly communist, or at the very least, left-wing liberal". ThatsHot responds, "You may be right. I'm thinking it may be because they in general have more time on their hands. There's probably a lot of government workers and college professors on here that are living off taxpayers that have to justify their own theft from the businessmen by inserting their anti-capitalist POV. Also probably a lot of unemployed lazy people on here who justify their own failure by blaiming it on the rich man. Also there is probably a lot of rich kids on here living off their parents while they spend their time on here. A lot of rich kids turn leftist as an act of rebellion against their parents who became successful through capitalism. Not that everyone with free time to spend on here is a leftist, but it may be that most of them are for the reasons I just stated. Most capitalists are out creating wealth that the lefists are living parasitically off of. They're not going to waste their time on here. Just think of the demographic of who has a lot of free time. Though there are some exceptions, it's mostly the most non-productive members of society who are here to push a POV that appears to rationalize their own non-productiveness. hot 04:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)" I assume he is being serious but who knows. WhiskeyRebellion's responce to the above paragraph was "LOL." That might be the smartest thing Whiskeys ever said on wikipedia. 69.55.170.102 18:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Not sure this belongs here. It is funny though. I would add my two-cents on it, but there is no point discussing this here. I suggest no one else respond to this post (same thing goes for any post made by an an-cap that tries to argue that socialist anarchists can't be real anarchists in an attempt to get into a theoretical debate). Ungovernable Force 18:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

He is right though. Now I'm working userption of resources and labour exploitation are hella cool! Do you think that the wealthist people on the earth actually do very much to earn their keep? Because with all that money you can probably just hire people to look after it for you can't you? What with their jobs depending on it, them probably being quite good at it and seeming though the worlds most well off are hiring them i don't think you really are gonna have a great deal to do to keep the £$s rolling in with the worlds finest finacial brains on the case.

I mean obviously us libertarian kinda people all want political and social change because we're all out for ourselves. Nothing to do with people having some sort of moral conciounce.--AnRK 12:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

And there was much rejoicing!

Finally. Ungovernable Force 02:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I fucking knew it. I can't express my joy in written word. Now we have maybe a week of sane discussion and intelligent (compared to whiskey) editors before he's back to accuse us of communist plots and champion the cause of, in his words, "US-type libertarian anarchism." It is interesting to me that thewolfstar manages to write in varyingly different voices but always sound so moronic. Oh wait, you can't get in trouble for personal attacks against a banned user can you? Hallelujah, Blockader 15:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Rejoicing at another editor of opposing political beliefs getting blocked or banned is hardly NPOV either. *Dan T.* 15:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Since when do people need to NPOV on the discussion pages? Donnacha 15:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, we are rejoicing because a sockpuppet of a permanently banned user who is consistently disruptive and accusatory has been identified and blocked. It has little to do with her political beliefs, but rather the manner in which she expressed them here and in this article. There are many people here of varying beliefs and we were generally maintianing a constructive discourse until thewolfstar showed back up as shannon and then again as whiskeyrebellion. Blockader 15:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Ditto. I can get along with people with opposing viewpoints, but the fact of the matter is, this user was a willfully stupid, disruptive, indefinitely blocked user evading a ban with yet another sockpuppet. I don't think thewolfstar is as stupid as she tries to appear, which makes things even more frustrating. And again, it took way too long for this to happen, seeing as everyone here already realized the simple truth weeks ago. So finally. Ungovernable Force 16:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that it is worth noting that, for all of the crocodile tears shed about some editors of this article tossing around the sock puppet label, they have rarely, if ever, been wrong. Add Whiskey Rebellion to the long list of socks who cried foul and threw around accusations of organized, ideologically-driven conspiracies all the way up until the point they were banned. --69.164.74.68 21:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

How about more good faith and good facts, folks?

A few thoughts:

The proposed guideline sounds workable. I do not think there are rational, historical grounds on which to exclude "anarcho-capitalists" from the entry. There is not sufficient uniformity of belief among those who use the label to clearly distinguish between some an-caps and some individualist anarchists, and it is clear that modern an-caps were among those who drew some inspiration from the 19th century individualists. Social anarchist comrades who are not dead-set against all forms of market anarchism should welcome some an-caps, and tackle others at the level of practice.
Doctrinal details belong on sub-pages, where we're less likely to get in each other's hair anyway. The best compromise for all factions is if people can reach details about all nominally anarchist movements from this entry. If anyone is attempting to reduce or block such access by writing groups out of the intellectual history, then that is an authoritarian move that anarchists and serious Wikipedians ought to oppose.
Whatever happened to the "assume good faith" rule?
Not so long ago, the Proudhon section had enough detail to illustrate in miniature a number of the problems and conflicts that have faced every subsequent element of anarchism. That, it seems to me, is useful, as the arguments—and particularly the arguments about property have been central to the development of the movements.

FWIW. Libertatia 17:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the article as it is now, at least regarding the treatment of anarcho-capitalism and the other issues raised in the proposed guideline, already satisfies said proposed guideline. Or doesn't it? How would implementation of the guideline alter the current state of the article?
Agree totally on doctrinal issues.
It seems that the assume good faith rule apparently began declining on this page with the admitted NPOV and disruptive behavior of RJII, hogeye, and most recently maggie/thewolfstar/lingeron/shannon/whiskeyrebellion. personally, I assume good faith for about 95% of the editors here and will continue to do so until thewolfstar returns in some new incarnation (i like "JoeMcCarthy" for her next name).
Agree.

Piece, Blockader 17:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe for a second that there is on person here that is not out to further his POV. So let's not live in a dream world and not finger point. Everyone here is doing exactly the same thing. I'm not accusing everyone of being dishonest or having "bad faith" but I'm confident everyone is here to put their POV into the article. InformationJihad 19:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

No. Everyone here is not, and has not been, doing the same thing. I'm sure all of us have a POV on anarchism, or we wouldn't be dealing with the nonsense that goes on here. But there is a significant difference between having a POV and pushing one. There is also a difference between having a POV and being committed to a dogma that doesn't let you see anyone else's point of view. I'm not interested in pointing fingers, in part because there is no need. I would like to see a relatively accurate article on anarchism. That's going to require some sort of cooperation between various factions of anarchists and other interested parties. FWIW, RJII did some very good work on some of the articles, and might have done more if there weren't so many temptations to engage in ultimately trivial ideological battles. Libertatia 00:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

To say that most anarchists (ie. those who define what anarchism is or is not) say "anarcho"-capitalism is an oxymoron and has nothing to do with anarchism is not POV, it's a statement of fact. Thus, it's only those ancaps who refuse to accept that basic fact who are pushing their POV. All the libertarian socialists who are willing to accept even a mention of "anarcho"-capitalism in the article are compromising and are acting with a proper, even extreme, NPOV position. To say anything else is POV. Donnacha 00:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

So, whose sock are you? --69.164.74.68 19:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

What's that supposed to mean? InformationJihad 20:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

It's a sock accusing someone of being a sock. :-) -- Vision Thing -- 20:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I am a sock, but not of any current editor, which is perfectly in line with Misplaced Pages policy. And I won't be editing this article, either. It is clear that InformationJihad is also a sock puppet -- but of whom, who knows? If he or she plans on being taken seriously and getting involved in editing this article, he or she should come clean on the matter. --69.164.74.68 21:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm nobody's puppet. And I don't care whether you take me seriously or not. InformationJihad 22:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

If you are AaronS, and I assume that you are, you were recently put on probation for edit warring and tendentious editing by Arbitration Committee. I’m not sure if it’s in line with Misplaced Pages policy to change user after that. -- Vision Thing -- 09:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I just saw that today. How strange, considering that I was never notified that I was even involved in the case, and therefore could not present any defense. There wasn't even any evidence offered. Ah, well. Misplaced Pages is a silly place. --AaronS 16:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The anarcho-capitalist section is currently in complete mess and needs a rewrite. Discussion whether anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism or not should go to the Issues section, after all that’s what it's for, and anarcho-capitalism should have a small section in the Individualist anarchism school which explains basics of its political theory. That's what I think is fair. -- Vision Thing -- 20:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it is pretty good but if the ancaps wanna rewrite than fine. Discussion concerning the contraversial nature of Ancap does belong in the Ancap section precisely because it is so contraversial and disputed. I think it is fair compromise for the socials here to accept ancap in the Schools section and for the ancaps to accept several "disclaimers" within the section itself. But if you do not want to compromise in the name of stability and "peace" than fine, we will keep fighting. The ancap section is already within the Individualists section so I don't understand what you mean on that point. Blockader 21:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Currently criticisms of anarcho-communism are in the Issues section and criticisms of anarcho-capitalism in the Anarcho-capitalism section. That’s not right and consistent. Also, there is no need for "disputed" note on Anarcho-capitalism section since dispute is addressed. -- Vision Thing -- 11:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

That's not what the disputed note means, and you know it. While anarchist communists and individualist anarchists have always tended to throw ideological mud at each other, there is widespread recognition that both are kinds of anarchism (if misguided - as each tends to think the other is). The disputed aspect of "anarcho"-capitalism is whether it is a type of anarchism at all. It's not a criticism of its ideas, but a widespread rejection of it as anarchism. Apples and oranges. Donnacha 12:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Dispute aspect of anarcho-communism is also whether it is or it isn’t a form of anarchism. Number of prominent individualist anarchists thinks that anarcho-communism isn’t a form of anarchism. -- Vision Thing -- 13:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

"There is widespread recognition" vs. "a widespread rejection". Since the days of Emma Goldman, in particular, aspects of both have been in most kinds of anarchism. Donnacha 13:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

There are 19 sources saying that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism, and 4 saying that it's not. As for anarcho-communism, I know for at least 4 sources that say it's not a form of anarchism. -- Vision Thing -- 14:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Some want the criticism of anCap in the issues section, others want it in the anCap section as it is. If those that want the criticism to be moved think its stupid that the criticism of anCom is in the issues section while anCap in the anCap section, could a comprise then be to move the issues over anCom to the anCom section? --Fjulle 16:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure. -- Vision Thing -- 19:19, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Neutral Disambiguation Page

My original intuition when I started editing on Wiki was that there is a fundamental incompatability in how anarchism is defined by people here. The history of the article is ample proof of this. The same old "true" anarchism arguments have gone on for years; the article is getting worse instead of better, and most people realize this by now. The only way out of this vicious cycle is probably my original suggestion of a Neutral Disambiguation Page, something like this:

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

Anarchism may mean:

Anarchism (anti-state) - the theory or doctrine that all forms of government are unnecessary, oppressive, and undesirable and should be abolished. This takes anarchism to mean anti-statism only.

Anarchism (socialist) - philosophies, movements, and ideologies that advocate the abolition of capitalist exploitation and all other forms of authority. This takes anarchism to mean anti-statism plus anti-capitalism.

Let me make a few points about this approach. First, it is not a POV fork, since there are in fact two competing definitions. Second, since each definition has its own article, there is a good chance to avoid the otherwise inevitable edit wars. Third, both articles are about anarchism in general (wrt to the given definition), and not to be construed as an anti-socialist anarchism only article and an anti-property anarchism only article. E.g. Both articles (if well-written) will include both Kropotkin and Tucker. Hogeye 16:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but the "anti-state" only is a serious minority view espoused only by "anarcho"-capitalists and some "post-left" anarchists. For all shades of anarchists that preceded them, however much they disagreed with each other, anarchism means opposition to coercive authority, not just the state - this includes hierarchies within business, something accepted by "anarcho"-capitalists. Anti-state only is libertarianism, not anarchism. Even post-left anarchism is more about terminology and relativism than opposition to the fundamental ideas of socialism. I've said it above, accepting a paragraph on "anarcho"-capitalism is a major compromise on the side of any anarchist, as it's an extreme minority view with no real standing in the real world - it's an academic idea that's been taken on-board by some web-warriors. Anarchism is a living and breathing tradition of anti-authoritarian socialism, not two different and separate trends. I've suggested (as have others, looking back at the history) that, if there's any split, it should be between Anarchist Philosophies (or Schools) and Anarchist Social Movements. Donnacha 21:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

How do you figure business being a "coercive hierarchy"? Business is just trade. The state is what's coercive. InformationJihad 22:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

In addition to what Blockader has posted below, there's also the fundamental point that hierarchical organisation within businesses (note, I did make the distinction, not all businesses are necessarily hierarchical) are coercive. If a boss can hire and fire workers, that's coercive authority. And the fundamental basis of anarcho-communism is, actually, that it's impossible to truly value labour equally, so to scrap the whole concept and move towards a system based on "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need." Donnacha 22:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

An employer has no moral obligation to hire anyone and no moral obligation to refrain from firing anyone. Hiring and firing people is not "coercion." It's the exercise of one's one will to associate with who he wants to associate with. InformationJihad

Coercion - "the act of compelling by force of authority." If a boss decides to make me redundant against my wishes, they are using the force of their authority as an unelected person higher up the "food chain". Basically, opposition to coercive authority is opposition to the food chain, full stop. Hierarchies of any kind are based on coercion. Donnacha 23:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

If your employer fires you, he's not "compelling" you to do anything. He's just decided to stop doing things for you. He's going to stop paying you. He was under no moral obligation to pay you in the first place. He decided on his own free will to pay you and now he's deciding to stop paying you. If he decides to stop that is not coercion. If you force him to pay you then you would be the one using coercion. InformationJihad 23:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Let's take it outside :) Donnacha 23:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Exactly correct Donnacha. "business", is coercive becuase it seeks to exploit, to give back to labor less than the value of the work they put in. it is coercive becuase it engenders commercialism and materialism, and becuase it seeks to dominate society for its own gains, which are to carry out further exploitation in the interest of accumulating mor wealth. that is the simplest way i can put it though i doubt seriously that someone ingrained within the system can understand. i don't agree that there should be a seperate schools/movements section, i think the paragraph is adequate as it is now. Blockader 22:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

You're relying on an antiquated economic theory called the labor theory of value that no one takes seriously today. The laborer's product is not worth how much labor he put into it. The laborer's produce is worth whatever anyone is willing to pay for it. There is nothing "coercive" about paying a person according to how much you value what he produced. Just because a person put into 10 hours of labor to produce something useless it doesn't mean you should pay him more for his product than a person that put one hour into producing something useful. Labor is I.R.R.E.L.E.V.A.N.T. Any attempt to force someone to pay according to labor would be coercive. Anarchism leaves all decisions to the individual and not to some abstract antiquated economic theory that he must submit himself to. InformationJihad 22:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Clarification: Business exploits labor in the sense that it sells the product of labor for more than the sum total of the labor and raw materials which was utilized to create the output but does not share that excess (called profit) with the people who created it and in the other ways i mentioned. You cannot seperate business from the state and to make that assertion is ridiculous. LTV is certianly ignored by most contemporay economists but anarchism is ignored by most contemporary political scientists so is that really an argument you wanna make. At any rate in LTV you are not forcing someone to pay according to labor, they can always buy from a different collective or syndicate that figures price in an alternate fashion. anyway, this is not the place for theoretical discussion so if it does not immediately pertain to the article we should find some other forum for discussion. Blockader 22:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but your claim of exploitation lies on a fundamentally flawed premise. A person's labor is not worth anything other than what someone is willing to pay for it. Worth is a matter of individual decision, and there is nothing more anarchist than leaving that to individual decision. This idea of "profit" you have is totally artificial, because you're defining it as the difference between what a laborer is paid for his work and how much is work is "really" worth. But in reality those things are the same. What his work is really worth is what anyone is really willing to pay for it. To assert otherwise is to argue against true anarchistic principles, and I'm talking true individualistic anarchism. The premise of some people here is that you have to accept the obviouslly flawed and ridiculous exploitation theory to be an anarchist, but that's just not true. There is no reason why an individualist anarchist such as myself (an Egoist in the vein of Max Stirner) can't be anarchist or that the anarcho-capitalists can't be anarchists. THere is nothing anarchist about slavish devotion to outdated economic theories an it's certainly not a requirement to be an anarchist.InformationJihad 22:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

This isn't the place for this. If you really want to have a theoretical discussion, take it to the Esperanza Coffee Lounge. Just keep it friendly. Ungovernable Force 23:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Discussion started Donnacha 23:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The funny thing about writing an encyclopedia article is that it's not actually R.E.L.E.V.A.N.T. whether "business is a coercive hierarchy" or not. The relevant questions are whether notable people have said so and whether notable sources have called their opinions and activities "anarchism." Discussion of which anarchist or non-anarchist doctrines are actually correct is off-topic. EbonyTotem 01:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

What about what I proposed up above?

Another idea, is to mention in the intro that many people use the term as a catch-all for "anti-statism", but that most self-described anarchist ideologies are a lot more narrow than that (ie, advocating an end to all hierarchy and authority, including capitalism, organized religion, etc). Then proceed with the article as Good Intentions suggests.

The proposal itself wasn't addressed much. Ungovernable Force 23:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Libertarianism can but it doesn’t need to be anti-state. There are different fractions within it.

That there is a coercive authority within business is a POV. As far as I know, traditional individualist anarchist also supported wage labor. -- Vision Thing -- 11:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

It looks like it already says that. It gives the standard definition in the first sentence. Then in the next paragraph it points out that each type of anarchism is different and emphasizes their differences from others. InformationJihad 23:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Not really. As I tried to say, the idea is that most self-described anarchists do share a lot of major ideas such as anti-capitalism. Only a small number of self-described anarchists think anarchism is mere anti-statism, and those that do are all pretty recent and go against the traditional views of anarchism (and thus may not really be anarchists, but anti-statists). Of course, there are differences between all the groups, but there is way more similarity than the intro currently implies. Ungovernable Force 23:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with that. If you look at definitions from various anarchist throughout history their definitions are rarely anything more than being in terms of opposition to aggression, including statism. Few define it in terms of economics. If I'm not mistaken, even anarcho-capitalists don't define it in terms of opposition to the state but in opposition to aggression/coercion. Opposition to the state is secondary, because they think it is a systemized form of aggression. InformationJihad 01:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

That's why I originally said many "people" (meaning uninformed people who only look in a dictionary to find out what a political philosophy advocates). Many an-caps here (including hogeye) seem to want to say it's merely anti-statism. But even if you're right that most an-caps define it as opposition to aggression/coercion, they still aren't part of traditional (or majority) anarchism because of their acceptance of free-market capitalism. And defining it as opposition to hierarchy and authority is far more common amongst anarchists than opposition to aggression or coercion (which seems more like an an-cap thing than anything else, but I could be wrong). It can say there is some variation between self-described anarchists, but there needs to be a very very strong emphasis on the fact that most anarchists have many views in common and that one of them is anti-capitalism. Ungovernable Force 01:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

So put in the article that most anarchists oppose capitalism. I don't see anything controversial about that. But most anarchists do not "define" anarchism in terms of opposition to capitalism. They just happen to oppose capitalism. And they probably don't even define capitalism the same way as anarcho-capitalists. Anarchism is indeed defined as anti-statism. InformationJihad 01:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Just a note: I would be surprised if anybody could actually verify with a reliable source the claim that anarchism is nothing more than anti-statism. Also, Hogeye has never been able to explain why, if they are the same, there are two different articles for anarchism and anti-statism. I would be surprised if our newbie/veteran, IntelligenceInitiative, er, InformationJihad, could, either. --AaronS 01:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The article references two encyclopedias for that definition of anarchism. Everybody defines anarchism as opposition to the state. InformationJihad 01:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Ignoratio elenchi. Of course everybody defines anarchism as opposition to the state. Everybody then qualifies that with further details explaining that anarchism is not so narrow as to be mere opposition to the state. If that's the case, then, as TUF noted, Marxism is anarchist. --AaronS 01:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about anarchists. Each of them defines it their own way to fit their own philosophy. I was talking about independent sources, like encyclopedias. InformationJihad 01:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I was talking about both. --AaronS 02:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Damn, I didn't know Marxists were anarchists too! Ungovernable Force 01:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Would you consider Kropotkin a reliable source for the claim that anarchists have nothing in common more than opposition to the state? InformationJihad 01:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

No, Kropotkin isn't the be-all-end all of defining anarchism. I would like to see what you are refering to though. Anyways, time for a better response than my last one. This is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. Anti-statism may be good for some dictionary definitions of a philosophy, but you can't use a dictionary as a complete definition of a complex philosophy. Besides, this is an encyclopedia, and encyclopedias also say that anarchism is anti-capitalist. This is an important (dare I say defining?) part of anarchist philosophy. Of course the first sentence is a general definition (there is a lack of room in the first sentenc you know), but as a whole, anarchism is about much more than that. You can't say that "yes, anarchism is more than anti-statism, but dictionaries and the first line of encyclopedias only say anarchism is anti-statist, therefore something that goes against all traditional anarchist thought like capitalism can still be anarchist if there is no state involved". That seems pretty fishy to me. Oh, and Emma Goldman considered anti-capitalism to be a necessary feature of anarchism as evidenced by "Anarachism: What it Really Stands For" (take it for what it's worth). Ungovernable Force 01:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

You don't have to oppose capitalism to be an anarchist. Max Stirner didn't oppose capitalism and he's an anarchist. Murray Rothbard didn't oppose capitalism and he's an anarchist. See? InformationJihad 01:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

First, Stirner denied the anarchist label. Second, your point regarding Rothbard begs the question. --AaronS 02:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Stirner did not deny the anarchist label. He simply never called himself an anarchist. That doesn't mean he wasn't an anarchist. Everybody agrees that he was an anarchist. InformationJihad 02:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

You keep using this "everybody agrees" argument as if it actually has any merit. Stirner explicitly denied labels, saying that he would only call himself an egoist. He never called himself an anarchist, and was even critical of anarchism, in some cases. Anarchists, and especially individualist anarchists, may draw from his ideas, but that doesn't mean that he claimed to be an anarchist. Stirner is no easy read, and there are a lot of misinterpretations of him. Like Wittgenstein and his Philosophical Investigations, he often contradicted himself on the same page, and argued with many different voices. --AaronS 03:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

You keep talking about "traditional" anarchist thought. Yes anarcho-capitalism is not traditional anarchist thought. It's non-traditional anarchism. I don't think that's controversial. Why don't you just put that in the article? InformationJihad 01:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not it is considered anarchism is controversial. Anarchist is not an adjective like red, yellow, or third. --AaronS 02:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

It is controversial? I don't think so. Maybe among various anarchists, but I doubt independent sources dispute that it's anarchism. InformationJihad 02:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Surprise! They do. --AaronS 02:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Like who? Give me someone that's not an anarchist or anti-capitalist that has a bone to pick. InformationJihad 02:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I already did, yet you want to argue the semantics of something like "their commitment to free enterprise and laissez-faire principals places them completely at odds with classical anarchist thinking and practice" or "the anarchist label has also been applied to groups that do not properly belong to the anarchist tradition". It seems pretty clear to me. Ungovernable Force 02:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

No you didn't. That's the first time you've mentioned that. So who is the source? And besides that, where in there do you see them saying it's not a form of anarchism? All I see them saying is that it's at odds with "classical" anarchism. Anarcho-capitalism is not classical anarchism. That's not saying it's not anarchism but that it's not "classical" anarchism. That is not controversial. InformationJihad 02:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm hoping you just forgot that I already mentioned that (and other quotes from the source) in the section "Solution to the Problem" and that you commented then. Maggie liked to play dumb a lot, and I hope you're not doing the same thing, as that is a large part of why I can't stand her. Saying something like a label is applied to groups that don't fit into the anarchist tradition is pretty much the same as saying they aren't anarchists, or at best, have a very tenuous claim at being anarchist. Ungovernable Force 02:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok I see above where you gave that source but I never saw it and you were talking to someone else, not me. But your wrong. Saying that anarcho-capitalism is "at odds with classical anarchism" is not saying it's not anarchism. Also it seems to me that that very statement implictly holds that anarcho-capitalism is a non-classical form of anarchism, otherwise the source would just say that anarcho-capitalism "is not anarchism." The source is correct that anarcho-capitalism is at odds with classical anarchism. I can agree with that. But it's not saying that's not not a form of anarchism. InformationJihad 02:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

If it really were a type of anarchism, the wording would have probably been closer to "a new form of anarchism called anarcho-capitalism breaks with the tradition of opposing capitalism". The way he says it implies that it isn't anarchism as far as I'm concerned, and it seems like you are reading a lot into one word. And if Y goes against the classical or traditional version of X, yet still claims to be a type of X, then their claim to being X is going to be very debatable. Ungovernable Force 02:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

No, that would only be true if the assumption were that because something is not traditional anarchism that it's not anarchism. That would be begging the question. In other words if you hold as a premise that any philosophy that is not consistent with traditional anarchism is not anarchism. And then you point out that anarchism is at odds with traditional anarchism. And then you conclude that therefore anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism, you've just used circular reasoning. "Anarchism" and "classical anarchism" are two different things. InformationJihad 02:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, except that anarchism as a philosophy is based on classical anarchism. If all anarchist philosophies say that anarchism is anti-capitalist, then all of a sudden a group of people come up with a new philosophy that has some elements of the other philosophies, but rejects a key element of all forms of anarchism till that time by embracing one of the institutions all other anarchists despise, it seems pretty strange to call it anarchism. An-cap may be anarchism if you define anarchism with a dictionary, but it's place as a type of anarchism is very controversial if you define anarchism using an encyclopedia (and this is an encyclopedia). Again, Marxism is anti-statist, so why aren't you trying to put it in the article as a type of anarchism? It fits your definition. Ungovernable Force 03:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC

Your first statement is false: "Anarchism is based on classical anarchism." Anarchism isn't "based" on anything except opposition to the state. What was the first anarchism based on? It wasn't based on classical anarchism because it didn't exist. Therefore anarchism doesn't have to be based on any previous anarchism. InformationJihad 03:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

If you quote me, take the time to get the right quote (the one you used changes my meaning). I said "anarchism as a philosophy is based on classical anarchism" (emphasis added). The philosophy of anarchism is based on the first people who identified as philosophical anarchists--classical/traditional anarchists. This is an encyclopedia article on the philosophies and related social movements related to anarchism. If all those philosophies and movements rejected capitalism for more than a century, then all of a sudden a small group of so-called "anarchists" not only fails to reject capitalism, but says the reason no government should exist is so that capitalism can flourish, their claim to being part of the philosophy is going to be tenuous at best (as already stated). They reject a key element of what had traditionally defined anarchism as a philosophy/movement. Ungovernable Force 18:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm losing track of who's arguing for a neutral disambiguation page here and who's arguing against it.

That's the topic of this section.

Other than that, I feel like I've seen this movie before. EbonyTotem 02:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Ditto. While I'm around, I might as well vote oppose against the "neutral" disambig page. --AaronS 02:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I oppose it as well. That would give the impression that there were two definitions of anarchism and there's not. Anarchism is opposition to the state. InformationJihad 02:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

From the greek term it would seem that it just means opposition to authority within an individual not just one particular organisation that works in such a way.

Could everyone stop bashing the whole an-Cap/none socialist libertarian thing as being this nasty vultureus concept? I personally am a syndacalist (I think, there are so many theories now, something within the libertarian/soicalist/anarchist approach to things anyway) BUT I don't think these people, in general, endorse unfair trading, otherwise they wouldn't be on here debating and they'd just be getting on with the game, not giving a $%&* like most people who like the idea of traditional capitalism. There are other ways of running a business you know, ever heard of a cooperative?--AnRK 13:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Anarchism is against the state in principle; all states, everywhere, immediately. Pure anti-statism. Thus e.g. Marxism is not anarchist since it wants to use the state to gain its ends ("dictatorship of the proletariat"). The anti-statism article includes both pure anti-statism and mere opposition to increased statism.

It seems that everyone agrees that there are two competing definitions of anarchism. Unfortunately, there are still many who want to squelch all but the one true definition and think that, despite all evidence, they can win the inevitable edit wars. LOL! That's Wiki.The other thing everyone agrees on is that fundamental opposition to the state is is the kernal - the core value - of anarchism. IOW it is common to all forms of anarchism, no matter what additions beliefs various luminaries and schools profess.

I think these two points of agreement indicate the rationality of a Neutral Disambiguation Page. It could be tweaked - perhaps "antistatism only" should be changed to "principled anti-statism" to assuage those who are worried that Marxism might be misunderstood as a type of anarchism. Hogeye 16:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but the two definitions - individualist and the rest (communist, syndicalist, collectivist, etc.) are both far more than simply anti-statist. Both are socialist and opposed to capitalism. "Anarcho"-capitalism doesn't meet either definition, it's a serious minority view that has no social movement attached to it, it is nowhere near enough to try to split the article the way that's proposed. Modern individualist anarchism - Robert Anton Wilson, Hakim Bey, etc, - is far more influential than the right-wing libertarians who, for some strange reason, insist they should be accepted as anarchists. Donnacha 16:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Donnacha, the two definitions referred to are the two given on the Neutral Disambiguation Page. Do you agree with the two points I made above, that 1) there are two competing basic definitions offered by Wiki editors, and 2) the commonality to all definitions is opposition to the State?

I find your definition B is more influential so we should squelch the minority defintion to be both unconvincing and contrary to the Wiki NPOV policy. This is an encyclopedia, not a popularity contest. And, as noted many times and seen in quotes given above, even most socialist luminaries define anarchism as anti-statism. You shouldn't take their additional values as part of the definition of anarchism. The additional values define the particular schools, not anarchism in general. Hogeye 16:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

You might want to read the policy again, particularly this bit WP:NPOV#Undue weight:

Undue weight NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all (by example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory, a view of a distinct minority). We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Misplaced Pages aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. This applies not only to article text, but to images, external links, categories, and all other material as well.

Donnacha 16:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Anti-statism

Ok, so Marxists are anarchists. Ungovernable Force 02:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

No, Marxists are state socialists. They don't oppose but want a state. InformationJihad 03:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Wrong, they don't want a state, they want to abolish it, they just feel that the best way to do that is to take it over and let it die out. It is classified as a form of anti-statism, it's just a more gradual form. Ungovernable Force 03:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Only temporarily. The goal of any Marxist is stateless communism. They just think that a dictatorship of the proletariat will bring it about. Perhaps it's a bit kooky, but that's what they think.

Wanting a temporary state excludes you from being an anarchist. You have to be opposed to the existence of a state, period. InformationJihad 03:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

But Marxists are opposed to the existence of the state. They think that the only way to destroy it is for the proletariat to seize control of it and let it "wither away." It's akin to a nihilist thinking that the best way to destroy the human race would be to encourage reproduction, thereby leading to catastrophic overpopulation. The nihilist seeks to destroy the human race by propagating it, just as the Marxist seeks to destroy the state by seizing control of it. --AaronS 03:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

"Marxist argue that the working class need state power in order to suppress the inevitable counter resistance of the former exploiter class. After a more or less lengthy transition period, in which the material well-being of society leads to the gradual withering away of social classes, the state and money-commodity relations, a communist society will come into being." -Introduction to Marxism Versus Anarchism by Karl Marx. If you support a state, even if you think it's going to eventually wither away, you're not an anarchist. You have to fully oppose the state to be an anarchist. InformationJihad 03:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

That's a little ridiculous. In that case, nearly nobody is an anarchist, because almost every anarchist pays taxes and receives the benefits of government -- for the time being, as I imagine they would argue. The goal of Marxism is the same as anarchisn; Marx simply thought that the only way to achieve a stateless society was for the proletariat to disempower the powerful and then disempower themselves. --AaronS 03:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Last time I checked taxes weren't voluntary. Anarchists only pay taxes because they're forced to. Anyone who voluntary pays to support the state is definitely not an anarchist but a statist. Marxists aren't anarchists. You don't acheive a stateless society by arguing for a state. InformationJihad 03:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Anarchists voluntarily drive on roads, use plumbing, use telephones, receive various forms of state welfare, and so forth. Marxists argue for a state as a means of destroying the state. Enough with these red herrings. --AaronS 04:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Institute a state as a means of destroying the state. That's the funiest thing I've heard all day. Thank you. InformationJihad 05:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I never said that Marxism made any sense. ;) --AaronS 05:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Nor did I. But it is anti-statist, and the whole point was to get you to see why anarchism is more than anti-statism. You seem to have gotten it somewhat, since you now say it requires complete, non-gradual anti-statism. We're making progress. Ungovernable Force 06:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

You're going to have a lot of trouble trying to prove that anarchism is nothing more than anti-statism. --AaronS 03:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

It's obvious. The only thing anarcho-communism through anarcho-capitalism have in common is opposition to the state. InformationJihad 03:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Please read up on circular reasoning before you make this argument again. --AaronS 03:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

There is no other way to determine what anarchism is other than to look at each philosophy that calls themselves anarchism and see what they all have in common. That's how the indepedent sources like encyclopedias come up with a definition. InformationJihad 03:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Hardly any encyclopaediae say that anarchism is nothing more than anti-statism. This discussion has been had over and over again in the past, always with the same conclusion. I suggest that you take a look at the archives. This article is not about people or groups who call themselves anarchists, just like science isn't about people or groups that call themselves scientific. There are characteristics that define science, just as there are characteristics that define anarchism. Anti-statism is but one of them. --AaronS 03:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Marxists want to give more power to the state in the transitional period then it currently has. Because of that they can't be considered anarchists. -- Vision Thing -- 11:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

"Anarchism is "a cluster of doctrines and attitudes centred on the belief that government is both harmful and unnecessary." -Encyclopedia Britannica. ""Anarchism is the view that a society without the state, or government, is both possible and desirable" -The Shorter Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Need I go on? InformationJihad 03:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Again, you prove only that anarchism is anti-statist. Big deal. It is also a lot of other things. --AaronS 03:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Like what? InformationJihad 03:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Anti-authoritarian, more generally. Arkos does not simply mean "state," and anarchism has never simply been anti-statism. --AaronS 03:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure, in theory. But there are plenty of self-proclaimed anarchists who are authoritarians. For example, the anarchism of Johann Most which advocates blowing up innocent people seems pretty authoritarian to me. Whether someone is an authoritarian or not is very disputable. The only thing that really stands out as indisputable is that all anarchists oppose the existence of a state. InformationJihad 04:00, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Britannica also says that anarchism is anti-capitalist. Ungovernable Force 03:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see that. Where does it say that? Give me a quote. InformationJihad 03:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Well look at that. The article links to Wikiquote where there is a whole smorgasbord of definitions of anarchism. Only one even mentions capitalism and it specifically says "state capitalism." And that even includes definitions from anarchists themselves! InformationJihad 03:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

That page was the center of a lot of debate already, both here and on the wikiquote talk page. Basically, RJII and Hogeye refused to allow anything else in there if I remember correctly. I don't feel like going and looking at that again right now. And again, there is a difference between quick definitions and an encyclopedia article. Also, many of the earlier anarchists didn't necessarily mention capitalism because it seemed obvious enough that they were all anti-capitalist. There weren't any anarcho-capitalists running around then trying to say anarchism was compatible with capitalism. As for quotes from Brittanica here we go (these are off the anarchism article from online Brittanica as accessed through my college's database): "They deny man-made laws, regard property as a means of tyranny, and believe that crime is merely the product of property and authority". " natural inclination, when unfettered by laws, to live according to the principles and practice of mutual aid." "In all its forms, consists of (1) an analysis of the power relations underlying existing forms of political authority and (2) a vision of an alternative libertarian society based on cooperation, as opposed to competition and coercion, and functioning without the need for government authority." "Winstanley laid down what later became basic principles among anarchists: that power corrupts; that property is incompatible with freedom; that authority and property are between them the begetters of crime; and that only in a society without rulers, where work and its products are shared, can men be free and happy, acting not according to laws imposed from above but according to their consciences." Ungovernable Force 06:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I’m pretty sure that earlier anarchists mentioned that they are anti-state, and that is more obvious then anti-capitalist.

Quotes you gave from Britannica deny that all individualist anarchists, not just anarcho-capitalists, are anarchist. -- Vision Thing -- 11:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

You're taking those quotes out of context. When the article says "They deny man-made laws, regard property as a means of tyranny, and believe that crime is merely the product of property and authority" and " natural inclination, when unfettered by laws, to live according to the principles and practice of mutual aid", he's talking about the Levellers rather than all anarchists. In the quote about competition, he seems to be talking about Proudhon but I'm not sure. But it can't be correct because as Vision Thing points out that would rule out individualist anarchists as being anarchists because they, at least the American sort, support competition. InformationJihad 14:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Um, either you aren't paying enough attention to the context or you're being dishonest. I hope it's the first. The "they deny man-made laws" part is not refering to the Levellers at all. Here is the quote in full context:

during the French Revolution the leader of the moderate Girondin faction of Parliament, Jacques-Pierre Brissot, accused his most extreme rivals, the Enragés, of being the advocates of “anarchy”:

Laws that are not carried into effect, authorities without force and despised, crime unpunished, property attacked, the safety of the individual violated, the morality of the people corrupted, no constitution, no government, no justice, these are the features of anarchy.

These words could serve as a model for the denunciations delivered by all opponents of anarchism. The anarchists, for their part, would admit many of Brissot's points. They deny man-made laws, regard property as a means of tyranny, and believe that crime is merely the product of property and authority. But they would argue that their denial of constitutions and governments leads not to “no justice” but to the real justice inherent in the free development of man's sociality—his natural inclination, when unfettered by laws, to live according to the principles and practice of mutual aid.

It's clear that they are talking about anarchists there, not the Enragés and certainly not the Levellers.

The part about competition is not about Proudhon either. Proudhon is mentioned at the top of the paragraph, but the part about anarchists being opposed to competition is clearly in reference to all anarchists:

The essential elements of Proudhon's philosophy already had been developed by earlier thinkers. The rejection of political authority has a rich pedigree. It extends back to classical antiquity—to the Stoics and the Cynics—and runs through the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, as illustrated by dissenting Christian sects such as the medieval Catharists and certain factions of Anabaptists. For such groups—which are often mistakenly claimed as ancestors by modern anarchist writers—the rejection of government was merely one aspect of a retreat from the material world into a realm of spiritual grace, and as part of the search for individual salvation it was hardly compatible with the sociopolitical doctrine of anarchism. In all its forms, that doctrine consists of (1) an analysis of the power relations underlying existing forms of political authority and (2) a vision of an alternative libertarian society based on cooperation, as opposed to competition and coercion, and functioning without the need for government authority. (Bold and italics added)

As for the quote " natural inclination ," it is partially about Gerrard Winstanley, a leader of the Diggers/True Levellers, but says

In his pamphlet of 1649, Truth Lifting Up Its Head Above Scandals, Winstanley laid down what later became basic principles among anarchists: that power corrupts; that property is incompatible with freedom; that authority and property are between them the begetters of crime; and that only in a society without rulers, where work and its products are shared, can men be free and happy, acting not according to laws imposed from above but according to their consciences. (Emphasis added)

The article clearly considers these basic principals of all anarchists. Ungovernable Force 01:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually it does not. It just talks about the groups that were an inspiration for Proudhon. Intangible 01:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps that's your interpretation of the issue based on your outside information, but based purely on the article, it clearly says that those are the views of anarchists in general. It goes so far as to say "In all its forms". Seems pretty clear to me. Ungovernable Force 01:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Even if your reading is correct, other sources (such as the one below) are in conflict with your reading. Does the article talk about individualist anarchism? Intangible 02:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course there are different sources that say different things. That's not the point. The point is that there are sources, including pretty much all encyclopedias, that say anarchism is anti-capitalist. Ungovernable Force 02:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

We've been through this discussion many times. Please look at the archives before bringing it up all over again. Or, present some information that has not already been presented before. Right now, you're just mimicking the old arguments of Hogeye and RJII. --AaronS 04:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

No one is forcing you to argue this. InformationJihad 04:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

You are if you are planning on changing the article so that it puts forth the opinion that anarchism is nothing more than anti-statism, tout court. --AaronS 04:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't plan on changing that. It already defines anarchism as opposition to the state. "Anarchism is the name of a political philosophy or to group of doctrines and attitudes that are centered on rejection of government, or the state, as harmful and unnecessary and support its elimination". I agree with it. That's a good definition. InformationJihad 04:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

~~I think it's ok.~~ What is going to be important though, is how the rest of the article goes. What do you think about Good Intention's proposal earlier? Ungovernable Force 05:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I struck part of my last comment because I was looking closer at your last comment. First off, that's not even grammatically correct, is it? "anarchism is the name of a political philosophy or to group of doctrines ." What? Shouldn't it be something like "Anarchism is the name of a political philosophy or group of doctrines and attitudes ." Second, as mentioned above, that doesn't avoid the issues with Marxism, which fits that definition. You need to add more to it. This is a perfect example of why dictionary definitions are not nearly enough to define a political philosophy. I still think the second part of my last comment is good though. Ungovernable Force 07:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

No Marxism does not fit the definition. If you're an anarchist you don't advocate instituting a state and say it will wither away. You just don't institute a state in the first place. Marxists are statists. InformationJihad 14:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

And I don't know what "proposal" you're talking about. A Good Intention proposal? I'm just popping in to join the debate. I doubt I'll be dealing with your proposals and what not. I may pop in from time to time to make an edit. I think I've already had my fill for awhile. InformationJihad 15:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, your definition is anarchism is anti-statism, period. Marxists are anti-statist. They say they are, and after all, we only have to make sure they say it, right? I mean, just because all us anarcho-commies are convinced that an-cap will lead to a state, it doesn't matter since you claim to oppose it. As such, Marxists are clearly anarchists based on your definition and reasoning. Of course, Marxists aren't anarchists, which is why your definition is not sufficient. As to the proposal, I'm refering to the user Good Intentions, who proposed a guideline for an-cap a few weeks back. You've been on this page for a little while so I'm surprised you didn't realize that Good Intentions was an editor. It's in the archive here under the title "A proposed guideline to capitalism and an-cap in Anarchism article". Ungovernable Force 01:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I am glad to see that there is civil discussion going on. Hopefully everyone can come to some sort of agreement. --Woohookitty 04:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

That whole "state withering away" thing worked great in the Soviet Union and all those other communist countries, didn't it? *Dan T.* 14:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

They weren't saying that Marxism made sense or that it worked, they were saying that it fits the extremely loose definition of anarchism as being only opposition to the state, on which point they are correct. All that is covered above if you care to go back and reread more carefully. Most anarchists argue that capitalism can only exist in conjunction with the state because in a stateless society their would be no central authority to protect the amassed property of wealthy capitalists and worker cooperation would replace hierarchical "business" structures because without state protection of wealth there would be no incentive for capitalists to expend their resources constructing a business. anarchism 101, Blockader 15:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

There would not be a central authority in anarcho-capitalism either. There would be protection of property but it would not be by a state. It wouldnt be centralized either but decentralize. Whoever wants to protect their property can do so. Just because you protect your property or have someone else protect it for you that doesnt make a state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anarcho-capitalism (talk • contribs)

This isn't the place for theoretical debate. Ungovernable Force 01:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Unprotection?

How do people feel about unprotecting the page? --Woohookitty 06:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I requested it, so I support it. Ungovernable Force 06:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. Donnacha 08:00, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Unprotect it, you can easily protect it again if the need arises. -- Vision Thing -- 11:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Any opinion, AaronS? --Woohookitty 11:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Works for me, Woohookitty, so long as you or some other administrator who feels that they can ethically intervene when necessary sticks around. --AaronS 13:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

With the recent suspect appearence of an editor named InformationJihad, which smacks of RJ Intelligence Initiative to me, and who seems to be reinitiating the same theoretical discussions and circular arguments as said blocked user, I am dubious as to unprotection but if you stick around as Aarons suggests I think we are golden. Blockader 15:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Yep. Anyways, I'm gone til at least the 30th. Off to New Hampshire to study for the GRE and play Dartmouth pong. --AaronS 17:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Gandhi was an Anarchist

"The State represents violence in a concentrated and organized form. The individual has a soul, but as the State is a soulless machine, it can never be weaned from violence to which it owes its very existence." - Gandhi

"I believe that no government can exist for a single moment without the cooperation of the people, willing or forced, and if people suddenly withdraw their cooperation in every detail, the government will come to a standstill." - Gandhi

"If India copies England, it is my firm conviction that she will be ruined. Parliaments are merely emblems of slavery." - Gandhi

"It is a superstition and an ungodly thing to believe that an act of a majority binds a minority." - Gandhi

"Power resides in the people, they can use it at any time."5 Reiterating the idea of Anarchy, Gandhi said, "In such a state (of affairs), everyone is his own rulers. He rules himself in such a manner that he is never a hindrance to his neighbor."6

"In every one is his own ruler. He rules himself in such a manner that he is never a hindrance to his neighbour. In , therefore, there is no political power because there is no State." - Gandhi

"Swaraj" was Gandhi's word for anarchism. Hogeye 16:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Not quite, though he was influenced by Kropotkin. Donnacha 16:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

See the discussion on Thoreau's talk page. Gandhi was already mentioned there. Even the super-revisionist wolfstar doesn't agree with you Hogeye. Ungovernable Force 01:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The citation given by Donnacha is weak in scholarship. It portrays Gandi as a capitalist dupe. It falsely says he supported the British in the Boer War (actually he sympathized with the Boers, but was ambulence/medic for the British, the quintessential conscientious objector). It repeatedly cites a tenuous Gandhi-Kropotkin connection, but totally ignores Gandhi's correspondence with Tolstoy, and Tolstoy's profound influence on Gandhi. It denies that Gandi was an anarchist based on the fact that Gandhi didn't support the Marxian class struggle! This is a good example of how the two definitions (see Neutral Disambiguation Page) give vastly different takes on who was an anarchist. If you think opposition to the State in principle is the definition of anarchism, then Gandhi was clearly an anarchist; if you think that acceptence of the Marxist class warfare notion is a necessary condition for being an anarchist, then Gandhi was not an anarchist.

For the argument that Gandhi was an anarchist, read Was Gandhi an Anarchist?. Hogeye 16:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Dude, I've never seen a neutral/scholarly/reliable source that has called him an anarchist. And even if there are, it's a minority view. Like many people, he had some ideas in common, but that doesn't make him an anarchist. And this has nothing to do with Marxist class struggle ideas--even I don't buy into them, at least not with regard to American society. No one calls him an anarchist except a few anarchists (who can hardly be seen as neutral, as they would have something to gain by claiming an admired figure like gandhi into their fold). Gandhi was a quasi-anarchist maybe, but I don't think he ever said he was an anarchist, and reliable/neutral sources (like encyclopedias) don't label him as an anarchist. Ungovernable Force 18:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

It is not at all surprising that, since anarchism is so politically incorrect, that people would downplay or ignore Gandhi's anarchism. Note that no one disputes his support of swaraj. But there is a fundamental flaw in your objection - you seem to implicitly deny that there is a specific definition and meaning of "anarchism." You seem to be positing a circular floating definition anarchism is whatever self-labeled anarchists say it is. This is a variation of the dildo definitional fallacy. (A dildo is defined to be whatever has traditionally been used as a dildo.) This is of course not a valid definition.

If Gandhi believed that States are unnecessary and should be abolished, then by definition A he is an anarchist. It doesn't matter whether he called himself one or not if he satisfies the definition. (Similar points have been made about William Godwin, young Edmund Burke, Henry Thoreau, Max Stirner, and Gustav Molinari.) I don't think you can read the Gandhi quotes given above and deny that he satisfies definition A. Hogeye 18:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Then that's original research. The fact is, the Thoreau page doesn't say he's an anarchist for the very same reason. People like Godwin and Stirner have many reliable and neutral sources that have called them anarchists, so it's not OR. You are using the logic that anarchism is merely what the dictionary says it is. My logic is based on what other encyclopedias say it is. This is an encyclopedia article about anarchism as a philophy(ies) and social movement(s), not about every person who fits an overly abstract one sentence definition. Ungovernable Force 18:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it is pretty commonly accepted that Thoreau was an anarchist. How can it be disputed when he says "That government is best which governs not at all"?Anarcho-capitalism 02:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Anarchism is not merely anti-statism. Give it up. Find a neutral and reliable source that calls thoreau an anarchist--you probably won't. Same for Gandhi. Ungovernable Force 05:37, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

You must be joking. It's easy to find "neutral" sources for Thoreau being an anarchist. I'll just look him up in the book I have in my hand at the moment... Here you are: "It is hard to generalize about anarchist thought because of the variety of doctrines to which the label has been attached, and the anarchists' congentical individualism, which makes them even less likely to agree than doctors. Broadly speaking, the nineteenth century produced a few anarchists who were emphatically individualistic, and a far greater number whose analysis of capitalism and the ideal society resembled that of socialism in many respects. The former group includes Godwin, Stirner, and Thoreau, while the latter group encompasses Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin, and Maltesta" That is Barbara Goodwin, Professor of Politics at University of East Anglia, Norwich in her book used in many universities called "Using Political Ideas", on page 122.Anarcho-capitalism 05:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

For once, I might have to agree with you! While I personally regard Thoreau as being too early (see my above comments about the Diggers), Emma Goldman did say: Referring to the American government, the greatest American Anarchist, David Thoreau, said: "Government, what is it but a tradition, though a recent one, endeavoring to transmit itself unimpaired to posterity, but each instance losing its integrity; it has not the vitality and force of a single living man. Law never made man a whit more just; and by means of their respect for it, even the well disposed are daily made agents of injustice." Thus, it does appear that he's been used as an example even by the leftest of left anarchists. Donnacha 22:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Festival of puppetry

I received a message on an email list requesting people knowledge about anarcho-capitalism to work on this page. I know a bit. What do you need? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anarcho-capitalism (talk • contribs)

I think there's an attempt to recruit you to certain peoples' campaign. I'd read above, if I were you. Donnacha 16:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok then sign me up! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anarcho-capitalism (talk • contribs)

Please read this Misplaced Pages:Neutral_point_of_view. Donnacha 16:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

It is considered highly inappropriate or unacceptable to advertise Misplaced Pages articles that are being debated in order to attract users with known views and bias, in order to strengthen one side of a debate.
Advertising or soliciting meatpuppet activity is not an acceptable practice on Misplaced Pages.

WP:SOCK

No problem. I've written for newspapers, so I know all about neutral point of view. *laugh*

So what's the dispute causing the page to be protected?

I see there is a lot of dispute as to whether anarcho-capitalism is a type of anarchism. I'm willing to help compile sources proving that it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anarcho-capitalism (talk • contribs)

That's the kind of thing that got the page protected. NPOV is that it's disputed and that only a minority advocate it and the majority of anarchists regard it as oxymoronic. Going and hunting for things to enforce your own POV is just that. And please - indent and sign your posts. Donnacha 19:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Well that's because a majority of anarchists are not anarcho-capitalists, or so they say. Anarcho-commmunism is also oxymoronic depending on what kind of anarchist you are. love, anarcho-capitalism

If you are interested in "NPOV" then you won't let the anarcho-communists and other anti-anarcho-capitalists present anarcho-capitalism is being non-anarchism. love, anarcho-capitalism. Anarcho-capitalism 21:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, because we, the majority of anarchists, should, instead, give the article over to you lot - the "anarcho"-capitalist, who are so numerous and representative that, it seems, half of the whole lot of you post here. Of course, you may well just be another glove-puppet playing at ignorance with the "no indenting" and the "forgetting to sign". Hmmmm. Donnacha 22:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Huh? I am not saying to turn the page over to the opinions of anarcho-capitalism. I am saying do not portray anarcho-capitalism as not being anarchism. Say that anarcho-communists say it's oxymoronic but do not make the editorial say that it is oxymoronic. That is what neutral point of view is. I didn't know how to sign. I have never used used Discussion before though I have put information in Misplaced Pages a few times.Anarcho-capitalism 22:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I see the little message there in the box up on the right. No one sent me here to strenghten any side of a debate. There was a message on my local anarchist email list saying that the anarcho-capitalism section wasn't very informative and asking anyone who was knowledgable to improve it. So here I am. If you or whoever is in charge of putting the lock on the article will remove it, I can help out.Anarcho-capitalism 22:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

What isn't clear in that section?Anarcho-capitalism 23:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The article already detials the tenents of ancap in the schools section and includes indivualist's concerns regarding communism in the issues section. these were the result of compromises. the ancap section already states several times that most anarchists do not consider ancap to be geniune anarchism. everytime the socials here make a compromise in the name of stability and "peace," the ancaps demand more and more, until it seems their goal is to coopt the entire article and two centuries of anarchist history and tradition along with it. the fact is that the only "significant" anarchist movements which have ever existed, and therefore most of the anarchists that have existed are socialist in nature. what exactly is it in the section that is no good anarcho-capitalist? Blockader 23:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

That's what I'm asking. It could use some improvement but it looks ok for the most part. I disagree with you that anarcho-capitalism is not a significant movement. I think it's very significant. I know several anarcho-capitalists in person. And, I'd say around half of the people on my local anarchism email list, which is a large city, are capitalist individualists. Anarcho-capitalism 23:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

A hundred or so Reclaim the Streets activists in Dublin is significant, red and black flags at every anti-globalisation demo is significant, the London Anarchist Bookfair moving to a larger venue every year is significant, Indymedia/a-infos/infoshop is significant. A few "anarcho"-capitalist web warriors on an email list is no measure of significance in the real world. However, as Blockader said, we're happy to compromise and allow a section on ancap as long as it makes reference to the clear and attributed fact that the vast majority of anarchists around the world do not regard it as real anarchism. If you're willing to accept that, fine, but, as you'll see above, most of your comrades have not been. Donnacha 00:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Compromise? I will want to see some high quality sources first for statements and assertions that are made here. Intangible 00:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Clearly, like your comrades, you're not interested in any high quality sources, seeing as they are given every time. Look through the archives, the infoshop FAQ rejected because it was only online (it will be in print very soon, but it was still a laughable argument). It is a fact that the vast majority of anarchists worldwide are socialists of one form or another. It is a fact that anarchism, through history, has been socialist - whether individualist or more left-wing. It is a fact that "anarcho"-capitalism rejects this element, which most anarchists regard as a fundamental element of anarchism. It is a fact that the vast majority of anarchists worldwide, for this reason, do not accept that "anarcho"-capitalism is anarchism. Donnacha 00:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually I am pretty much the only here in the last 3 months who has presented good sources. There are some in the archives of Template talk:Anarchism as well. Intangible 00:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, yeah. Because Encyclopedia Brittanica is a horrible source, huh? Ungovernable Force 05:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

laugh* Anarcho-capitalists would not waste time waving flags at a demonstration. What is that going to achieve? You can only change the world through ideas. I don't consider it a compromse that you allow an anarcho-capitalism section. You have to have an anarcho-capitalism section. Anarcho-capitalism 00:16, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

If you don't see anarcho-capitalists waving flags that doesn't mean there are not a lot of anarcho-capitalists. They just have a different strategy.Anarcho-capitalism 00:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Ideas don't change the world, people change the world. If all you've got is ideas, then fuggedaboudid. Anarchism is a living breathing socialist tradition, not a bunch of dusty books in a library. Donnacha 00:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes but people aren't inspired to action without ideas. Waving flags around sure doesn't inspire me. It looks like a bunch of dopes to me.Anarcho-capitalism 00:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

If all you've got are ideas, though, then you've got nothing. Anarchism is a social movement as much as it is a philosophy, Bakunin goes hand in hand with the Jura Federation, etc. "Anarcho"-capitalism is the domain of academics and web warriors and little else. Donnacha 00:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

What exactly is being acheived by waving a flag around and chanting? Nothing at all.Anarcho-capitalism 00:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Who said anything about chanting - you're mixing anarchists up with the Trots. The mass confrontational movements of the first part of this decade had a massive impact and anarchists were at the forefront. Global capital was put on warning and retreated somewhat, movements sprang up around the world and have changed the face of Latin America in particular and then... The bloody wars broke out, revolutionary concepts were replaced by reformist ideas, confrontation became orderly rallies and the Trots took over the anti-war movement. Donnacha 00:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

A revolution of ideas without action is no revolution at all. participating in demonstrations is not about flag waving, ancap, its about exposing "liberals" to your ideas and direct action. its about pushing the demonstration in a more revolutionary direction. conversely, that aspect of social anarchism, while the most visible is hardly the most prolific or important. we form collectives, info shops, unions, resource centers, federations, community action orgs (like foodnotbombs). we engage in leafleting etc, right now principally (and fairly successfully at least in Georgia) aimed at military recruitment especially in schools. we organize free venues where young people can go and be safe and radical at the same time. we help rebuild New Orleans. all those things achieve something. i have asked repeatedly on here and elsewhere where in the southeast US i could find a meeting of ancaps because i would like to attend one. i have recieved no responce. name any city or even large town in the US and i can direct you to social anarchists or their projects. in fact, we are not keeping ancap out of this article, it is there and no one intends to remove it. we are not the ones POV pushing here. we are being rather accomodating i think. also, ancap, you should change your name to something else because it makes things a little confusing when we are discussing ancap the idea and your name is ancap at the same time. Blockader 17:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Go to a seminar on Austrian economics. You'll find plenty of ancaps there. A large percentage of the Austrian School are ancaps.Anarcho-capitalism 17:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

You asked about the southeast US. The Von Mises institute is at Auburn University. There are lots of ancaps there.Anarcho-capitalism 17:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow, there are a few ghettos of an-caps here and there. But can you find them organizing anywhere else (and are they even organizing there, or just having discussion about how great capitalism is?) Just about every major city in the US has some anarchist (anti-cap of course) presense and they are doing something. Not to mention all the smaller towns all over the place that have at least a few. If there are a lot of an-caps around, there not visible at all except on the internet. And Blockader, don't forget South Central Farm. My friend (and about a dozen others) is facing a bunch of trumped up charges stemming from locking down there when they tried to evict it. Ungovernable Force 18:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you understand the individualist camp of anarchism. Anarcho-capitalism is not a social movement. They don't stage protests, demonstrations, etc. Anarcho-capitalism is philosphical. Just because they aren't out protesting and what not it doesn't mean there aren't a lot of them. They're simply people who oppose the state and are smart enough to know that all the marching around and waving black flag and carrying signs is not going to accomplish anything at all. Only when everyone converts to anarcho-capitalism can governments cease to exist. That may never happen, or if it does it won't be for another few hundred years at least. The only way to try to make that happen or to at least reduce the power of the state is through the power of reasoned persuasion. So individualists sit back and write books and articles and engage in debate. That's their modus operandi. It is no surprise that they have such a large presence on the internet. The spoken word is their weapon against the supporters of state intervention.Anarcho-capitalism 20:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, at least we don't have to worry about your "anarcho"-capitalist society ever coming about at least. That's one good thing about you guys being arm-chair philosophers. I'm reminded of a quote in an anarchist pamphlet "We need more intellectual thugs and less thugs and intellectuals." Ungovernable Force 05:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Uh, did you just ignore the existence and impact of everything i mentioned above and focus on the one thing i suggested shouldn't be focused on? just as an aside i have a question. If y'all rely solely on "reasoned persuasion" as a means for achieving your goals, why would you even want to be associated with anarchists. Nearly everyone in our society holds negative views of anarcists and anarchism (imo due to educational and media misrepresentation) so wouldn't it be more effective to educate and convince people of your stance if the original ancaps had adopted a name that did not have the generally negative societal associations of anarchism? just wondering. Blockader 21:17, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't ignore you. I was responding to Ungovernable. It's called "anarcho" capitalism, so it's going to be associated with anarchism anyway whether it's talked about among other types of anarchim or not.Anarcho-capitalism 21:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

But why not associate yourselves libertarians? That's what you are after all. You have far more in common with minarchists and (american) libertarians than with anarchists, and those at least are viewed as relatively respectable groups. Ungovernable Force 05:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

anarchist tradition

Fowler about the 19th century anarchist tradition:

"Traditional anarchist thinking seems to sweep across so long a spectrum that unities are understandably hard to uncover. Stirner's consuming egoism, Herzen's elegant ambiguities, and Kropotkin's breathless positivism apperently lie far apart. It would not be a facile conclusion to suggest that there was no single anarchist tradition in the last century."

Then:

"Most commentators, however, have agreed that there was a lowest common denominator in the anti-state impulse of classical anarchism...There is, in fact, no question that anarchists did share a general antipathy to what they termed "government," but it is not clear what they meant with that crucial concept."

Later:

"First, it is sometimes argued that the distinguishing feature of anarchism was an intense distaste for any form of authority. This may describe the general style of both contemporary and past anarchists; but the actual views of the major anarchist theoreticians do not provide evidence for this claim, even apart from arguments about the potentially authoritarian nature of some anarchist ideas about community. The fact is that anarchist thinkers were not against all authority so much as they were against the authority of the state, or political authority. Authority as defined as that to which one owes moral obedience, was never rejected in principle, even when political obligation was...The classical anarchist ideal, then, did not banish authority. While anarchists undertook to destroy political authority of men over other men, ordinarily they were anxious to establish natural authority. "Fowler, R.B. (1972). "The Anarchist Tradition of Political Thought". Western Political Quarterly. 25 (4): 738–752. doi:10.2307/446800.

Fowler has some nice points about the similarities between laissez-faire liberalism and anarchism. I can post if you want. Intangible 00:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

No need, Godwin took the social aspects of laissez-faire liberalism to its extreme, this is well-known and accepted. The economic aspects vary, with some advocating laissez faire capitalism, others advocating socialism - anarchists coming from the latter thread. Donnacha 00:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

On coercion

"An examination of nineteenth-century anarchist thought on the subject of coercion reveals more complexity. Some anarchists were genuinely opposed to all forms of coercion, defined as forcing people to act in ways that were not self-willed...But this constituted a minority impulse. Many anarchists...were revolutionaries, and some were distinctly violent revolutionaries...Bakunin was the most aggresively revolutionary, and he clearly accepted the coercion of violence...Max Stirner was prepared to employ coercion whenever his vision was violated, no matter how perfect the society." Intangible 02:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

That's true. I actually saw an encyclopedia of philosophy at a bookstore recently that said the various forms of anarchism have "nothing in common" whatseover. I'll have to bring that in as a source.Anarcho-capitalism 02:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

If so, then mission accomplished for those I suspect of adopting the term "anarcho"-capitalist simply to wreck the historical concept of anarchism. Donnacha 23:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

minority view?

I just read most of this page and the debate that has been going on between the anarcho-capitalists and the ones who say that anarcho-capitalism is not a legitimate form of anarchism. The anarcho-capitalists hardly seem like a minority here. They are out numbering the anti-anarcho-capitalists. Disquietude 08:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

There's a lot of sock-puppetry here, so what appears to be a number of people is actually one or two people under different names. Also, the arguments go round and round and round in circles on a topic most anarchists have no interest in arguing. Donnacha 08:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Then why do they keep arguing? Disquietude 09:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Because the sock puppets keep trying to push their POV on the article. Donnacha 14:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

My ass they outnumber the socials here. me, aarons, donnacha, goodintentions/marinus, ungovernable force, libertatia, 69.164.74.68, supersheep, sarge baldy, ebonytotem, on this current page. with dtc, intangible, hot, dant, visionthing, and now "anarcho-capitalist" and informationjihad (a likely sock of a banned user) being pro-cap. whiskey was the sock of a banned user and hogeye is also consistently blocked. that is hardly being outnumbered is it? i probaly forgot some so i apologize in advance. in addition, many socials have been run off by the flagrant POV pushing, incivility, and revisionism of the ancap socks who are often here (though we seem mostly free at the moment). To argue that ancaps outnumber social anarchists is ignoring reality. unless you count members of the "libertarian" party, than you might have a case. Blockader 17:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I can't find Sarge Baldy on this page. I went to 69.164.74.68 and he has some weird ip lookup on his talk page. Looks like the socialists are monkeying around here themselves. Disquietude 17:14, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The POV is coming from both sides. The important thing is that POV is kept out of the article. Disquietude 17:16, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I knew i would screw that up somehow and have it pointed out to me :]. I did some of it from memory and sarge baldy has been around somewhat but maybe not in the last week, again sorry. the socials are not POV pushing in the article, where it counts. read my post above under "puppetry" for explanation if you want. Blockader 17:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Sarge is one of the people who has been staying away from the page due to all the crap that goes on here. I don't blame him. FrancisTyers (an admin, along with sarge) used to be involved a bit as well. Also, I do feel I need to say that the anon you mentioned Blockader is probably Aaron (the anon admits to being a non-active user). Still, most of the people historically who have been here advocating an-cap are now banned users or their socks, (btw, you seem pretty new to wikipedia , how did you find this page so fast? Funny). Ungovernable Force 18:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

To correct Blockader above, I'm not an anarcho-capitalist. I'm not an anarchist of any kind. DTC 20:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

And I'm a mutualist, very much in the tradition of Proudhon and William B. Greene. I have argued that the an-caps need to be accounted for within the history of anarchism, but that doesn't mean that I believe their approach is correct. Propaganda by deed was a perfectly explicable wrong turn by elements within the anarchist movement. The reduction of mutualism to an economic doctrine compatible with egoism was a serious departure, but I still consider Tucker an heir of Proudhon. The rise of anarcho-capitalism is an entirely explicable development within anarchism's history, given everything else that functioned to splinter anarchism, and socialism more broadly, in the late 19th century. Besides, I think more, and more useful, work gets done when we focus on research rather than spending all our energy attempting to excommunicate each other. Libertatia 21:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

sorry for the blanket statement y'all, i thought my meaning was evident. also, not trying to excomunicate anyone, just attempting to preserve balance. Blockader 21:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Anarcho-Capitalism (the editor not the idea)

I think your edits today show that you have a commanding knowledge of ancap and you seem to be fair and unbiased. congratulations. i would also like to point out the article anarcho-capitalism where more detail on the theory belongs. i still think you should change your name though, it makes shit confusing here. also, i went to the Mises institute page and could not find a single mention of anarchism. i used "find in this page" on many pages and only came up with "anarchism" in a reference title. anyhow, i have a friend at grad school at Auburn and will send him to reconoiter (sic). thanks, Blockader

Well I try to be neutral, in writing articles at least. I kind of like my name but I'll think about changing it. About www.mises.org, I put "anarchism" in the little search window and it gets 1320 hits.Anarcho-capitalism 20:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

it seems to be more dedicated to classical liberalism. are the folks there suggesting classical liberalism and ancap are synonomous? Blockader 21:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

All individualist anarchism is classical liberalism taken to the extreme. It starts with the classical liberal belief that government should simply wait off to the sidelines of society until someone tries to deprive someone else of liberty or property, and then step in to prevent that. Beyond that, it should not do much else. Classical liberals believe society can organize itself without an authority forcefully intervening. Anarcho-capitalists just take it a step further by realizing that the state is funding protection of freedom through forced taxation, so the state itself is a violater. So they think protection of liberty should be voluntary and voluntarily funded as well.Anarcho-capitalism 21:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you'll find that virtually all forms of anarchism are based on that principle, however, "anarcho"-capitalism, as opposed to individualist anarchism, breaks the economic principles of equality that also came from classical liberalism and were further developed (in a number of directions) by anarchists. Donnacha 22:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Classical liberals aren't for economic equality, if you mean equal wealth distribution by that. They're for equality under the law, only.Anarcho-capitalism 02:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with An-cap here. Classical liberalism was basically just american style libertarianism from what I can tell. It's for free markets and definitely isn't about economic equality. And I agree with the interpretation that individualist anarchism (an an-cap in particular) are basically classic liberalism on steroids. Ungovernable Force 05:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Ohhh, that's very contentious. Classic liberalism is from a particular time and set of conditions that don't translate properly to the modern era. Liberal philosophers argued for markets at a time when they didn't really exist - largely as an attempt to end the serious inequalities of the aristocracy. Their libertarian descendents, to a large degree, advocate free markets as a defence against any moves towards socialism and support economic egalitarianism. That's very different. Donnacha 12:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

You are mistaken, Donnacha. The 19th century had plenty of markets - markets certainly existed. And classical liberals from Bastiat to Spencer argued early and often against (statist) socialism and govt intervention in the market. Hogeye 15:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, shouldn't have been so sweeping - of course they had markets, but not a real systemic market economy. This doesn't change the fact that they advocated markets as being more egalitarian than aristocracy or domination by the Church. As for them opposing "statist" socialism, so what? So did Bakunin and he definitely advocated egalitarianism. Libertarians have adopted the arguments of liberalism, but not the reasons behind those arguments. Donnacha 15:51, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you could give me an example from Bastiat's "The Law" or Spencer's "Social Statics" where they argued on the basis of "ending the serious inequalities of the aristocracy" or "markets as being more egalitarian than aristocracy or domination by the Church." It seems to me they argue quite similarly to today's libertarians, about the dangers of govt intervention because it entails injustice and retards "natural" society and/or progress. Hogeye 17:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Forty more pages of this?

Is it generally agreed that there are two basic concepts of anarchism being argued here, anarchism-is-anti-statism as opposed to anarchism-is-a-branch-of-the-socialist-movement? Is it apparent that there is no consensus for a disambiguation page between them? Is it obvious that both these positions are superficially reasonable and easy to support with endless amounts of documentation, and yet completely incompatible with each other, or there wouldn't be 40 pages of archives reiterating the same argument?

At some point, does a basic question like this go to arbitration? EbonyTotem 20:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think the distinction helps. We've spilled zillions of pixels on these talk pages on both topics: the relation of anarchism to socialism and the question of anti-statism vs. anti-authoritarianism. The simplest approach might just be to specify, where there is a question, what individual schools or authors meant by anarchism. If this main page gave a brief overview of schools and introduced the multiple meanings of the term, that would be a lot of good work done. Libertatia 21:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Right at the top of this page is a proposal that, I think, would do just that. Donnacha 22:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I went over the A proposed guideline to capitalism and an-cap in Anarchism article. I find it extrememly insulting and narrow-minded. I wouldn't accept that proposal at all. There appears to me, still, to be just as many, if not more, anarcho-capitalists in this debate than those opposing it. I find it hard to believe, also, that all these commenters are the same one or two users, as they seem quite different in their ideas and in their speech. Disquietude 02:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I just checked that out. What a condescending "proposed guideline."Anarcho-capitalism 02:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

It really is. Like they're doing the individualists and anarcho-capitalists a big favor and being so generous with allowing a small bit in the article for these ideologies. Disquietude 02:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The "guideline" gives to much to the -caps. The fringe already takes up too much space. - FrancisTyers · 02:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

That sounds like heavy pushing of a biased point of view. Disquietude 02:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Do I really have to quote the NPOV guidelines again? "Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all (by example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory, a view of a distinct minority).WP:NPOV#Undue weight" Donnacha 12:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

And breathe.... - FrancisTyers · 02:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

What? Disquietude 02:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

No, it isn't "generally agreed." If you want to claim that there are two concepts of anarchism, I think you would have to find a reliable source distinguishing between the two, or, at the very least, a reasonable number of sources each of which deals only with one of your supposed two concepts. That is to say, if we're going to make a distinction in Misplaced Pages, we need to show that the distinction is widely used by knowledgeable people. I don't think that's true of the distinction you pose. VoluntarySlave 23:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, what I meant was, "is it generally agreed that there are two basic concepts of anarchism being argued here," -- on this talk page, by us -- one by some editors and the other by other editors. No reliable source needs to document this conflict, since I am not suggesting making such a distinction in the article. (That's Hogeye.) Nor am I suggesting that the "endless amounts of documentation" on each side is of uniform quality or symmetrical import, merely that it might be "obvious" that copious quantities have been presented. EbonyTotem 05:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

EbonyTotem asks: "Is it generally agreed that there are two basic concepts of anarchism being argued here, anarchism-is-anti-statism as opposed to anarchism-is-a-branch-of-the-socialist-movement?" Yes. The problem is that there are always editors who think they can "win" the edit wars and get their favored definition - generally people too new and inexperienced to know otherwise. Arbitration won't help because it simply will not be accepted by either existing or new editors. The only way out is a long shot - the Neutral Disambiguation Page. If existing editors realize the futility of excommunicating the other guys and there are no sectarian new editors, the NDP may become a Schelling point.

Libertatia, I think the NDP would help simply because it lets both factions work on "their own" article, i.e. it allows a productive alternative to edit warring. Hogeye 03:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration might "help" inasmuch as it might unambiguously identify the "losing side" as disruptors if they continued edit warring, admins might presumably enforce the decision, and editors who don't just have to get their own way might be able to move on to the next issue. Whatever. Maybe people like the way things are now. Maybe I'm playing into the hands of "the wrong side" by even asking about it. EbonyTotem 04:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The intro of anarchism

Anarchism is the name of a political philosophy or a group of doctrines and attitudes that are centered on rejection of government, or the state, as harmful and unnecessary and support its elimination.The term "anarchism" is derived from the Greek αναρχία ("without archons" or "without rulers"). Thus "anarchism," in its most general semantic meaning, is the belief that all forms of rulership are undesirable and should be abolished.

Is this true or this false? If it is false than it shouldn't be there and should be removed. If it is true than any debate concerning the validity of individualist anarchism and anarcho-capitalism should cease and they should be properly included in the article. Disquietude 03:22, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The socialist faction rejects the etymological meaning (mistakenly referred to as "semantic" in the current intro.) They prefer appealing to tradition, in particular the fact that most anarchist luminaries and self-proclaimed anarchists (pre-1950s anyway) were socialist. ("The dildo definitional fallacy.") Never mind that even most of the luminaries defined anarchism as opposition to State. The socialist partisans like to evade the difference between the luminaries' definitions and their overall belief systems. We've discussed this many times; I offer these observations to save us another 40 pages of repetition. IMO the NDP is the only possibility for escaping the vicious cycle. Hogeye 04:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't reject the etymological meaning. It means "no rulers". An employer is a form of ruler. The moment you sell your labor power (and by extension, your time and free will while laboring), you have a ruler. Ungovernable Force 05:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is arguing that anarcho-capitalism shouldn't be included in the article (still less that individualist anarchism shouldn't be included). The debate is about how much space a-c should have in the article, and how prominent to make coverage of the antagonism between anarcho-capitalism and the majority of anarchists. This is not an article about "anarchism in its most general meaning," but about actually existing anarchism, that is to say, a theory and practice developed out of the 19th century socialist movement that emphasizes opposition to the state and other authorities.

And Hogeye, leaving aside your obsession with dildos, you might want to read some Wittgenstein (or any philosopher of language post about 1950) before you start claiming it is a fallacy to delineate a concept by reference to the history of its use. VoluntarySlave 04:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

If this is not an article about anarchism then maybe it shouldn't be called anarchism. If it is an article about actually existing anarchism then perhaps it should be called Actually existing anarchism. And to Hogeye, haha.. and good analogy, "The dildo definitional fallacy." Disquietude 04:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Plus anarcho-capitalism is actually existing anarchism, anyway. Disquietude 04:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

As VoluntarySlave says, this is an encyclopedia article on anarchism as a movement and philosophy with all that goes along with it, not on an abstract concept that soley means anti-statism (or even immediate anti-statism). As for an-cap being an existing form of anarchism, as you know doubt know, that is a contentious claim to make. Still, for the sake of argument I'll give that point to you for now. It still is not nearly as prominent as the other forms. As a minority position (a pretty major minority) it does not deserve nearly as much treatment in this article as other forms. Ungovernable Force 05:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Professor of Politics, Barbara Goodwin, says so: ""Although many anarchists today still subscribe to the values of Bakunin and Kropotkin, there are two new, divergent currents of anarchist thinking. One is anarcho-capitalism, a form of libertarian anarchism which demands that the state should be abolished and that private individuals and firms should control social and economic affairs..." Barbara Goodwin, "Using Political Ideas", page 137Anarcho-capitalism 04:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I found that the "Anarchist FAQ" that is floating around the internet lies about what Barbara Goodwin says in her book. Luckily, I had the book on hand and checked it out. The FAQ says: "Barbara Goodwin agrees that the "anarcho"-capitalists' "true place is in the group of right-wing libertarians" not in anarchism." As you can see, that's a fabrication. She says they are "right libertarians" alright, but she also says that the other types of anarchism are "left libertarian."Anarcho-capitalism 04:56, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

private individuals and firms should control social and economic affairs? The control part bothers me. A lot. Libertarianism is not right wing any more than it is left wing. The only stance that libertarians have is one of freedom from oppression and coercion. Disquietude 05:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Barbara Goodwin is obviously seriously confused. Disquietude 05:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

And, duh, to me..so is the "Anarchist FAQ". Disquietude 05:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes well Goodwin seems to be a bit of a leftist and that's probably biasing her wording. She says anarcho-capitalists "wish to see consumer capitalism reign," whatever that's supposed to mean. And, yes the Anarchist FAQ is very unreliable for information and even worse it's dishonest.Anarcho-capitalism 05:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Word. Disquietude 07:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Excel! Powerpoint! Internet Explorer! Yeah... using Micro$oft product names as curse words is not a bad idea! :-) *Dan T.* 11:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Bill Gates! Disquietude 15:56, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Vindication of Natural Society

Does anyone who has read it dispute that Vindication of Natural Society is an anarchist tract as read literally? (Note: The question is not whether the author was an anarchist, but whether the tract gives anarchist arguments.) A condensed version with notes can be found here. Hogeye 15:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Stop quoting from your own webpage ..hogyeye (as it say - "hogeye condensed version" ... a no no). maxrspct in the mud 15:37, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

One can read it as well here . Intangible 15:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

If read literally it might. But then you have to find a source for that. Lemme check my archive. Intangible 15:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Numerous people, from Godwin to Rothbard, have noted Vindication as an anarchist tract. Godwin praised it as "a treatise, in which the evils of the existing political institutions are displayed with incomparable force of reasoning and lustre of eloquence." Of interest is a paper by Kirstie McClure called "Reflections on Political Literature: History, Theory, and the Printed Book" (PDF). This author looks at three classics, Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos, The Two Treatises of Government, and The Vindication of Natural Society, and documents the flip-flopping contradictory interpretations of each over time. Hogeye 18:14, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Note that McClure doesn't disagree on the fact that Burke intended his arguments as satire. It's interesting to note Godwin's use of Burke, but it's misleading to give Burke's text as a source for anarchism, because the arguments are parodic, not serious. I've moved him to a footnote, which goes into his satirical intent a little. VoluntarySlave 19:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Godwin also believed it was satire, but at the same time thought it was a cogent argument for anarchism. If you look at Godwins's fuller quote, you can see that. He says "the evils of the existing political institutions are displayed with incomparable force of reasoning and lustre of eloquence, while the intention of the author was to show that these evils were considered as trivial."Anarcho-capitalism 19:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Murray Rothbard writes: "A less conservative work could hardly be imagined; in fact, Burke's Vindication was perhaps the first modern expression of rationalistic and individualistic anarchism."

That having said, this is a minority position among academics who read the Vindication. Most have read it as an ironic piece. The Rothbard reading can be entered in the article about this text (A Vindication of Natural Society). It should not be used here. Intangible 19:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

But even if it wasn't serious, if it's the first arguing rationally for anarchy that seems kind of important.Anarcho-capitalism 20:05, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Exactly! It doesn't matter whether Burke intended it as satire or not. (No one really knows for sure.) That was McClure's point - that a text stands on its own and can be taken in different ways depending on audience, time context, etc. Vindication is the first anarchist essay regardless of whether Burke intended it as satire. (I don't think he did, based on the tract's total lack of humor, its well-reasoned critique, that Burke published it anonomously in the name of Bolingbrook and only renounced it when he had a cushy government job on the line. Burke's claim of satire should be taken like Bill Clinton's claim that he didn't inhale. Note that Godwin's claim that it was satire is quite self-serving, since that leaves himself as the "original" anarchist.) Hogeye 23:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Removed inappropriately placed comments

in the anarcho-capitalism section. If it's necessary to make these comments please put them somewhere else in a separate section. Disquietude 19:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you should be removing those sources. Without sources that is just going to cause more argument over whether anarcho-capitalism is a type of anarchism.Anarcho-capitalism 19:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say the statements and the sources should not be there at all. What I am saying is that they are inappropriately placed. We should make a separate section for such statements. That is a section on anarcho-capitalism, not on what other anarchists may or may not deem it. Disquietude 21:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

This is a section on "anarcho"-capitalism within an article on anarchism. It's a disputed concept within anarchism, rejected by most anarchists who regard it as an oxymoron. It's a compromise to accept such a fringe view in the article at all, it's a breach of the NPOV to allow it without proper reference to its widespread rejection by anarchists worldwide. It's not possible to find that many references to people rejecting it because most anarchists don't even consider it. Despite being an anarchist for years in Ireland and the UK, I had never heard of the term - I first encountered it on the web. 22:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)Donnacha

Agree with Donnacha. Ungovernable Force 05:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

There are many here, and in the world, I'll wager, that dispute that communist anarchism is anarchism. (Read what Vision Thing says about this exact issue.) In reality, the npov concern is the other way around. It's pushing an opinion to not only state, but repeatedly state that anarcho-capitalism is not anarchism. We could do the reversal just as easily. Furthermore, this opinion pushing should not be ocurring in the section on anarcho-capitalism. It does not belong there. Period. Also, whether you heard of it, or not, before is irrelevant. Disquietude 23:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

You are mistaking an internal argument: communists vs. individualists where both side argue the other isn't real anarchism, but overall there is acceptance that they are both trends within historical anarchism, with a fundamental objection to what the vast majority of anarchists, communist, socialist or individualist, regard as a contradiction in terms. Anarchism is known, worldwide, as being anti-capitalist. "Anarcho"-capitalism is not only oxymoronic, many regard it as a reputational risk - to accept it undermines one of the fundamental elements of anarchism. It's disputed, any mention of it in an article on anarchism should point that out. It's also an extreme minority position, and need I point out WP:NPOV#Undue weight again? Donnacha 23:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, anarcho-communism is accepted by every encyclopedia article on anarchism I've seen, and I've seen at least 3 or 4. None of those articles have given as much attention to an-cap, in fact, most don't even mention it. Encyclopedia Brittanica mentions an-cap, but only in the article on libertarianism (telling, isn't it?). UK Encarta gives one sentence to it in a several page article, and it's not too clear if they are trying to say whether it properly fits or not ("Since World War II this tradition has been reborn and modified in the United States as anarcho-capitalism or libertarianism"). Many of the encyclopedias say anarchism is anti-capitalist. So the reversal really can't be done just as easily. Ungovernable Force 05:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

As a libertarian in the United States, it was years before I encountered any sort of anarchism that wasn't anarcho-capitalist, aside from historical references to early-20th-century bomb-throwers and assassins. *Dan T.* 23:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't that make an-caps closer to libertarians and not anarchists? Ungovernable Force 05:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Point well made, DanT. Oh, come on, Donnacha. Pointing to WP:NPOV#Undue weight is ridiculously exaggerated and really doesn't fit in this instance at all. And if ever there was an oxymoron it's communist anarchism. From the article on Communism Communism is an ideology that seeks to establish a future classless, stateless social organization, based upon common ownership of the means of production and the absence of private property. Private property is a basic right of freedom. The only thing that can be taken away after that is freedom of speech, etc, and the right of the individual to claim the basic ownership of him or herself. If you don't have freedom, you surely don't have anarchism. So where is the oxymoron now? Disquietude 23:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Um, except an-cap is given virtually no weight (and in many cases, not even virtually) in other encyclopedia articles on anarchism. It simply isn't as notable. We have way more info on an-cap in the one small section on this page than encarta and brittanica have in their entire encyclopedias combined. And I'm not going to get into the theoretical debate, but if your idea of freedom is for me to have to whore my time out to employers to survive, than I'd rather be "enslaved". Ungovernable Force 05:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I came up with the basics of anarcho-capitalism on my own when I was a little kid, maybe around 12 years old. I just thought, well, if businesses make their money from customers, then why doesn't government? Why are they taxing? The product must not be something people want that bad if they have to force people pay for it. Government should be run like a business. I thought that I was coming up with something original. It wasn't until I was older and got on the internet that I found out that there's an actual philosophy based on that idea. It's really hard for me to believe claims that anarcho-capitalism is some obscure unpopular philosophy. I know there are probably no source for this, but I suspect it's very popular and more popular than anarcho-communism, simply because it's such common sense. If stealing is wrong, then taxation is wrong, therefore, protection of liberty should be voluntarily financed. Duh!Anarcho-capitalism 00:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

And I came up with the basics of anarcho-communism in Junior High. Your point being? And I don't really see how you can say you're opposed to governments when you have no problem paying someone to do the same things a government does. That doesn't seem like common sense to me. Your opposition isn't to governments per se, you just want to pay for the one you like the best. The best way to defend liberty is to do it yourself, not to contract it out to the person with the lowest price. Ungovernable Force 05:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I find it absolutely astounding that there are people so ignorant of anarchism yet insist on calling themselves by that name. You're like little Green Day fans who like to call themselves punks. You've clearly not read Proudhon, nor Kropotkin, nor Goldman, nor Berkman. Personal property, that which you own and use, is a basic right. Private property, AKA capital, that which you own and charge others for the use of, is exploitation, which anarchism opposes. If someone owns all the land, like Brazilian landowners, then they deny liberty to the vast majority of Brazilians. It is the MST who are fighting for liberty and it is those who defend the right to private property who deny liberty to all but the rich. Brazil today, in fact, presents a perfect example of what "anarcho"-capitalism would bring - rich landowners, with murderous private security, maintaining what is basically a form of modern bonded slavery with little or not interference from the government (which isn't strong enough to challenge them). Viva the MST, Ya Basta! Donnacha 00:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I've read those writers, alright. But apparently you haven't read Rothbard. He says much of the land in private hands today is actually stolen land. He does not defend all the private holdings that exist today. Much of the land has been stolen, by or with the aid of the state, from original people who worked it. His position is that for land to become property someone has to use it. If you come upon unowned land, you can't just take it and claim it's yours, according to anarcho-capitalism. This is the confusion people have when they first encounter anarcho-capitalism. They have a different definition of capitalism than anarcho-capitalists.Anarcho-capitalism 00:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

You're confusing anarcho-capitalism with geo-libertarism (or some other related philosophy). There is no requirement in anarcho-capitalism for land to be worked or used in order to be owned. In fact, thats almost LTOV. - FrancisTyers · 00:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalists say that nothing can become property until someone has occupied or transformed that land through their labor. You can't just come in and claim land that you haven't used. Read the Anarcho-capitalism article. Rothbard is quoted: "Any attempt to claim a new resource that someone does not use would have to be considered invasive of the property right of whoever the first user will turn out to be." Rothbard says much of land in private holdings today was stolen from those who were working it.Anarcho-capitalism 02:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Haha, and there are people who say that a man shouldn't starve while in a room full of food that he doesn't own. They also call it "common sense" :D - FrancisTyers · 00:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

It's also common sense that if you want some of that food, you go to work and make some money so you can buy it.Anarcho-capitalism 00:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't appear to be common sense to me. - FrancisTyers · 00:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Or you steal it. That seems like common sense to me. When some people have everything they need and then some while others are starving, yet refuse to give it to those starving people, I think the sensible thing to do is take it by force, not to "voluntarily" enslave yourself to the piece of shit who would rather let you starve than give you his extra food that will probably end up rotting anyways. And common sense relies heavily on the type of society you grow up in. Don't tell me that "you have to work and make some money so you can buy " is common sense to a hunter-gatherer. Capitalism makes food a source of profit, not a source of nutrition. And now their trying to sell us WATER! WTF?! Ungovernable Force 05:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

"As a libertarian in the United States, it was years before I encountered any sort of anarchism that wasn't anarcho-capitalist, aside from historical references to early-20th-century bomb-throwers and assassins. *Dan T.* 23:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)"

Don't make this into a US vs. World thing. - FrancisTyers · 00:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

While anarcho-capitalism is a minority position among self-described anarchists, it is probably not a minority position among anarchists. Due to the term's association with violence (and socialism), most anarchists do not self-describe themselves as such. As usual, we're back to the definitional issue. I think "anarchism" is a word - a tag - for a concept. I don't accept the circular anarchism is whatever self-labeled anarchists have traditionally considered anarchism as a valid definition. Hogeye 00:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. That actually would be logical fallacy called "argumentum ad antiquitatem" (appeal to tradition).Anarcho-capitalism 00:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

It is far and away a minority position among anarchists. Anarcho-syndicalism is probably the form of anarchism most subscribed to, followed by other forms of anarchist communists (such as squatters, etc) and then the various post-left/individualists (not counting "anarcho"-communists) influenced by Robert Anton Wilson/Hakim Bey, etc. Anarchism is a term that has historical meaning, based on historical writings and movements, both equally valid within the description. Your attempt at postmodern rewriting is ridiculous. Anarchism is what it has always been, the introduction of a contradictory definition does not change that. If a car is defined as a motorised vehicle with four wheels, and possibly three, the person who says his two-wheel motorised vehicle is a car is wrong. He can call his bicycle what he wants, but it's still a bicycle. "Anarcho"-syndicalism is not only missing a wheel or two, it's got "this is a bicycle" written along the side. Call it libertarianism and leave the rest of us alone with our living, breathing tradition. Donnacha 00:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

We covered this somewhere between archive 25 and archive 34. Hogeye is (lamentebly) stuck in the 13th Century. We hope he'll catch up soon! - FrancisTyers · 00:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Hogeye and Anarcho-capitalism are right. To FrancisTyers, Did you read this page? That has already happened. Only it was more the world vs US. Read it, for real. And communist-anarchism is as oxymoronic as you can get. Don't attack Hogeye FrancisTyers. Disquietude 00:23, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I've been involved in the page for a number of months. Longer than yourself. Surprisingly there have been pretty much no novel arguments in that time. Remember Groundhog day ? Hoping a person learns something isn't an attack. :) - FrancisTyers · 00:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Why come up with a "novel argument" when that one works? "Appeal to tradition" is a logical fallacy. It's fallacious to say someone is not an anarchist because he doesn't go along with tradition. Anarchism isn't defined as being traditional. If you want the state to cease to exist, you're an anarchist. Any anarchist is free to start his own "tradition" by attaching any supplementary positions to his anarchism that he wishes.Anarcho-capitalism 00:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

It's funny (some might venture ironic) that you would accuse myself of using a logical fallacy while using one yourself. And lo, doubly ironic that it should be the classic "appeal to authority". I won't bore you with the latin. - FrancisTyers · 00:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

To FrancisTyers, I don't see it that Hogeye is back in the 13th century. I agree with him and DanT and Anarcho-capitalism. Believing you're right and having no tolerance for another point of view, while accusing somebody of something that is only in your mind is an attack. Disquietude 00:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry you didn't get the joke, Hogeye does. FrancisTyers · 00:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh. Sorry. I didn't know it was a joke. Disquietude 00:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I'll explain later. - FrancisTyers · 00:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's a guess: Disquietude is Thewolfstar. Oh man, I'm so bad faith. --AaronS 00:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you talking about me? Disquietude 01:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

No, the other Disquietude. I wouldn't say your wolfstar. You could be RJII. Too early to tell. We'll find out soon enough though. Ungovernable Force 05:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Nocommie version

By request, and due to consensus among those who know the definition of anarchism and are ready to respond to the socialist faction tit-for-tat, I'm putting up the "nocommie" version. It is well documented that communism is incompatable with anarchism. Benjamin Tucker said so. Hogeye 01:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks like you have a lot of agreement here. Disquietude 01:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

If you want to put up something such as this, I would recommend doing it in your userspace, not here. Otherwise, with the large amount of text you removed, the antivandal bot is triggered. And. I wouldn't recommend it anyway without discussion first. You are many many times blocked user. Tread carefully. --Woohookitty 01:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks like you have a lot of agreement here. Disquietude 01:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Tit-for-tat may shake us out of the continual edit wars, and get us onto a Schelling point such as the Neutral Disambiguation Page. Hogeye 01:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

So, will you be showing your tits, or your tats? *Dan T.* 02:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I invite you (anyone) to revert to the "nocommie" version early and often (up to 3 times per day for each person) until the socialist partisans cease disputing/deleting/vandalizing references to anarcho-capitalism, or agree to the Neutral Disambiguation Page. The NDP is as follows:

Anarchism may mean:

Anarchism (anti-state) - the theory or doctrine that all forms of government are unnecessary, oppressive, and undesirable and should be abolished. This takes anarchism to mean anti-statism only.

Anarchism (socialist) - philosophies, movements, and ideologies that advocate the abolition of capitalist exploitation and all other forms of authority. This takes anarchism to mean anti-statism plus anti-capitalism.

Hogeye 02:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

So, basically you're trying to instigate an edit war. Smart one Hogeye. No wonder you're perpetually blocked. Ungovernable Force 05:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Edit warring is not a good way to go. Maybe arbitration is only real solution? -- Vision Thing -- 10:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Hypocrit. You say edit warring is not a good way to go, yet remove perfectly valid sources on globalisation. Yes, I wrote some of them, but the site is that of a national broadcaster in Ireland. There's nothing invalid about any of them, they're news pieces perfectly relevant to the topic. Donnacha 11:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

My role here

I'm trying to keep up but I do have a life. :) I still feel like this article is a prime arbitration candidate. It's almost impossible to police. --Woohookitty 01:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

If any article is impossible to police, I guess "Anarchism" would be the one.Anarcho-capitalism 02:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Word. Disquietude 02:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what the subject matter is. It should be policable even if it is something like anarchism. --Woohookitty 04:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Festival of Puppetry II

Hello. I just have to chime in. What the hell is anarcho-capitalism doing in this ariticle? All this "Individualist anarchism in the United States" bastardization of anarchism should be excised. Take out the whole lot. Revolution Guy 02:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Ooh. Not too much personal view pushing, anti-U.S.-ism and polarization here, folks. Disquietude 02:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

It's ignorant statements like that which necessitate the tit-for-tat thing. If someone doesn't even know that anarchism means fundamental opposition to the state regardless of economic system, they have no business editing here. They should go play in the sandbox or something. Experienced editors sooner or later figure out that the definitional issue is unsolvable and edit wars are unwinnable, thus the Neutral Disambiguation Page starts looking good. Revolution Guy must be new and/or a true believer in his sect. Too many people read Infoshop's disinformation page ("Anarchist FAQ") and think they have a clue. Hogeye 02:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree about what you're saying regarding the FAQ. I still think it's a relatively good intro, but it does miss a lot. And yes, Revolution Guy clearly is new, and probably needs to learn to compromise more. But you need to compromise quite a bit yourself. I find your comment "If someone doesn't even know that anarchism means fundamental opposition to the state regardless of economic system, they have no business editing here" to be incredibly patronizing (not to mention ignorant). It's not clear-cut like that. If we were writing a dictionary I could understand, but as I've said way more times than I would like, this is an encyclopedia, and most encyclopedias seem to think anarchism is anti-capitalist. I agree that there is a lot of room for different economic systems within anarchist philosophy, but free market capitalism is not one of them. Ungovernable Force 06:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Revolution Guy, you really don't have any justifiation for deleting the whole Individualist Anarchism section. There are plenty of sources there. I just put it back in.Anarcho-capitalism 03:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, Revolution Guy. Some folks around here call that vandalism. Disquietude 03:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I think Hogeye's suggestion of splitting this article is looking more and more sensible. Disquietude 03:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

"Individualist anarchism" is not real anarchism. Private property and markets are not anarchist are totally inconsistent with anarchism. Anarchism is a philosophy that advocates revolutionary action to acheive a society based on cooperative sharing of all goods. Revolution Guy 03:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

There is more to anarchism than anarcho-communism.Anarcho-capitalism 03:23, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Where do you get that, Revolution Guy? That sounds like socialism or communism. Communism and anarchism are incompatible and their existence even impossible together. Disquietude 03:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Neither of you have a clue (but if I had to choose, I'd say Revolution Guy has slightly more of one). At least he has some basis for thinking what he does, and an encycledia would back him up more than you. But Revolution Guy, you are being a bit close minded and are only looking at one form of anarchism (although it's closer to the form I support). Individualist anarchism is a form of anarchism, it's just not nearly as notable (especially not now), and IMO isn't quite as good of an idea. And I take back what I said above disquietude, you are wolfstar. Please leave. Ungovernable Force 06:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

All authentic anarchism is anarcho-communist or similar. There is no such thing as a market-based anarchist society. That is a corruption of what anarchism is all about. In an anarchist society people share all the goods that have been produced and all resources of the earth. There is no money and no need for money. Look at the definition in M-Webster . Even a simple dictionary definition points out that it is based in "cooperation". So-called individualist "anarchism" is based in competition and buying and selling. In an anarchist society there is no markets, no money, and no greed. "Individualist anarchism" is a bastardization of what anarchism is all about. It's no surprise that it comes from the U.S.A. which is the capital of greed. Revolution Guy 03:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The MW dictionary definition verifies that anarchism can be capitalist, since capitalism consists of voluntary cooperation of buyers and sellers, and people cooperating to produce. The fact that there are competitive aspects does not cancel the vast cooperation involved in a free market. A market is the quintessential example of voluntary cooperation for mutual benefit. 72.204.5.50 04:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd love to be able to say something here and not see it turned into an argument. --Woohookitty 04:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Please do. Disquietude 04:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Have been. --Woohookitty 07:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Anarchism <> socialism. Look at the intro of the article. And greed can be traced back not only to the beginning of civilization, it can be traced to tribal times, at least some of them. Greed is a human shortcoming, unfortunately. It certainly was not invented by the United States. And where do you suppose the settlers of the US came from? They didn't just suddenly appear into thin air and find themselves on American soil. So stop looking at the US and start looking at reality. It starts with the individual human being. And so does good. Disquietude 04:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, how can Individualist anarchism be a "bastardization of anarchism". It was the first, or one of the first, forms of anarchism. Look at the dates. Disquietude 04:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Have you taken an anthropology class, or do you just assume that tribal societies were greedy? I would really like to know. They are the most egalitarian societies in human history, based on cooperation and mutual aid, not on competition and greed. If one person was starving, it was because everyone was starving. And if one person had wealth it was because the entire group had wealth. And if you think greed is a shortcoming, why would you want an economic system that encourages (and even idolizes) it? Ungovernable Force 06:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The one true meaning of anarchism is not an appropriate topic for discussion in the article text. There are two general schools of anarchist though, collectivist anarchism and individualist anarchism, and neither is ever going to accept the other as being a form of anachism. What should be done is for a history and explaination of each form of anarchism to be placed on the text, written from a facts only perspective (apart from which is anarchist or not), and let others decide for themselves which form of anarchism rings truer to their own ears. - MSTCrow 05:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Matter of fact it sounds excellent. Simple, neutral, neat and clean. Who'll second the motion? Disquietude 05:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's true to say that individualist and collectivist anarchists will never accept one another as anarchists; on the contrary, traditionally individualists and collectivists have worked together (Emma Goldman worked with Voltarine De Cleyre; Lysander Spooner was in the First International). I don't think any of the regular editors of this page want to remove Individualist Anarchism (obviously, there's always the possibility of an uninformed editor like RevolutionGuy happening across the article, but such people are, I think, rare). I agree with your suggestion that the article should include a neutral historical and theoretical account of each branch of anarchism; this should include their common origin within the 19th century socialist movement, as well as newer developments (anarcho-capitalism, post-leftism) which draw on earlier anarchisms while explicitly rejecting the connection to socialism. VoluntarySlave 05:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know where you're getting that but the early individualist anarchists hated anarcho-communists. Goldman and De Cleyre were friends but that's probably because they were some of the few women into anarchism. Lysander Spooner was not in the First International. Spooner didn't even associate with other individualist anarchists until he was old. When anarcho-communism was first imported they two schools tried to get along but it didn't last long at all when they saw what each other were about. DTC 05:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC) Benjamin Tucker says, "Yes, genuine Anarchism is consistent Manchesterism, and Communistic or pseudo-Anarchism is inconsistent Manchesterism." Victor Yarros says, "There is no logical justification, no rational explanation, and no scientific reasoning has been, is, will be, or can be advanced in defence of that unimaginable impossibility, Communistic Anarchism." Henry Appleton says, "All Communism, under whatever guise, is the natural enemy of Anarchism, and a Communist sailing under the flag of Anarchism is as false a figure as could be invented." DTC 05:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC) On the other hand, Murray Bookchin and Murray Rothbard shared a platform at an anarchist conference.DTC 06:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure, each side thought the other was mistaken, but that didn't prevent a the two groups as seeing themselves as having something in common. To quote George Woodcock's Anarchism: "Both Lysander Spooner and William B. Greene had been members of the First International; Tucker made the pioneer translations into English of Proudhon and Bakunin, and at first was enthusiastic about Kropotkin." Note also that the split is between individualists and collectivists, with communists being only a subset of collectivists. VoluntarySlave 06:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I think he's wrong about Spooner. But, I'm not going to argue it. This is from James J. Martin's Men Against the State: "Tucker met the revival of the Internationl Working People's Association in London, July 16, 1881 with undisguised enthusiasm, showing especial satisfaction over its re-establishment in accordance with 'strictly anarchist principles.' ...Two events were to shatter the solidarity that did exist between the Tuckerites and the Europeans....Anarchist journals lined up along the theoretical lines of individualists or communists thereafter, with occasional concessions to the views of the other side. Tucker gave his rivals plenty of space in Liberty, but no longer shared any exhilaration over their struggle. Now he became careful to point out any doctrinal differences to an almost painful degree..." DTC 06:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Post-leftism doesn't really reject socialism per se IMO. I mean, post-leftists are anti-capitalist and in many cases socialist or communist, they just don't want to be associated with those terms and the more authoritarian forms of those ideas that have dominated the majority of the socialist/communist movement. But what most post-leftists advocate is clearly in line with anarcho-communism and libertarian socialism, they just don't like the labels. There is an individualist streak within it as well, but it's still firmly anti-capitalist. Ungovernable Force 06:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Revolution Guy is not that unusual either. Anarcho-communists don't like individualist anarchism and it's mutual. This article even has a source from anarcho-communist scholar Albert Meltzer, in the early individualist anarchism section, who not only says that anarcho-capitalism is not a true form of anarchism but also says Benjamin Tucker's form of anarchism is not a true form of anarchism. DTC 06:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

MSTCrow would you care to help us out with this atricle? Like stick around for a while and oversee it? Disquietude 05:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I would be willing to oversee the article, with input from other users, if they're in agreement. - MSTCrow 05:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. We could use a neutral and sensible editor to help us out here. I appreciate the kindness of your offer. I'll see what the other an-caps think about this idea. Disquietude 06:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflit)Oversee? That doesn't seem very anarchistic? Ungovernable Force 06:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be anarchistic. He'll oversee the article, not a future state of anarchism. :) Maybe I should have said "watch over", it's not so harsh and authoritarian. Disquietude 06:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC) What do you think about this idea, Ungovernable Force? Disquietude 06:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

- Anarchism. Encyclopædia Britannica. 2006. Encyclopædia Britannica Premium Service. 29 August 2006 <http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9117285>. Anarchism is "a cluster of doctrines and attitudes centred on the belief that government is both harmful and unnecessary."
- Anarchism. The Shorter Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2005. P. 14 "Anarchism is the view that a society without the state, or government, is both possible and desirable."

Categories: