Content deleted Content added
Line 766:
::This is not about the state of the world. Because there are few good neutral sources pertaining to the anarchist movement, and almost no coverage in formal education, this article may very well be the one good source of information about the anarchist movement. I'm not about winning here, I'm attempting to approximate '''truth'' as closely as possible. There are two paths to follow in regards to the article -- one path leads ''closer'' to truth and reality, and the other leads down a rabbit-hole to a psychedelic, hypercapitalist Wonderland.--[[User:Albamuth|albamuth]] 2 July 2005 23:02 (UTC)
:::This battle--and its mirror image over at 'libertarianism', mutatis mutandis--strongly reminds me of the equal-marriage-rights battle. On the one side are people maintaining that queers mustn't be allowed equality or it will somehow devalue het marriages, and on the other side are people saying it's not a zero-sum issue, that there's no shortage of marriage licences. If you press the no-equality people for an explanation of exactly ''how'' it will spoil het marriages, they can't say.
:::This looks to me like a similar issue: it's not zero-sum; there's no shortage of pages. Whether one group gets a page has nothing at all to do whether some other group gets a page. As long as everyone coming in from the outside can find each page with equal ease, what's the problem? You say it will 'lead down a rabbit-hole' etc. That sounds like the same sort of vague 'end civilization as we know it' stuff that the anti-equal-rights people say. If I were to press you about just what you mean by that, could you explain it to me in detail? The anti-equal-rights people can't. They can't get any further, they go in a circle: it'd be bad because it would. [[User:Katzenjammer|Katzenjammer]] 3 July 2005 07:20 (UTC)
I'd like to take this opportunity to further send everyone in a tirade of capitalist fumes and brimstone by stating the the word libertarian was stolen from anarchists by capitalists. Originally, back in the 1800s to say you were libertarian was often short for saying libertarian socialist. I don't know how the libertarian party stole this term from its once common usage as an anarchist term but it is certainly incorrect to further ruin the english language by separating things into libertarian sections of anti-state and "pro-capitalist", the original libertarians were not capitalist at all! I say we compromise by destroying the internet, then nobody can have their precious definitions, and all that will matter is what always mattered in these situations, who you see in the streets and who you see counting bills! --[[User:Fatal|Fatal]] 2 July 2005 16:33 (UTC)
Line 846 ⟶ 849:
:''This article covers the theory or doctrine that all forms of government are unnecessary, oppressive, and undesirable and should be abolished. For strictly anti-capitalist meanings, see [[libertarian socialism]].
:[[User:Hogeye|Hogeye]] 3 July 2005 01:25 (UTC)
----
::I'll avoid offering, even as a joke, an edit-war version. I'm not sure we're at the joking stage yet. :-)
::As far as the lead-in definitions go, yeah, I just scribbled those and have no investment in them. I think it would be nice, though, to see if we can agree a succinct way to describe how the sects differ to one another so that the portal page wouldn't be muddy.
::I also think it might be a good idea (I'm not completely sure about this) not to privilege the pro-social and pro-Capitalist sects on the portal page. I realise that you might have done that so as to simplify things for discussion purposes, but I thought I should at least put the issue on the record.
::My perception is that cap anarchists are opposed to governmental power-over but not any other kind of power-over. Does that sound fair? Soc anarchists are opposed to any kind of power-over whatsoever, unless created by democratic delegation, in which case we consider it to be power-to rather than power-over. [[User:Katzenjammer|Katzenjammer]] 3 July 2005 07:20 (UTC)
==Definition of Anarchism==
| |||