|
'''Note: this page has a bug. If you make an edit and save the page, before you do anything else, look to see if your edit appeared (and also that portions of the page haven't been rearranged). If it's screwed up, go BACK once with your browser and hit SAVE PAGE again.''' [[User:RJII|RJII]] 17:03, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
== Talk archives ==
''If you want to talk about Anarcho-Capitalism (A-C), make sure you take a look at past discussions about it. Same goes for other controversial topics.''--[[User:Albamuth|albamuth]] 21:33, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
*[[Talk:Anarchism/Archive1]] - A-C discussion, music, external links (late 2002)
*[[Talk:Anarchism/Archive2]] - many more external links (spring 2003)
*[[Talk:Anarchism/Archive3]] - discussion of disambiguation, various forms of anarchism (the rest of 2003)
*[[Talk:Anarchism/Archive4]] - Doublethink, socialist/communist?, Deplorable! (January 2004)
*[[Talk:Anarchism/Archive5]] - removing A-C, reverts, functioning anarchies, Feb(February, 29March (2004)
*[[Talk:Anarchism/Archive6]] - Anarchy v. Anarchism and POV (March 2004)
*[[Talk:Anarchism/Archive7]] - egalitarianism, anarchy, surrealism, are you an anarchist? (April, May 2004)
*[[Talk:Anarchism/Archive8]] - coercion, anarcho-fascism, worthless! (May, June 2004)
*[[Talk:Anarchism/Archive9]] - A-C is oxymoron, proposals, history repeats, truce, coup, truce, anarcho-fascism(A-F) (June 2004)
*[[Talk:Anarchism/Archive10]] - history of article, more allegations of POV, another appeal to save A-F (late June, early July 2004)
*[[Talk:Anarchism/Archive11]] - lots of stuff, mostly an edit war about A-C (June to November 2004)
*[[Talk:Anarchism/Archive12]] - more aftermath of edit war, page blanking, punk rock (November, December 2004)
*[[Talk:Anarchism/Archive13]] - ''auto wiki link suggestions'', shortening article, anarchists vs police (December 2004, January 2005)
*[[Talk:Anarchism/Archive14]] - hunter-gatherers, adbusters, template discussion (January to early February 2005)
*[[Talk:Anarchism/Archive15]] - superhuge National-Anarchist troll and response, A-C is an oxymoron, anarchist criteria, page protected (early February 2005)
*[[Talk:Anarchism/Archive16]] - ''Survey and response'', CrimethInc, communism, much to read here (early-to-mid February 2005)
*[[Talk:Anarchism/Archive17]] - trolls, more critique of A-C, dictionary definitions, much of it obviously written while drunk (February to April 2005)
*[[Talk:Anarchism/Archive18]] - disambiguation, 'left' anarchism, NPOV and so much more! (April 2005)
*[[Talk:Anarchism/Archive19]] - NPOV dispute, page protection, more A-C discussion, graphical badness, and Milk! (May to June 2005)
*[[Talk:Anarchism/Archive20]] - NPOV dispute, page protection, more A-C discussion (June 2005)
*[[Talk:Anarchism/Archive21]] - polls, unprotection, disambig proposals, anti-state stuff, RFC's and RFM's (June to July 2005)
*[[Talk:Anarchism/Archive22]] - Let me guess? More A-C stuff! Revert war, mudslinging, Rothbard's ugly mug (July 2005)
*[[Talk:Anarchism/Archive23]] - Archive of page when it was nuked 5 Aug 1:28 (late June polls, but mostly July and August 2005)
*[[Talk:Anarchism/Archive24]] - RFC, individualism, continuation of edit war, "national anarchism" and Edumund Burke (July and August 2005)
==Open tasks==
{{AnarchismOpenTask}}
==total waste==
==No Reason for Debate==
All I can say is this article is total waste now, totally inaccurate, and full of shit. Might as well just vandalize the whole page to be the sentence "anarchism cannot be defined correctly on wikipedia."
This entry has been the subject of edit wars for some time. It's time for the so-called "anarcho-capitalists" to stick to their own page and leave this entry alone. Anarcho-capitalism has never been a part of anarchism and it is simply factually incorrect for this entry to treat anarcho-capitalism with any seriousness. The Anarchist FAQ has throroughly debunked anarcho-capitalism as an ideology. Just because a few misguided individuals sabotage this entry with their nonsense about anarcho-capitalism doesn't mean that Wikipedia should allow false information to be posted as a live entry. People can check any anthology of anarchist writings at your library and find nothing about anarcho-capitalism. It has nothing to do with anarchism. There is no need to qualify anarchism as consisting of "left anarchism" vs. "anarcho-capitalism." Please get the correct version of this article online without the section about anarcho-capitalism. A link to the anarcho-capitalism section would be understandable, but a section in this version on anarcho-capitalism is simply inaccurate. -- Chuck0, Infoshop.org and Radical Reference
:What do you regard as inaccuracies? [[User:MrVoluntarist|MrVoluntarist]] 01:16, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
:I'm pretty confident that this user is referring to the inclusion of "anarcho-capitalism" and "national anarchism" as forms of anarchism. I know that I personally find this article hard and even quite a bit depressing to look at with their inclusion. It effectively hijacks the furthest left-wing attitude and folds it back onto the right. Ironically, I'm a former anarcho-capitalist myself and at the time would have said I was "anarchist", but only because I had such a poor grasp of the subject to know otherwise. In fact, I was so confused I thought anarcho-capitalism was the only "true" anarchism because I considered anarchism to only oppose the state when in effect it opposes all means of oppression. As it happens, I now consider capitalist structures much more powerful than a simple state.
[[Chuck0|Chuck0]]
:In fact, if you think about it, anarcho-capitalists are no more "anarchist" than communists, who are insistent on destroying capitalism albeit preserving the state, after you consider that they consider capitalism the more potent threat. To a right libertarian, such an idea is apparently beyond any sort of comprehension. The only peace of mind I'm left with is my confidence that these topics will be removed from the article in some fashion or another. [[User:Sarge Baldy|Sarge Baldy]] 02:15, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
==Time to Unprotect the Page==
::All these schools of thought oppose what they believe to be coercive relations between individuals (and oppression) and favor what they believe to be voluntary relations --the key phrase is "what they believe to be..." The minute an editor starts injecting his personal judgements into the article as to what actually is or is not coercive, voluntary, or oppressive is when the POV problems arise. An NPOV article cannot make that judgement, but must include all schools of thought that favor what they believe to be an anarchistic mode of operating. [[User:RJII|RJII]] 02:30, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
It says in [Wikipedia:Protection policy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Protection_policy] that "temporarily protected pages should not be left protected for very long." Well, it's been protected for very long, so this protection is in violation of Wikipedia policy. Consensus is not going to happen, obviously. Edit warring is probably the best way to go. [[User:RJII|RJII]] 16:16, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:::And yet your reason for wanting it listed here is because you "believe it to be" anarchist. There's no such thing as an "NPOV article", and it certainly isn't very NPOV to put philosophies here most often seen as the enemies of anarchism and listing them here. An open-minded policy in deciding what is allowed is good, but there is a point where you make the article completely POV by overrepresenting your own viewpoints in a way that isn't compatible with the common perception of a subject matter. Even anarcho-capitalists themselves do not identify themselves as anarchist foremost; you would make certain to state that you are an anarcho-capitalist so as to highlight the difference, and from there you might claim that your philosophy is anarchist. There are no "schools of thought". Anarchists are anarchists, and identify as such. If you have to create a different label for yourself, you clearly cannot be properly anarchist, but are rather simply attempting to usurp the name for your own uses. [[User:Sarge Baldy|Sarge Baldy]] 03:53, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
:I agree. I was the one who requested protection of the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anarchism&oldid=14880685 Neutral Disambiguation Page], not knowing at the time that the admin was biased toward the socialist version. I'd rather have an edit war than the really stupid version up there right now. [[User:Hogeye|Hogeye]] 17:05, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::::Oh really? So all anarchists agree with each other on everything? There is just one monolithic movement? They all support the same economic system, etc? If that's what you believe, you're in for an education. Read the article. [[User:RJII|RJII]] 04:01, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
::You forgot ''both sides'' had requested protection, not just you (in fact, the other side requested first: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&diff=14770638&oldid=14769814] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&diff=14847264&oldid=14829597]). And I'm biased ''against edit wars'', not towards a specific version of this page. That said, if both sides want it unprotected, I will unprotect it; you can also ask on [[WP:RFPP]] for unprotection. I'm also annoyed at it being protected for this long (I dislike keeping pages protected for too long, they grow stale), but it's still better than an edit war. --[[User:CesarB|cesarb]] 17:37, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:::::I don't particularly care which of your own beliefs you decided to overemphasize in the article. You should be aware that Wikipedia policy states that even facts can be POV when overrepresented. All anarchist organizations that exist are open to other anarchists. It doesn't surprise me that you've created an article on "American individualist anarchism", which as it happens is not surprisingly part of the popular anarchist movement either and is much more closely tied with anarcho-capitalism. That it's called itself "American individualist anarchism" shows that it was never even accepted by individual anarchists. That you've listed one of these people first in the article is another example of your rampaging attempts at establishing *your* POV as *neutral* POV, and accordingly I've brought the <nowiki>{{pov}}</nowiki> tag back to the article. [[User:Sarge Baldy|Sarge Baldy]] 04:12, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
::Is anyone else disturbed by RJII's "edit wars are good" theory? Seems pretty clear he's just here to cause trouble. Gave up arguing rationally about two weeks ago. Oh well. If worse comes to worst, I'm sure I have more free time than you and thus have the edge in a [[war of attrition]] :P But I assure you I'll do anything to avoid this course. --[[User:Tothebarricades.tk|Tothebarricades]] 19:43, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
::::::Individualist anarchism in America was never accepted by individualist anarchists? You really are in for an education. Almost all the individualist anarchists are Americans. Your claim that it's not part of the "popular anarchist movement" may be right if you're talking about a social movement where people are out rioting in the streets and flipping cars over. But individualist anarchism is "philosophical anarchism." This article has to cover all notable types of anarchism, not just "popular anarchism." You're putting the POV tag on the article is therefore unjustified --this article is very NPOV. What you're really upset about is that the article is NOT POV. And, the reason why individualist anarchism is listed first is because the schools of thought are listed in chronological order of origin. [[User:RJII|RJII]] 13:27, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
:::I'm not here to "cause trouble" at all. I'm here to help correct the article. If that's troubling to you, that's unfortunate. Either way, whether it's interminable debate, or endless editing, there will be no resolution. There will always be anarchists who think somebody else's school of anarchism is not real anarchism (as in the traditional individualists who held that communist and syndicalist forms were not anarchism). So, the best we can do is edit endlessly without resolution. A dynamic article is better than a stagnant one. The point of Wikipedia is not for writers to appease other, but to provide dynamic, living articles, that anyone can edit. I, for one, will not the sacrifice quality and accuracy of an article for the sake of avoiding conflict or avoiding "causing trouble." If anyone would, then they shouldn't be editing an article. [[User:RJII|RJII]] 20:23, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:::::::If individualist anarchism is American individualist anarchism, then what was your point in constructing a second article on the topic? And there you go again, certain that your own point of view is the "neutral" point of view simply because it is more inclusive. I think you might actually want to read Wikipedia's [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|NPOV policy]] because you seem to have no understanding of it. Particularly read the section on "undue weight". You're correct in thinking that expression of all positions is justified, but expressing them as "equals" isn't, particularly in a case like this where anarchism already has an established meaning and which you're merely attempted to modify to fit your own definition. In fact, this article will never be in any way neutral so long as two competing philosophies are listed here as being equal parts of the same one. You probably feel that it's a "compromise" that topics on "left-wing" anarchism are even allowed to remain here, just as I might have at one point, and that it's "neutral" since both point of views are represented. However, that they're represented as being integral parts of a single philosophy makes no sense, and that you've pushed 20th century American individualism into the primary spot on the list of so-called "schools" shows your intention of redefining anarchism primarily to your own definition, although allowing "traditional" anarchism a substantial minority position due to your own unbounded generosity. [[User:Sarge Baldy|Sarge Baldy]] 20:34, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
::Keep it protected, please, until some sort of agreement is made about how to resolve these content disputes. I would like to see more respondants to the survey. How can we call more attention to it? Perhaps we should just wait another week for more commentary? --[[User:Albamuth|albamuth]] 22:01, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::::::::Wow, you're really off the mark. Individualist anarchism is not synonymous with American individualist anarchism. All the latter article does is confine the discussion to the individualist anarchists in America so those philosophers may be discussed in depth. There are other individualists anarchists that are quite different from the individualist anarchism that arose in America. The individualists in America simply have a uniquely American character. (I even put up a tag on the top of the [[individualist anarchism]] article because I felt that the non-Americans weren't being being represented enough). And no, I don't look at it as a "compromose that topics on left-wing anarchism are even allowed to remain here" as you suggest. I only wish there were more kinds of anarchism to include in the article. Finally, again, you are wrong to presume that anarchism is a "single philosophy." It's a variety of movements and philosophies that all happen to oppose the existence of government in favor of voluntary relations between individuals; beyond that, anything goes. As the Encyclopedia Britannica says, anarchism is "cluster of doctrines and attitudes centred on the belief that government is both harmful and unnecessary." Get it out of your head that it's a single unified movement. It's not at all. It's a hodgepodge of philosophies and movements that are competing to be the "true anarchism." [[User:RJII|RJII]] 21:37, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
::I won't go into the issue of whose philosophy is correct, but what do you propose we do? Wikipedia is not allowed to show bias. If a prominent school of thought considers itself to be anarchist, we have to include it. (And please, spare us the lecture about whose philosophy is bigger: everyone here knows that each side likes to inflate its numbers, with ancaps claiming numerous adherents among right-libertarians, objectivists, and conservatives, and leftist anarchists claiming that everyone in a labor union or at an anti-globalization protest is a traditional anarchist.) Further, many "true anarchists" consider anarcho-capitalism to be a non-traditional form of anarchism. This is well-documented on Wikipedia. But of course, you knew that already, judging from the level of involvement revealed by your user page.
::If you want to start an article with a pared-down focus, like anti-capitalist anarchism, or 19th-century anarchism, go ahead. But please don't claim to be an authority on who is a true anarchist, or that you own the term. That would be the height of irony. [[User:MrVoluntarist|MrVoluntarist]] 02:39, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
:::My proposal is that this article should be split in two, with <nowiki>[[anarchism]]</nowiki> representing the predominant "left anarchism" generally understood with the term, and <nowiki>[[right anarchism]]</nowiki> representing movements such as anarcho-capitalism and anarcho-nationalism intent on using anarchism to satisfy a status quo. Before you cry this is unfair, note the similar arrangment with [[Libertarianism]] representing right-libertarianism and [[Libertarian socialism]] representing left-libertarianism. That these articles are split makes sense to me, because they are certainly beyond the point you could call them related philosophies. It also makes sense to me that right-libertarianism holds the main article, since that is the common perception. Here, however, we have two very different philosophies shoved into the same article, resulting in an article no one will ever be content with. I'm not even against you calling these ideas "anarchism", but I do believe they don't belong in this article. I do find your little "19th century anarchism" thing a good joke though, considering as far as I can tell every anarchist organization that has ever existed has been "anti-capitalist anarchism". That's not to say there aren't organized anarcho-capitalist movements, but they operate under the cloak of the term "libertarianism" because they acknowledge what anarchism refers to in popular context. [[User:Sarge Baldy|Sarge Baldy]] 03:53, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
I wanted it unprotected too, until I saw the capitalists want it unproctected as well, now I'm not so sure. Keep it protected because they'll surely go back to their vandalistic ways. The current page isn't perfect, but it's better than a ton of people who visit this page every day getting an entirely and utterly completely false view of what anarchism is. --[[User:Fatal|Fatal]] 22:49, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::::First of all, anarcho-capitalists do self-refer as anarchists. Second, if we use capitalism in the broad sense to refer to free markets and support of contracts that allow an employer to retain profit, obviously some anarchists have supported capitalism, such as Kevin Carson and Keith Presont in the former case and Benjamin Tucker and Lysander Spooner in the latter case. Third, you dodged my point about certain "true anarchists" recognizing anarcho-capitalists as anarchists, but I'll take your reply to RJII as a response. It's incorrect. Even Peter Kropotkin recognized the American individualist anarchist Benjamin Tucker as an anarchist. You must have missed the past archives in which the left anarchists here repeatedly insisted that the American individualist anarchists were ''not'' associated with anarcho-capitalism. (Both views are presented NPOV on the [[Individualist anarchism and anarcho-capitalism]] article.)
::::Fourth, the libertarian article refers to right libertarianism because that is by far the most common usage. You have to go through something like 10 pages of Google results to get to a reference to it in the socialist sense. Correspondingly, most people - including, as mentioned in the archives you didn't bother reading before upsetting the delicate order, several 19th century anarchists - think of "anarchism" simply to refer to opposition to all government in the sense of the state. Again, this was thoroughly discussed in the archives in which every random sample of dictionaries - which specialize in reflecting the common usage of the term - defined anarchism as anti-state but not necessarily anti-capitalist. You can check for yourself if you like. Fifth, if people dispute that anarcho-capitalism is true anarchism, then by all means prominently mention that in the article. Actually, it already is. But if you're going to do that, you have to mention every dispute on which strand of anarchism is "true anarchism." RJII has done a great job in showing that anarcho-syndicalists, anarcho-communists, and anarcho-primitivists have been denied the title of "true anarchist" by other anarchists. Insofar as all of these disputes are mentioned, it's NPOV and doesn't warrant your tag. Finally, you didn't explain why my "little" "19th century anarchism is a joke. Did I miss anything? [[User:MrVoluntarist|MrVoluntarist]] 04:49, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
:::::You said ''Fourth, the libertarian article refers to right libertarianism because that is by far the most common usage. You have to go through something like 10 pages of Google results to get to a reference to it in the socialist sense.''
:::::You rest my point. You know how many pages it takes to get to a result relating to anarcho-capitalism searching for anarchism on Google? I don't, because I gave up trying after 25 pages of results. [[User:Sarge Baldy|Sarge Baldy]] 04:55, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
::::::Really? You emailed the heads of all those sites and asked them how they defined anarchism? That's the difference between libertarianism and anarchism: it's immediately clear how a site is using the term "libertarian". It's not so clear if a site defines anarchism as necessarily anti-capitalist, and even if it did, it would need to spell out what aspects of capitalism it opposes. There are many aspects of what would often be considered "capitalism" that anarcho-capitalists certainly oppose, and many aspects of what would often be considered "capitalism" that traditional anarchists do not oppose. That's why it makes sense to use dictionaries to measure common usage in that case. Btw, do you want to contest any of my other points? Because if you don't want to defend your position, for example, that American individualist anarchists were never associated with traditional anarchism, you're just revealing how ill-informed you are on this matter. [[User:MrVoluntarist|MrVoluntarist]] 12:54, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
I don't think that the "anarchism" and "right anarchism" division is a good idea, because it seems to me that the definition of anarchism given (opposed to rulers/opposed to the State) is completely compatible with Anarcho-capitalism, for instance. Whether you consider capitalism oppressive or not doesn't seem relevant, because the definition of anarchism isn't "anti-oppressive". If it was, we'd have to throw in a bunch of other forms of government (i.e. democracy) that many have claimed are not oppressive. So, you could divide the pages into "anarchism (anti-oppressive)" and "anarchism (anti-government)", but I think the former would be relatively worthless as far as classifying forms of government from a NPOV. My suggestion is that either a new definition of anarchism be given (but I don't know what that would be), or we should use the following criteria:
Free the Article! Remove the freeze. The hierarchy at Wikipedia is oppressing me by not allowing edits.
# Does the proposed system lack a government?
# Has the term been used widely enough that it deserves a place in Wikipedia?
If the answer to both is "yes", why shouldn't the term be mentioned somewhere in the article? If you want to divide the section into two pages "anarchism (anti-capitalist)" and "anarchism (anti-government)", and you can justify that the former is a popular notion, then I suppose that's OK. But to leave out a page such at this one, which is essentially "anarchism (anti-government)", is to deny that there exists a connection between the systems listed.--[[User:Blah99|Blah99]] 22:35, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
:Anarchism isn't always defined simply as a lack of government; it just as oftens refers to an end of any form of hierarchical rulership, and the actual etymology of the word (with archos alternatively being translated as "rulership" or "governance") not helping to clarify anything either. As ruler can be defined to mean anyone possessing power and influence over others (and not simply rational-legal authorities), limiting the translation to "government" does not seem appropriate. The article division you suggest doesn't work either because anti-capitalist anarchism is as opposed to government as anything else styling itself with the word. [[User:Sarge Baldy|Sarge Baldy]] 23:22, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
::Hmmm, well, perhaps a solution similar to the one you mentioned would work. Make the main anarchism page as you described: Anarchism is defined as an end of hierarchical rulership. The top of the page would make it clear that this is the definition being used, and it would link to another page, called "Anarchism (anti-government)" or "Anarchism (anti-State)", because clearly there are a number of people who use that definition. This page would feature Anarcho-capitalism and any other system that couldn't be included on the main page. Would anyone object to that? I don't think the term "Right anarchism" would be good for the page, because the connection between the two definitions is that they have the same roots; the connection is not that one is a branch of the other. Just my two cents.--[[User:Blah99|Blah99]] 00:08, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
:::This solution would be acceptable to me, although as suggested by MrVoluntarist might result in other issues. The status of [[individualist anarchism]] is particularly problematic, since it too is split historically between an earlier "left" anarchism and a more modern pro-market anarchism. The article in its current states focuses more heavily on [[American individualist anarchism]], which is its dominant context; however, there are a number of important earlier European anarchists associated with it critical of markets. I'd be tempted to say that American individualist anarchism should simply merge with its parent, and another article could be constructed for earlier, anti-market individualist anarchists (i.e. I think that article needs to be torn apart as well). I think a better name for a split is to an "Anarchism (pro-market)", since I believe that's the biggest schism. Still, this leaves "national anarchism" out, which both supports a racial hierarchy and opposes capitalism; this could be listed either as a controversial issue within anarchism or in my own preference listed additionally as a disambig. [[User:Sarge Baldy|Sarge Baldy]] 01:39, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
::::Here's how I see it...what is considered the most popular definition of Anarchism? Let's say that it's "an end of hierarchical rulership". That means we can't include certain forms of anarchism on the main page, such as Anarcho-capitalism, which only considers States (coercive monopolies) to be rulers. That's fine, we put those forms on the other page. For the forms of anarchism that do go on the main page, we just have to include their disagreements as far as what constitutes a "hierarchical rulership". As far as the other page, I don't think we should call it "pro-market", because that seems to imply a contradiction ("we want anarchy, but um we still want a market"), which is POV. Instead, the other page is simply defining anarchy in different terms. By calling it "Anarchism (anti-State)", we can include Anarcho-capitalism and the other forms on that same page, and perhaps discuss why some forms see the market as a ruler and other forms don't. The descriptions of the forms that were already mentioned on the main page well of course be brief; the point is to show that this particular definition includes many forms of anarchism under its umbrella, but it is not the only definition of anarchism used. This seems like a fair solution...thoughts?--[[User:Blah99|Blah99]] 03:21, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
::Oh, so it's just as often that anarchism means no government? I guess you agree with keeping anarcho-capitalism then. Regardless, you're not clarifying the issue; you've just pushed up the dispute. People will disagree about what constitutes hierarchical rulership. Does keeping people off my sofa when I'm not using it count? Anarcho-communists would say yes, individualist anarchists would say no. [[User:MrVoluntarist|MrVoluntarist]] 00:29, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
== [[Anarchism]] is anarchistic, so its entry is, too, nu? ==
:::Even when it does refer to a lack of "government" it remains open-ended, since "left" anarchists maintain that capitalism is a system of governance, not in the rational-legal way you might be accustomed to but in the sense of the definition of government as "a group of people that rule a country or area". I'm not sure that individualist anarchists would deny your example as a form of hierarchy so much as consider it an example of an acceptable hierarchy. [[User:Sarge Baldy|Sarge Baldy]] 01:39, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
No wonder anarchism leads to edit wars! Doing your own thing generates disagreements! This is because people are different! Viva la difference![[User:Rickyrab|<nowiki></nowiki>]] — [[User:Rickyrab|Rickyrab]] | [[User talk:Rickyrab|Talk]] 22:07, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::::Ah, so not all anarchists oppose hierarchy. Btw, should I move what I posed on the mediation page to here? [[User:MrVoluntarist|MrVoluntarist]] 01:43, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
:::::As I've actually said elsewhere, I'm not opposed to "market" anarchists calling themselves anarchists. The problem is that it's actually a fight for the legitimate use of the term itself. Market anarchists consider themselves the "true" anarchists, just as left libertarians might consider themselves the "true" libertarians, and that's the only reason why they continue to pursue the term at all. Simply putting them together in a single article isn't feasible, because although they might use the same word they're not philosophies that are compatible with one another. If you'd like you can move things from the mediation page, but I've decided to only respond to comments that I feel are cool-headed. I'm also not very likely to respond to lists, because they break my concentration, and take me too long to generate a response. [[User:Sarge Baldy|Sarge Baldy]] 02:29, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
::::::Of course anarcho-capitalism is not compatible some of the other anarchist philosophies. Like we've been trying to tell you, anarchism is not one monolithic movement. There is vast diversity ''and disagreement'' within it. That two strands may be inconsistent is no reason to remove one. Now, are you saying my post on the mediation board was not cool-headed? All I did was list facts. If you don't like it being revealed that you came into the topic ill-informed and without reading the archives, and that you told a falsehood regarding anarcho-capitalism's status on Google, maybe you shouldn't have done them? As a sysop, you have a special obligation not to do these kinds of things; don't turn around and try to take the high ground here. I'm sorry for making a long list and including 18 links (not including articles), but you were clearly wrong in so many ways that I had to organize them so that chance observers can better understand the dispute. However, I don't believe your excuses for why you won't respond. If this is such an important matter, and the truth is on your side, you'll take some time off from writing sociology an pataphysics articles to respond. As is stands, neither you nor anyone else is willing (or, most likely, able) to explain how the article is POV. That's certainly a shame, but it doesn't justify the neutrality warning. [[User:MrVoluntarist|MrVoluntarist]] 02:46, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
== Mediation ==
:Well argument is the stuff of life - I have no problem discussing, collaborating with other wikipedians on this. But on this page for the last few months we have had the same 2 or 3 anarcho-capitalists pushing their POV and UNPROVEN claim that A/C is entered in the article as a 'school' or substantial subsection. Folk coming in have only really experienced this and little discussion on the other parts of the article. IMHO it is classic trolling as A/C's are abusive.,.. uncooperative and just go on POV rants without refering to unbias sources or evidence. -[[User:Max rspct|max rspct]] 22:37, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I've [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation#Anarchism|requested mediatiation]] regarding this article again. [[User:Sarge Baldy|Sarge Baldy]] 21:08, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
:Sort of like how the surrealism talk page is surrealistic (just look at it, it's insane). I don't have a problem with people having different views - very little of my discussion here even goes into anarcho-capitalism, more a concern about the quality of the article --[[User:Tothebarricades.tk|Tothebarricades]] 23:08, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
:LOL! Do you realize how long the dispute betweem those that have been trying to limit that article to communist-based anarchism and those who want it to include all types has been going on? Go through through several years of talk archive for more information. Good luck! [[User:RJII|RJII]] 21:42, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
::Yes, I do. And did you know that for the vast majority of that time, this article has been "limited" to "left-wing" anarchism? [[User:Sarge Baldy|Sarge Baldy]] 21:55, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
:::Has it? I wasn't aware of that. That's unfortunate. [[User:RJII|RJII]] 01:03, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
::::This seems totally out of control. Wikipedia articles should be about fact, not how people felt about certain movements or ideas. If a large group of people called themselves anarchists, or were called anarchists widely in the press, and did something of historical note about it, then they should be included somewhere in the article. Whether or not something is "true" anarchism shouldn't enter into it, we're not here to judge. Geez Louise, folks! [[User:Jberkus|Jberkus]] 01:00, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
::It is just strange that the anti-property anarchists guard the page like it is their property, and it is the property anarchists that are willing to share and share alike. It looks like "public property" in the [[gift economy]] will be the object of considerable conflict.--[[User:Silverback|Silverback]] 00:02, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
:::::The issue isn't what or what isn't "true" anarchism, it's about having the article reflect more accurately what people generally use the term to mean, and, if the word is being used in two distinct ways, to separate accordingly (in the same way [[libertarian socialism]] is split from [[libertarianism]], despite the former's contention that they are the "true" libertarians). [[User:Sarge Baldy|Sarge Baldy]] 01:13, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
:::It looks like the problem in hand is being avoided by making personal attacks that have no basis in fact. I <3 petty attacks on peoples' integrity. Get a life. --[[User:Tothebarricades.tk|Tothebarricades]] 02:05, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
::::::If you want the article to reflect how people "generally use the term," that's easy. Most people generally use the term to refer to any philosophy that is against the existence of government. {{unsigned|65.2.38.145|27 August 2005}}
:Well, I just find it highly ironic that Wikipedia, one of the most successful "anarchist" collaborations on the Internet, can't find consensus on an article on Anarchism. From reading some of the Talk archives, this is because a few people want to use this article as a form of historical revisionism, presumably to push forward a political agenda. Thank goodness this doesn't happen on articles like the Seven Years' War. [[User:63.195.55.98|63.195.55.98]] 16:47, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
== Issue and Movement Anarchisms ==
::::If integrity mattered, the [[gift economy|gift economy theory]], would be a little more fleshed out. As it stands now, it is little more than a mantra. I suspect most participants in the anti-globalist movement are just exploiting an excuse to misbehave and enjoy a sense of belonging to a counter-culture, but there should still be some constructive thinkers able to contribute to gift economy theory, so that it can be subjected to critical analysis. There is not enough there to shake a stick at, nonetheless call an "economy".--[[User:Silverback|Silverback]] 02:26, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
The list of schools was getting really out of hand. A lot of the so-called schools were sub-branches of the main schools, or issue-oriented combinations like anarcho-feminism and green anarchism. So I fixed it. It used to be this way a few weeks ago, until someone changed it without discussion.--[[User:216.118.117.90|216.118.117.90]] 02:34, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
:Anarchism has nothing to do with chaos, sloppiness, disorder or anything else that this "anarcho"-capitalist POV war is demonstrating. Once the article gets to the point where that is clear I will be satisfied. --[[User:Bk0|Bk0]] 02:34, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
== Black Anarchism? ==
::That is one thing we can agree on, I doubt any of us would be interested in anarchism if it was. The question is, are some anarchists intending a society that can only exist if all dissent is coercively purged, or has high levels of social ostracism. Many who think they would be the ones to survive the purge, may be like the vietcong dupes who thought they were fighting for something noble and ended up getting re-education camps, or worse.--[[User:Silverback|Silverback]] 03:02, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
'Eurocentric'?
It seems to me that the claim that anarchism has been 'white centered' is simply historically innacurate. Almost all of the predominant anarchists of the first and second wave were russian, italian, and spanish - none of which would have been viewed as white at the time. Another strong faction, the jewish anarchists, were barely viewed as human! Indeed, anarchism in the US was viewed as an immigrant movement. Looking at a hundred and fifty year old movement, through today's racial lenses is dishonest.
:::I for one am opposed to all attempts to institute ''newspeak'' such as using "left-anarchism/anarcho-socialism" when one simply means "anarchist." What re-education camps do you speak of? Do you know what you're talking about? --[[User:Albamuth|albamuth]] 12:42, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Furthermore, three of the most succesful anarchist movements were in Korea, Japan, and South Africa, countries that even today wouldn't be considered white. There's also no lack of theorists from every continent; though it's no surprise that european anarchists texts have been preserved and are more accesable in english. It seem to me that the author has more of a grudge with contemporary anarchism, and is trying to back it up with sloppy historical claims. This is the bullshit line that neo-marxists peddle to back their 'anti-imperialist' racial politics, in an attempt to make middle-class white anarchist kids feel guilty.
:::Could you please tone down the crazy ranting? This page would have a lot fewer than 19 archives if the [[Wikipedia is not a soapbox]] suggestion was taken more seriously. --[[User:Tothebarricades.tk|Tothebarricades]] 03:16, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
Finally, can this be considered a seperate movement? Why is it called 'black anarchism' when APOC represents latino/a's, asians, pacific islanders, and other "non-whites" as well as anarchists of african decent? And if this is considered a distinct movement (which I'm ok with) whose anarchism can be said to root in racial identity, than certainly only people like Ashanti Alston who actively associate with it would be part of it, not someone like Sam Mbah, who is an anarcho-communist whom just happens to be black.
====Please Stop====
This section is incredibly sloppy, I've edited it some. Will finish later.
Let the defenders of anarcho-capitalism have a section in the Anarchism topic that referes to a page on which they can expound on it.
--Shevek
Let the Socialist-Anarchist defenders have the same.
:I agree with you 100%. "Black anarchism" here is a theoretical constuct used in the writings of a few black anarchists. I find the notion that it is a separate school of thought to be racist, but I've been overruled. :P --[[User:Tothebarricades.tk|Tothebarricades]] 13:19, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
Let the Anarchism page be the index to the Anarchism content in Wikipedia as it once was.
::Even if it were racist, that wouldn't preclude it from being anarchism. [[User:RJII|RJII]] 17:55, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
:::Perhaps by your own definition of anarchism, which seems to be more closely related to most definitions of "anarchy". [[User:Sarge Baldy|Sarge Baldy]] 20:25, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
::::Also by the definition offered by all three encyclopedias listed in the external links. Anarchism is simply opposition to all forms of government in favor of voluntary relations. [[User:RJII|RJII]] 22:13, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
:::::The phrase "all forms of government" you use would include to me any form of racial power structures, and not simply "legitimate" rational-legal government structures. [[User:Sarge Baldy|Sarge Baldy]] 02:16, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
::::::We went over this in the archives that you did read. If you want to expand the definition of government that far, it would also cover "worker's councils" and "community decision-making" that "true anarchists" support. Me, I like it when words have meaning. [[User:MrVoluntarist|MrVoluntarist]] 02:33, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
::::::"Racial power structures"? Black Anarchists oppose "racial power structures." What are you talking about? [[User:RJII|RJII]] 03:46, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
:::::Seeing as racism is a social relationship between two people (the opinions of just one person are bigotry, racism is bigotry applied), it seems unlikely that anyone would consent to being the object of racism. Thus racism is by defenition coercive, and non-anarchist. --Shevek
::::::What does it mean to be the object of racism? Merriam-webster defines racism as "1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race 2: racial prejudice or discrimination." Surely a belief is not the act of engaging in coercion. And, choosing who one decides to associates with is surely not coercion either. On the other hand, forcefully expelling individuals from their own property is coercion. And, I haven't seen Black Anarchism advocate that. [[User:RJII|RJII]] 23:42, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
::::So, are you trying to argue that racists can't be anarchists? Read the current talk page and the article beginning. Bakunin and Proudhon were adamantly racist. Of course, you probably already knew that, so I don't even know why you're bringing this up. If you like, I can purge all references to Proudhon and Bakunin. Then you would be consistent. [[User:MrVoluntarist|MrVoluntarist]] 00:17, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
:No, that's not the point at all. National "anarchists" advocate more than just bigotry, they advocate coercion and hierarchy based on race, which is unanarchistic. And whoever told you that anarchism meant 'no government' is an idiot. The rejection of government is the outcome of anarchist principles, not the axiom. - Shevek
::Calling for the extermination of the Jews and expulsion of non-Slavs from Slavic areas isn't coercion and hierarchy based on race? Btw, are you saying that most dictionaries and academics are idiots? [[User:MrVoluntarist|MrVoluntarist]] 01:13, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
:::Do you really trust dictionaries to comprehensively explain this topic? Also, note that dictionaries state that anarchism is in opposition to ''all'' forms of government, and that that word isn't in there by mistake. It is there to clarify that an ''inclusive'' rather than simplest possible definition of government shoud be used, whereas you continue to limit the meaning of the word to "rational-legal government" as per common usage. For example, one way to define government is "Administration or management of an organization, business, or institution." [[User:Sarge Baldy|Sarge Baldy]] 01:35, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
::::So you can't run a business if you're an anarchist? Yeah right. And, what does it have to do with black anarchism? [[User:RJII|RJII]] 02:05, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
:::::Of course you can run a business if you're an anarchist. Just like you can pay your taxes if you're an anarchist. And it doesn't have anything to do with black anarchism, which as I've said I'm still neutral on. We've drifted off-topic, and I don't see that as a problem. [[User:Sarge Baldy|Sarge Baldy]] 02:12, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
::::::The famous individualist anarchist, Lysander Spooner, owned the [[American Letter Mail Company]] that competed with the U.S. Post Office. So, according to you he wasn't as anarchist. That's fine if you want to believe that, but just make sure you don't put that POV of yours into the article. Business is not government. [[User:RJII|RJII]] 02:28, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
:::::::I don't see exactly where I said he's less anarchist. Individuals in fact hardly concern me, because it is impossible to expect anyone can be "100% anarchist", 100% authoritarian", "100% feminist", or anything else. If a dictionary states that anarchists are against any form of government, that business management is a form of government, then the only conclusions I can generate to satisfy anarcho-capitalism as a form of anarchism are: 1. anarcho-capitalism is against business management 2. the dictionary is inaccurate or poorly interpreted. If it's poorly interpreted, please explain how. Otherwise, please quit pretending that you [[Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial|don't have a POV]], or that your point of view is somehow more "neutral" than anyone else's. [[User:Sarge Baldy|Sarge Baldy]] 02:59, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
::::::::Where is this dictionary that says "business management is a form of government?" [[User:RJII|RJII]] 03:14, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
::::::::Let's get this straight. Anarcho-communists and syndicalists are not the only anarchists. Traditional individualist anarchists explicitly support free enterprise, wage labor, and a free market economy. So let's drop the notion right now that anarchists are opposed to business. Now, you may deny that individualist anarchists are anarchists, but that's your own personal POV and it doesn't count for anything as far as editing the article. [[User:RJII|RJII]] 03:19, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
::::More importantly, such an interpretation would mean most forms of anarchism on the current page, including and especially anarcho-communism and syndicalism, would have to go. Is that what you want? [[User:MrVoluntarist|MrVoluntarist]] 02:24, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
:::::How do you mean? Do anarcho-communists and syndicalists actively seek an eventual utopia you would qualify as a government? Even if a government body of some form is the means, it isn't the ends. The means are only the necessary tools to achieve the ends, and their simple utilization doesn't imply to me an active support of them. An anarchist might work, but out of a neccessity, rather than an actual support their employer. This does not make them pro-business or pro-government, and nor does an organized movement, which exists again simply for necessity. [[User:Sarge Baldy|Sarge Baldy]] 02:59, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
::::::Syndicates have a government. Communes have a government. (Under this broad definition.) As for it being "okay" because it is a means to a utopia, no. Everyone wants a utopia where everyone can get whatever they want. That certain anarchists want that does not differentiate them in any way. And my claims have nothing to do with making compromises necessary to survive. The syndicalists and communists' desired system itself has government. Be consistent. [[User:MrVoluntarist|MrVoluntarist]] 03:16, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
The problem with your line of argument is that you confuse the person for the idea. There aren't bakuninists, nor proudhonists. Bakunin had many authoritarian ideas, and proudhon many liberal ideas, but anarchism still takes from the cream of their writings. The fact that any one anarchist was racist doesn't mean much as far as the ideology is concerned.
Anarchism isn't a rejection of government. It's a rejection of coercion and hierarchy. Thus anarchists reject, just as fundamentally as government, patriarchy, and racism - the active form of bigotry. To say that anarchism is simply no government is simply innacurate, and ignores causality. No actual, literate anarchist would say that (not even a non-state capitalist).
--[[Juancarlo Añez|Juanco]]
My confusion with the supposed 'anarcho-capitalists', is that they claim to reject violence and coercion (basic, basic, libertarian theory) - thus making them anarchists - and yet they think that people will consent to being a wage slave. This obviously explains the absence of any working class anarcho-caps. It's an ideology for peope who don't work real jobs. - Shevek
: The article already have disambig in the form of the message ''This article describes a range of political philosophies that oppose the state and [[capitalism]]. For other uses, see [[anarchism (disambiguation)]]''. That should work fine. // [[User:Liftarn|Liftarn]]
:Sorry, but the anti-hierarchy stuff only applies to anarcho-communists. Individualist anarchists never mention "hierarchy" and would not oppose "hierarchy" unless it's coerced upon someone. Not all anarchism is about egalitarianism. A lot of people come here assuming that there is only collectivist/communist-based anarchism and apparently you're one of them. [[User:RJII|RJII]] 05:16, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
::What? Your train of thought only makes sense if you assume that 'anarchism=no government', making anti-statism the common denominator. But that isn't the case at all. Anarchists of every form have a lowest common denominator as a rejection of 'coercion' (or invasion if you follow Tucker). How exactly hierarchy can exist without coercion is baffling. How would the rich maintain their privelege without resorting to violence (without breaking the 'non agression principle'?). "Anarcho"-capitalism must be at a loss to explain why governments were created, if not as a necessity to protect their privelige.
I agree with Juanco. Let's go back to the following Neutral Disambiguation Page and avoid edit wars.
::Anarchism = no coercion. Plain and simple.
'''Anarchism''' is derived from the [[Greek language|Greek]] ''[[Wiktionary:αναρχία|αναρχία]]'' ("without [[archon]]s (rulers)"). Thus "anarchism," in its most general meaning, is the philosophy or belief that rulership is unnecessary and should be abolished. For other usages, see [[anarchism (disambiguation)]].
::Now, if you can show me how privelege and private property (which means: land, factories, the air, the water... ie "the commons" - as opposed to personal posessions, ie. my house, my car, my bed, my blanket)can be maintained without coercion, other than simply wishing it so, than yes, you'd be an anarchist. As I assume you can't, which is why you try and peddle the nonsense that anarchism=no government, then hierarchy is non-anarchistic. This isn't to say that any number of schemes that aren't communistic can't be anarchist - mutualism is anarachistic (mainly), collectivism is, primitivism is, hell, even ativism is; simply that anarchism is by implication anti-hierarchical. - Shevek
'''Anarchism''' may mean:
:::RJII can probably handle the historical issues better than I, but I will say this: you're making an error in logic I see frequently in assuming away the need for coercion to enforce a certain property system - and yes, you are advocating a property system there. (Search for "meta-aggression" in the archives if you wish to see how this topic was handled before.) The problem with your position is this: yes, ''if'' everyone agrees that personal possessions are the only valid property, then sure, you won't need coercion to enforce it. But in the exact same fashion, if everyone agrees that neo-Lockean "sticky" private property is a moral system of property, then you won't need coercion to enforce that either! In reality, there exist people who oppose the former ''and'' the latter, so ''both'' systems require some coercion. The question is, ''which'' kinds of coercion are acceptable. Is it acceptable to take someone's stuff because he's not using it? Is it acceptable to prevent someone from taking something he needs to live? Both property systems result in types of coercion that are offensive to some. You're just assuming away problems with your philosophy. [[User:MrVoluntarist|MrVoluntarist]] 02:30, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
*[[Anarchism (anti-state)]] - the theory or doctrine that all forms of government are unnecessary, oppressive, and undesirable and should be abolished.
::::You do present a seemingly more valid argument, but you are oversimplifying anarchism. Anarchism seeks to create a society that has no need for coercion, that doesn't mean that all anarchists are pacificts. Of course some amount of coercion is needed to create any system. The difference is though that anarcho-capitalism creates its own antithesis (and i'm not even a historical materialist, i think marx is full of shit). Private property is dependent on coercion. This isn't a theoretical argument, as much as historical. Police, crime, prisons, exist because inequality breads reaction - and claims of ownership in the face of poverty result in counter-claims and violence.
*[[Anarchism (socialist)]] - philosophies, movements, and ideologies that advocate the abolition of capitalist exploitation and all other forms of authority.
::::The smarter "anarcho"-caps get around this by agreeing in the need for police, as long as they are privately owned. How exactly this differs from a feudalist semi-state, and how police an opperate with non-agressions elludes me. The contradictions in a truely free-market are too unstable, and the level of coercion needed to maintain authority is unwieldy. This is precisely WHY the modern state isn't free-market capitalism. By incorporating alot of marxism, liberal state-capitalism attempts to stabilize laizze-faire capitalism into a sustainable system. Anarcho-caps seem to pretend that this whole period of human history simply didn't happen.
::::So yes, anarchism may require some level of initial coercion (without playing semantics since you are right, what you call coercion is my self defense, and vice-verca) but anarchists don't shy from that. Anti-state capitalism though is unsustainable. Either those with power will stick by thier principles (which is highley unlikely) and let unions form, which will ultimately expropriate the owners if unrestricted; or the rich will have to form organizations of joint coercion, which (again without playing semantics) is close enough to a government to nullify the anarchist signifier. I'm honestly interested to hear in how you would get around this problem - Shevek
:::::Again, you show that you're not familiar with the other side of anarchism ..the individualists. Here is a quote from 19th century anarchist Victor Yarros: "Anarchism means no government, but it does not mean no laws and no coercion. This may seem paradoxical, but the paradox vanishes when the Anarchist definition of government is kept in view. Anarchists oppose government, not because they disbelieve in punishment of crime and resistance to aggression, but because they disbelieve in compulsory protection. Protection and taxation without consent is itself invasion; hence Anarchism favors a system of voluntary taxation and protection." [[User:RJII|RJII]] 01:39, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
:::::Okay, these boards aren't really for debating the merits of different philosophies, but I rarely turn down chances for this kind of discussion, so here goes -
:::::First of all, that anarchists want a society without coercion differentiates them from nobody; everyone wants such a society. The question political philosophy attempts to address which kinds of coercion are acceptable so long as desires conflict. If we were in an anarchist world right now, someone would still try to take more than his fair share, and coercion would have to be used against them. So again, claiming that private property requires coercion gets you nowhere - your system does as well.
:::::As for inequality engendering a reaction that requires a government to suppress, realize that again the same argument works against your system. First, recall that humans inherently have vastly different abilities to satisfy the desires of others - in other words, productivity varies greatly. Now either you can reward people in proportion to their productivity - meaning you sacrifice endorsement of egalitarianism - or you can reward people equally. Let's say, then, that you reward them equally. Setting aside whether this problem of "underpaying" people itself is theft - and there's much to be said there - people will start realizing that they can earn more by leaving the region and going to work for a capitalistic region. At that point you can say, "oh yeah? Well, in ''my'' vision of anarchism, there are no capitalistic places to flee to!" but realize what this implies. It implies that you have to get the overwhelming majority of the world to agree to anarchism to implement it, while anarcho-capitalism only requires that the majoriy in a small region accept it. In that respect, anarcho-capitalism allows for more community autonomy than tradiitonal anarchism.
:::::So how do you keep people from fleeing? Wouldn't that require a government? (In fact, every place that has tried to implement a gift economy, has suffered massive flight.) Moreover, people within an anarchistic region would try to "circumvent" the official distribution scheme and trade directly with each other. Like in prisons, a currency system would develop and with it, people charging interest. (Note that they wouldn't need enforcers, just as the current credit system doesn't.)
:::::As for anarcho-capitalists "not allowing" unions, that's false. Of course unions could form as long as they agreed to leave when their employers no longer wanted them. They could thus go on strike simply by refusing to show up for work. So that leads to the question: Why would anyone not revolt in the face of inequality? Well, realize that if the legal system treated everyone the same, and adhered to the principle "if the initial allocation of resources is just, and all exchanges are voluntary, the outcome in necessarily just", then I suspect people would respect the results of others' trades because not doing so would make the results of their own trades "fair game". In the extreme case, if people were really unwilling to respect large-scale possessions like a factory, those having them built could just embed them with explosives so that they could render it useless if it were taken over (after, of course, warning those inside so no one is injured).
:::::But of course, this all just devolves into the realization that might makes right - if people are mostly unwilling to respect neo-Lockean sticky private property, it won't prevail; if people are mostly unwilling to respect possession, it won't prevail. As I've described above, however, socialist systems have the same potential for instability. [[User:MrVoluntarist|MrVoluntarist]] 20:41, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
== A modest proposal ==
[[User:Hogeye|Hogeye]] 15:45, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I feel that we are listing too many minor schools of thought. Not just national anarchism, but some of the others I've never heard of outside of this page. I propose that we confine all "Schools of thought" that yield <1,000 google results to a small See also section for space-conserving and aesthetic reasons. The 1,000 mark is purely arbitrary but is probably a good benchmark for whether something is very notable or not. (If a school is known commonly by more than one name, we should add the results.)
:As you indicate - the original Greek meaning does not literally apply to the Anarchist philosophy and movement. But the rest is incorrect - No encyclopedia or textbook on the subject defines there being two camps. The only editors being divisive on this page are the Anarcho-capitalists such as yourself ..who want anarchism split up to satisfy your own propagandic needs. [[User:Max rspct|max rspct]] 17:04, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This would affect the following schools:
*Small-a anarchism
*Spiritual anarchism
*National anarchism
*Technological anarchism
*Utopian anarchism
Ecological anarchism passes if we add the results for Green Anarchism (the more popular term). Post-left anarchy passes if we add Post-left anarchism. The rest pass outright.
::Max> "The original Greek meaning does not literally apply to the Anarchist philosophy and movement."
A note to my detractors: this is not a back-hand attempt to remove national anarchism, which I will continue to do in any case. :) --[[User:Tothebarricades.tk|Tothebarricades]] 13:34, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
::Are we reading the same thing? The Greek etymological meaning is ''exactly'' the same meaning as today - without rulers, i.e. without a State (in more modern terms.)
:As a more modest proposal, how about 200 hits. [[User:RJII|RJII]] 17:41, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
::Max> "No encyclopedia or textbook on the subject defines there being two camps."
::And that would accomplish nothing. Thank you for being such a helpful user. --[[User:Tothebarricades.tk|Tothebarricades]] 22:37, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
::Right. Mainly because there is a distinct owner of the article, and in most cases one writer. In Wiki, there are a bunch of authors with no/contested ownership, so many straightforward propositions become battlefields.
:::I'm willing to compromise. How about 500? [[User:RJII|RJII]] 22:45, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
::Max> "The only editors being divisive on this page are the Anarcho-capitalists such as yourself..."
:Gee, I wonder where you got the idea to remove those ... [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Anarchism#Ultimatum_for_those_removing_national_anarchism]. Anyway, if you want to remove all non-notables, that's fine. Just one suggestion though. When keywords A and B refer to the same ideology, you should add them up, not by their independent search hits, but by the totals from searching for "A and not B" and ";B and not A", otherwise you'll inflate the total. Also, I don't see why you picked 1000. National anarchism is the highest ranked one under that. Kind of reveals an agenda.
::Get real, Max. The anarcho-socialists are just as intransigent. They too refuse to budge an inch on the definition of anarchism, and denigrate all objective sources such as dictionaries and even the words of their own luminaries. What you're really saying is that the anarcho-socialist clique temporarily had control of the article until people with a different point of view showed up again.
:Also, if you want to put them as "see alsos" you should put national anarchism on the list. If you don't want to, you'll have to explain a reason other than non-notability to exclude it, which so far you've been unable to do. [[User:MrVoluntarist|MrVoluntarist]] 00:22, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
::I would include national anarchism there with a disclaimer. No agenda - my biggest beef with national anarchism's inclusion is it's lack of notability, and to be frank I've had the same problem with these others but was reluctant to take action due to a certain sympathy with their ideas. Notice how this would not affect anarcho-capitalism which I consider to be equally non-anarchist and equally flawed theoretically. I have regretfully conceded that anarcho-capitalism is notable and should be covered under the Schools section. But that is another story. Also: if you already suggested this (I'm guessing you did from the link) forgive me - I no longer have the patience to read everything on this talk page. --[[User:Tothebarricades.tk|Tothebarricades]] 06:52, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
== 19 archives and counting ==
:::I mentioned those topics and their non-notability in a post that you responded to! The link above to it is no longer working. This one will though: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Anarchism/Archive24#Ultimatum_for_those_removing_national_anarchism]. See the third to last post, which apparently you ignored to pursue a personal attack. [[User:MrVoluntarist|MrVoluntarist]] 00:39, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
Hey, has anybody else read the [[Talk:Anarchism/Archive1|
1st archive for this talk page]], back in 2002? They were debating Anarcho-capitalism then too, and we have been, for 3yrs now! Can we just make the needed edits ([[NPOV]], inclusion of all verifiable POV's, disambig page...) and put this one to rest already?!? [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade]] 17:29, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:Sure, as long as your conception of NPOV is actually neutral ;) --[[User:Tothebarricades.tk|Tothebarricades]] 18:07, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
::::Personally, I agree on removing "anarchist" movements which are largely fictional. However, I don't think counting Google hits is a good way to do it; we need some research on whether the varietal actually had adherents (like, more than 10). Counting Google hits is going to mod up terms which are used by modern groups with web skills (even if it's only one person with 16 domains) over movements of historical significance. Of course, that's just my opinion. [[User:Jberkus|Jberkus]] 00:49, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
Question: How can I pull up a 2002 version of the anarchism article from History without hitting "next 50" a thousand times? [[User:Hogeye|Hogeye]] 19:37, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
== Anarcho-Fascism & Fasco-Anarchism ==
:Just change the limit= and offset= values on the [[URL]] you get after clicking "next 50". You can jump thousands of edits that quickly that way. Sadly, there's no way of guessing how many you have to jump; do a [[binary search]] to find them. --[[User:CesarB|cesarb]] 19:44, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
There is no information relating to these two ideologies which have been around since the early 90s. There is not much information given that they are relatively new ideologies and controversial - however Anarchism and Fascism both have similar origins although they differe in their platform.
::[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anarchism&limit=500&offset=2500&action=history Here]. Notice the history ends rather abruptly; the article is even older than that, but the history was lost when the software was upgraded to the current one (in fact, the older software lost the history after some time; the upgrade didn't have much to preserve). See [[Wikipedia:Usemod article histories]] for details. Probably there was talk earlier than 2002 too, also lost. --[[User:CesarB|cesarb]] 19:53, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:::Thanks, Cesar. Of interest: it didn't start out claiming that anarchism was anti-capitalist, as today's ansoc partisans are demanding. It used the ''commonality of all anarchisms'' approach - i.e. anarchism is anti-statist but not necessarily anti-capitalist. "b" in the survey. The original def was:
<i>I think a lot of us would be interested to know in what possible context that claim could even begin to make sense.
:::''Anarchism is the political theory that advocates the abolition of all forms of government. The word anarchism derives from Greek roots an (no) and archos (ruler).''
::: [[User:Hogeye|Hogeye]] 20:00, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:Hm? I don't see that in the article. If you see anything promoting "anarcho-fascism" a.k.a "national anarchism" in this article just remove it immediately.
::::And the rest of the article remained even-handed in its discussion of capitalist and socialist varieties of anarchism. I guess it was later that the socialists moved in ''en masse'' and shifted the focus of the article. [[User:Dtobias|*Dan*]] 20:38, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
::National anarchism an anarcho-fascism are different things. The former exists, the latter doesn't. [[User:MrVoluntarist|MrVoluntarist]] 01:11, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
:Btw, is this another "if you include anarcho-capitalism, you have to include anarcho-fascism" troll? [[User:MrVoluntarist|MrVoluntarist]] 01:11, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
== The bug ==
:::::The question is whats to be done, both here, and in other articles where a POV lobby group has taken over... Thats why their considering a content arbitration commitee, but I'm not sure thats the right approach... what would an anarchist do? ;) [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade]] 21:27, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Can an administrator with some technical knowledge fix this somehow? --[[User:Tothebarricades.tk|Tothebarricades]] 08:58, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
::::::It's amazing to me how the Anarchism article has gone downhill over time. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anarchism&oldid=117294 This article from 23 Jun 2002] is a hundred times better than the current article. One way that it's cleaner is that, instead of talking about every little sub-movement, it just discusses the three major divisions: libertarian socialism, anarcho-capitalism, and individualist anarchism.
:Administrators only have access to maintenance functions. You could try locating a developer, but it'd probably be easier to report the problem on [http://bugzilla.wikipedia.org/ this]. [[User:Sarge Baldy|Sarge Baldy]] 09:44, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
== Rank hypocricy ==
::::::The Swiss cantons of old simply divided when faced with fundamental differences (e.g. Reformation.) There are semi-independent half-cantons and even (I think) quarter cantons. The obvious way to solve these definitional disputes is to '''split the question''', letting each faction have their way in their own article. That's why I still support the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anarchism&oldid=14880685 Neutral Disambiguation Page]. Maybe others will figure it out after three more years of edit wars... [[User:Hogeye|Hogeye]] 21:44, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Why is that libertarian socialists are not allowed a section on the 'libertarianism page', and yet anti-state capitalists cry out when they aren't given room under anarchism? Seems highely hypocritical to me. - Shevek
:::::::Interesting. The old version even had a section on individualist anarchism, which the POV collectivists have taken upon themselves to censor in subsequent versions. [[User:RJII|RJII]] 23:19, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:The claim, evidently, is that "libertarianism ''usually'' implies anti-socialism". Although with that attitude, it's a bit surprising when the same people object to the claim that "anarchism ''usually'' implies anti-capitalism". To argue that pro-capitalist anarchism is more widespread than anti-capitalist libertarianism seems like a joke to me as well, unless of course you live in the United States.
:On the French Wikipedia, the article on [[:fr:Libertaire|libertarianism]] was redirected to anarchism after being considered synonymous; meanwhile the article on "[[:fr:Liberté politique|Libertarian politics]]" makes no mention of capitalism, although does discuss its relationship to anarchist communism. The Italian article on anarchism only briefly mentions capitalism, so as simply to say that anarchists fight it in order to ensure egalitarian society. The German article on [[:de:Libertarismus|libertarianism]] discusses both, although seems to weight it more towards "left" libertarianism, suggesting it is the more common use. The German article on [[:de:Anarchismus]] says that anarchism is a philosophy that opposes all hierarchy as oppressive, and that eliminates class differences. Anarcho-capitalism is mentioned twice, and hardly as a "major school" of anarchism. It is first described in brief (as a "so-called" anarchism), and later listed as being a "hybrid" form (along with anarcho-syndicalism and anarcha-feminism), a mix of capitalism and anarchism. [[User:Sarge Baldy|Sarge Baldy]] 22:04, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
Yes the big history is interesting. What's wrong with the current Individualist anarchist section? It has similarities with a-C which also has a hefty section. [[User:Max rspct|max rspct]] 00:23, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC) the article is in fairly good shape at the moment no? [[User:Max rspct|max rspct]] 00:30, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::As an [[anarcho-capitalist]], I would be fine with splitting the page into two parts: Anarchism and Anarchism (anti-government). Can't everyone agree that this makes sense, given that we have two different definitions of anarchism? One definition seems to be anti-hierarchy, and the other is anti-government. We can debate about which definition is more popular, but frankly, that seems like a waste of time. Let's just go ahead and split the page into two parts, and then we can decide later if the Anarchism page should be a disambiguation page, or if it should be the more common definition (and I don't really know or care what the more common definition is. I just know that the articles will be better if they acknowledge the fact that there are two definitions).
::That being said, it is very POV to say that Anarcho-capitalism is a "so-called" anarchism or that it is a mix of capitalism and anarchism. Supporters of Anarcho-capitalism would say that you can have capitalism without government, and since anarchism is a lack of government, true capitalism ''is'' anarchism. Regardless of whether you agree with this POV or not, it should be presented from a NPOV on the Anarchism (anti-government) page. Anarcho-capitalism can be left off of the Anarchism (anti-hierarchy) page completely.
::So, if anyone disagrees with me, please tell me why. I do not think we should have a page called Anarchism (pro-market), because "pro-market" is not part of the Anarchism (anti-government) definition, and it would mean that certain forms of anti-market Anarchism could not be referenced on that page, even though they are anti-government.
::Looking through the discussion archives, it seems like we have way too many arguments about what Anarchism is. Why not simply have two pages, in order to indicate that there is a difference of opinion about the definition of Anarchism? Shevek, when you say, "Anarcho-capitalism must be at a loss to explain why governments were created, if not as a necessity to protect their privelige.", that is a perfect example of what we should ''not'' be discussing. Your opinion, as well as my opinion, on whether or not Anarcho-capitalism can explain why governments were created, is irrelevant. On Wikipedia, our job is to describe ideas, not to judge them (except in terms of notability, and Anarcho-capitalism clearly passes that test).--[[User:Blah99|Blah99]] 02:39, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
:::I'd say calling it "so-called" anarchism is strongly POV, I was just trying to express the attitudes people in Europe have towards both subjects so as to draw a parallel. I'm in agreement with you, since the whole problem is about two sides defining the same thing differently, or even interpreting the same definition differently. You can push and fight over what it means, but you can't exactly appease people that way. I'm willing to admit that I have a point of view. But it's a little hard to come to an agreement with someone who continually denies that they do. I for one appreciate your civility and willingness to actually attempt to work towards a solution. [[User:Sarge Baldy|Sarge Baldy]] 03:17, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
:::I think the article is pretty much NPOV as it is now. No other encyclopedia has multiple definitions of anarchism. Anarchism is the lack of all forms of government. The problem that seems to come up from time to time is people equating anarcho-communism with anarchism, when anarcho-communism is simply one form of anarchism. Apparently they're only aware of that form of anarchism, so they look at the tenets of anarcho-communism such as opposition to private property, uneven wealth distribution, etc and assume that a philosophy must have those views to be anarchism, when nothing could be further from the truth. Witness individualist anarchism, which is in direct contradiction with anarcho-communism by supporting private property, wages, and unequal wealth distribution. The problem comes down to a lack of exposure, on some editors' parts to anything but communist-based anarchism. The solution is not to split pages up, disambiguations, and other antics, but to educate --not all anarchism is about collectivism, cooperation, and egalitarianism. [[User:RJII|RJII]] 02:59, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
::What individualist anarchist section? There isn't one. It isn't included as a school of anarchism. It's just mentioned in the internal conflicts section. The POV collectivist anarchists took the section out, apparently since the individualists support private property and a market economy. [[User:RJII|RJII]] 00:36, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::::I'd be careful about stating that the conflict is between "anarcho-communists" and people who support private property. You shouldn't presume that those who have a problem with anarcho-capitalism listed here are anarcho-communists. I for one am post-anarchist, meaning in fact that I reject every other philosophy listed here, even if I can identify with and support the attitude of most other groups. [[User:Sarge Baldy|Sarge Baldy]] 03:22, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
:::::That's not what I stated. I said that the conflict is based in a lack of knowledge. [[User:RJII|RJII]] 03:55, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
::::::I'd say the conflict is based in a lack of agreement, and that you're simply attempting to dismiss it by considering everyone who feels differently than you an anarcho-communist with a POV problem. [[User:Sarge Baldy|Sarge Baldy]] 04:18, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
:What do you mean libertarian socialists are not allowed a section on libertarianism? If you want a section, you put one in. [[User:RJII|RJII]] 01:51, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
'''LOOK''' = Individualism vs. collectivism: <br>
::I don't think that's quite what was meant. You couldn't exactly just add a left libertarian section to that article in its current state, since it's already whittled its definition of libertarianism down to a pro-capitalist position, directly stating that the article is limited to pro-market classifications. In other words, the article would have to be reworked entirely to incorporate both points of view, which would make it an awful mess. Although that might give you a new perspective on the condition of this article, and would at least make for consistency, I'd much rather opt for a solution that leaves both sides content. [[User:Sarge Baldy|Sarge Baldy]] 03:02, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
''While most anarchists favor collective property, some, such as individualist anarchists of historical note support a right to private property. These include Benjamin Tucker and Lysander Spooner. Tucker argues that collectivism in property is absurd: "That there is an entity known as the community which is the rightful owner of all land, Anarchists deny...I...maintain that ‘the community’ is a non-entity, that it has no existence..." He was particularly adamant in his opposition to "communism," even to the point of asserting that those who opposed a right to private property were not anarchists: "Anarchism is a word without meaning, unless it includes the liberty of the individual to control his product or whatever his product has brought him through exchange in a free market—that is, private property. Whoever denies private property is of necessity an Archist." However, these individuals opposed property titles to unused land.''
:::I did put one in and it was deleted, very quickly. And the article isn't nearly as open for addition as Anarchism, since it leaves no room for amiguity. And what exactly is your proposal for a solution that would make both 'sides' content? Libertarianism for just capitalists, and anarchism for both? Again, rank hypocracy. - Shevek
Benjamin Tucker and Lysander Spooner, Tucker opposed property titles to unused land? DON'T SOUND LIKE anarcho-capitalists TO ME -[[User:Max rspct|max rspct]] 09:40, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::::No, my proposal is the same offered by blah99 above. The splitting of the anarchism article into those who define it as the abolishment of hierarchical structure, and those who see it as simply the abolishment of rational-legal government. This seems to me the key matter of the dispute. In this way the article would be the reverse of the libertarianism article, and no longer hypocritical. [[User:Sarge Baldy|Sarge Baldy]] 05:59, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
:Exactly. I'm the one who wrote that section in "Internal conflicts" since the POV collectivists anarchists didn't want individualist anarchism included as a school of anarchism. No one is saying that traditional individualist anarchists are anarcho-capitalists. I don't know what you're talking about. [[User:RJII|RJII]] 14:12, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:::::There are two "balanced" solutions to this. Either Anarchism becomes soley for the libertarian left. Or Libertarianism adds a section mentioning how libertarian is synonymous with anarchism in most other countries. - shevek
::::::I know, but I prefer this one, for a number of reasons. One is that some groups that wouldn't be denied as anarchists (namely post-anarchists and post-left anarchists) don't exactly fit well described as left libertarian (rejecting both socialism and capitalism). It also would mean two different articles in constant conflict, which I don't think would be resolved simply because of the removal of this issue of hypocrisy. With splitting there wouldn't be any need to worry about how the articles are balanced between competiting ideals. I believe both libertarianism and libertarian socialism are better articles for their split, because at least they're specific enough people can work on them without worrying so much about tipping the article over. It would mean both could expand with less editing friction (for instance, the anarchist (anti-state) article could include topics such as [[agorism]]), and neither would be recognized as the "true" anarchism, although they could still present arguments to that effect. [[User:Sarge Baldy|Sarge Baldy]] 07:15, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
== totally disputed ==
:::The [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anarchy&oldid=15659925 former Anarchism (anti-state) article] included the individualist anarchists. Naturally. With a big ol' picture of Lysander. [[User:Hogeye|Hogeye]] 00:51, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I have changed the POV header to totallydisputed. In its present state this article is not only POV but factually misleading (I believe intentionally so by the POV-pushers).
==Summary of Arguments / Proposals==
My problems: "National anarchism" doesn't exist as a philosophy. It is a trojan horse (or, if you will, a marketing device) for white supremacist/neo-nazi/fascist ideology in order to appeal to a younger, more politically progressive demographic. It is deceptive by its very nature and has no relation to anarchism. Historically fascism/nazism/racism has been the polar opposite of anarchism, which it is. This article is so muddy that the reader never is given a chance to understand this.
Let me try to summarize the arguments the two editorial factions have made (I invite others to try the same or add to the list, just place commentary afterwards). This is a summary, so try to make each comment/bullet entry as BRIEF as possible ('''one sentence!''') and please do not erase/revise others' entries. Use a comments section below for further discussion, please. Again, this is supposed to be a summary of ''arguments made'', not a section for new ones. [[User:Albamuth|albamuth]] 01:06, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC) I'm going to go ahead and edit some of the longer comments (move them to comment section, and put in a one-sentence placeholder) --[[User:Albamuth|albamuth]] 12:38, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"Individualist anarchism" is a synonym for American libertarianism which already has a page. There is no reason to hijack this article to those ends as well except as an attempt at POV pushing. The fact that the subheading is continuously placed at the top of the section by RJII et al is evidence of the bad faith of the edits.
===Pro Anarcho-Capitalist Arguments===
Until these problems are solved the totallydisputed tag should stay. --[[User:Bk0|Bk0]] 18:20, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
* Gustave de Molinari was first anarcho-capitalist, in 1849
:: '''invalid''' - [[original research|wikipedia:no_original_research]] [[User:Albamuth|albamuth]] 01:06, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:: '''valid''' - research by Hoselitz {{fn|pro_ac_1}} [[User:Hogeye|Hogeye]] 02:06, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:: '''questionable''' - Molinari was pretty damn close, whether or not he was an ancap ''per se'' is open to interpretation. I don't think this is a very important question for this page, though. - [[User:Nat Krause|Nat Kraus]][[User_Talk:Nat Krause|e]] 07:54, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
* Individualist anarchism will be included as a school of anarchism, and anarcho-capitalism will as well by the same basic reasoning
:: '''refuted''' - individualists were against capitalism and were part of the anarchist movement [[User:Albamuth|albamuth]] 01:06, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::'''true''' since both schools are anarchist (anti-state). Anarchism is compatable with all economic and property systems consistent with statelessness. [[User:Hogeye|Hogeye]] 02:06, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::'''true''' Even though traditional individualist anarchism opposes collectivist anarchism (left anarchism) it's still anarchism. {{fn|pro_ac_2}} [[User:RJII|RJII]] 02:54, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::'''false''' individualist anarchists still opposed capitalism --[[User:Che y Marijuana|<nowiki></nowiki>]] <small><small><small>[http://www.revolutionaryleft.com Revolutionary Left]</small></small></small> | [[User:Che y Marijuana|Che y Marijuana]] 20:36, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
::'''false''' what CyM said. --[[User:Harrismw|harrismw]] 04:21, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::'''prolly not''' - Individualist anarchism (by which I mean ''Benjamin-Tucker-ism'') is considered "anarchist" by movement anarchists apparently because it derives in large part from Proudhon, which is not really true of ancaps. This is a ''genetic'' relationship, so any ''phenotypic'' similarity between the two philosophies is a separate question. - [[User:Nat Krause|Nat Kraus]][[User_Talk:Nat Krause|e]] 07:54, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
* Indiv. were for [[private property]], and so are anarcho-capitalists. Individualists are considered anarchists, so then should anarcho-capitalists.
:: '''invalid''' [[equivocation]], [[straw man]] - nobody is using private property / collective property as a qualifying principle. [[User:Albamuth|albamuth]] 01:06, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:: '''irrelevant''' since anarchism specifies no particular economic system. See previous. [[User:Hogeye|Hogeye]] 02:06, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::'''irrelevant''' but '''interesting''' because traditional individualist anarchists believed that those who opposed private property were not anarchists. The same type of thing is happening with collectivist anarchists and anarcho-capitalists. [[User:RJII|RJII]] 02:59, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::'''invalid''' individualists were still anti-capitalist --[[User:Che y Marijuana|<nowiki></nowiki>]] <small><small><small>[http://www.revolutionaryleft.com Revolutionary Left]</small></small></small> | [[User:Che y Marijuana|Che y Marijuana]] 20:36, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
::'''invalid''' definition of property is disputed. what CyM said.--[[User:Harrismw|harrismw]] 04:21, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::same answer as the previous question. - [[User:Nat Krause|Nat Kraus]][[User_Talk:Nat Krause|e]] 07:54, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:"Individualist anarchism" is not a synonym for libertarianism; neither is anarcho-capitalism. Libertarianism encompasses both anarchist and minarchist factions, which differ on whether there should be no government at all or a minimalist one. [[User:Dtobias|*Dan*]] 18:51, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
* X, Y, and Z encyclopedias/dictionaries only say that anarchism is against the State.
:: '''invalid''' - [[biased sample]], perhaps even [[appeal to authority|appeal to unsound authority]], certainly [[historian's fallacy]]. [[User:Albamuth|albamuth]] 01:06, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::'''valid''' The sample was automatically generated by a search engine. {{fn|pro_ac_3}} [[User:Hogeye|Hogeye]] 02:06, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::'''invalid''' dictionaries are not used to define quantum physics, expert sources are necessary here as well --[[User:Che y Marijuana|<nowiki></nowiki>]] <small><small><small>[http://www.revolutionaryleft.com Revolutionary Left]</small></small></small> | [[User:Che y Marijuana|Che y Marijuana]] 20:36, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
::'''invalid''' dictionaries are well known for providing very limited definitions of terms. Not all encyclopedias are created equal. Some are more biased then others.--[[User:Harrismw|harrismw]] 04:21, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::'''partially relevant''' - this sort of evidence is part of a larger analysis arguing one way or the other on the question of what the most common English meaning of "anarchism" is. It's important evidence, but not definitive by itself. - [[User:Nat Krause|Nat Kraus]][[User_Talk:Nat Krause|e]] 07:54, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
* Proudhon/Emma Goldman/Kropotkin were not against capitalism, so thus A/C should be included...
::'''invalid''' I believe it to be a [[false premise]] but have not bothered to dig up the evidence to the contrary myself. [[User:Albamuth|albamuth]] 01:06, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::'''strawman''' No one here has claimed that PP, EG, and PK were not anti-capitalist. {{fn|pro_ac_4}} [[User:Hogeye|Hogeye]] 02:06, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::'''invalid''' - contradictory evidence {{fn|pro_ac_5}} --[[User:Bk0|Bk0]] 02:57, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::'''invalid''' - i know that EG and PK at least were clearly anti-capitalist --[[User:Che y Marijuana|<nowiki></nowiki>]] <small><small><small>[http://www.revolutionaryleft.com Revolutionary Left]</small></small></small> | [[User:Che y Marijuana|Che y Marijuana]] 20:36, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
::'''silly''' Everything I know about these three people says that they were anti-capitalist. --[[User:Harrismw|harrismw]] 04:21, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::''strawman'' - What Hogeye said. - [[User:Nat Krause|Nat Kraus]][[User_Talk:Nat Krause|e]] 07:54, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
* The way the "anarcho-socialists" are trying to control this article is not very anarchistic.
:: '''invalid''' - [[ad hominem]] [[User:Albamuth|albamuth]] 01:06, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:::'''invalid''' Ad hom (circumstantial) if it was used as an argument. We agree on one! [[User:Hogeye|Hogeye]] 02:06, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::'''invalid''' --[[User:Che y Marijuana|<nowiki></nowiki>]] <small><small><small>[http://www.revolutionaryleft.com Revolutionary Left]</small></small></small> | [[User:Che y Marijuana|Che y Marijuana]] 20:36, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
::'''invalid''' no reason needed IMHO --[[User:Harrismw|harrismw]] 04:21, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
* Capitalist Anarchism is a 'school' of anarchism
:: '''unclear''' - is the usage of "schools" even appropriate? [[User:Albamuth|albamuth]] 01:06, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::'''obviously''' by definition of anarchism. [[User:Hogeye|Hogeye]] 02:06, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::'''valid''' and a very noteable and influential one at that (all without having to riot in the streets). [[User:RJII|RJII]] 03:03, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:: '''invalid''' it is marginal at best. {{fn|pro_ac_6}} // [[User:Liftarn|Liftarn]]
::'''invalid''' - by definition of anarchism, capitalist boss/worker relationship is coercively hierarchal. --[[User:Che y Marijuana|<nowiki></nowiki>]] <small><small><small>[http://www.revolutionaryleft.com Revolutionary Left]</small></small></small> | [[User:Che y Marijuana|Che y Marijuana]] 20:36, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
::'''invalid''' - while it is an ideology it is not an anarchist one. --[[User:Harrismw|harrismw]] 04:21, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::'''invalid as ''ad hom''''' - at best an ''argumentum ab obnoxiousness''. - [[User:Nat Krause|Nat Kraus]][[User_Talk:Nat Krause|e]] 07:54, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
* Old versions of the article show strong representation of Anarcho-Capitalism
::Probably relatively stronger than recent times, since anarcho-socialists have taken over. Hey, we're back! [[User:Hogeye|Hogeye]] 02:06, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::'''???''' - A positive rather than normative statement. Incidentally, I suspect that Wikipedia drifts to the left over time as its original editors were weighted toward computer nerds and Americans. - [[User:Nat Krause|Nat Kraus]][[User_Talk:Nat Krause|e]] 07:54, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:Classical individualist anarchism is not a synonym for libertarianism. However, libertarianism was synonymous with that in the late 19th century and the early to mid 20th century in America. Today, libertarianism is a "synonym" for the newer forms of individualist anarchism whose adherents have dropped the classical labor theory of value and adopted the subjective theory (e.g. anarcho-capitalism)..as most modern economists have. However, classical individualism is still popular. [[User:RJII|RJII]] 22:46, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
===Notes===
:We've been over this a hundred times. Like Dan or Dtobias said, individualist anarchism is not libertarianism; I have no idea where you got that. I also don't know where you got that anarchism has been the opposite of racism. Like we've been repeatedly mentioning on the talk page, Proudhon and Bakunin were adamantly racist. If you want to hold your position, you need to wipe all references to Bakunin and Proudhon as well. Nor does your Trojan horse claim have merit. National anarchism is alive in multiple countries, independent of one another. Now that you know the truth, I'm sure you will modify the tag. [[User:MrVoluntarist|MrVoluntarist]] 20:46, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
::You are either deeply misinformed or lying. You are the only one making edits regarding "national anarchism" (hey, strikingly similar to "national socialism", huh? And has about as much to do with anarchism as nazism has to do with socialism). Your POV pushing and fascist vandalism of this page must cease for us to make any progress on this article. --[[User:Bk0|Bk0]] 21:46, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
{{fnb|pro_ac_1}} (and proven ''not'' original research) by the Hoselitz quote above (among other things). Furthermore, there was some agreement earlier to refer to Molinari (and Godwin) as proto-anarchists rather than anarchists - a solution that perhaps everyone can live with. I.e. Gustav de Molinari was a proto-anarcho-capitalist, and should be included in the history as such. [[User:Hogeye|Hogeye]]
:::What are you talking about? My last edit on this article was regarding [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anarchism&oldid=21661694 Edmund Burke]. I don't think I've ever removed or inserted national anarchism; I've just talked about it on the talk page and failed to elicit rational justifications for excluding it. And how an I misinformed? Are you denying that Proudhon and Bakunin were anti-Semitic? [[User:MrVoluntarist|MrVoluntarist]] 22:47, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
{{fnb|pro_ac_2}} Likewise, even those anarcho-capitalism opposes collectivist anarchism and some of traditional individualist anarchism, it's still anarchism. The reason for both cases is that both traditional individualist anarchism and anarcho-capitalism are opposed to the existence of a state and in favor of voluntary relations between individuals. [[User:RJII|RJII]]
:::What are you talking about? On the [[National anarchism]] talk page I have just suggested that it be reworked as [[Anarcho-nationalism]] so that it is less focussed on [[Troy Southgate]] - who I have put back in the [[list of anarchists]] along with [[Georges Valois]], [[Hubert Lagardelle ]], (both members of the [[Faisceau]], the [[French]] [[Fascist]] Party) and [[Stewart Home]], whose early experience with anarchism has fuelled his critique of it... Is "anarchism" such a fragile concept that it can only be protected by hiding some of its history? [[User:Harrypotter|Harrypotter]] 23:46, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
{{fnb|pro_ac_3}} The sample was automatically generated by a search engine. I obviously had no control over it. The argument that you should ignore dictionaries and encyclopedias and even past anarchist luminaries and, instead, take a poll, is ... not good scholarship. [[User:Hogeye|Hogeye]]
All I can say is, fuck this article and everyone that ruined it, most notably the human slime above this comment.
{{fnb|pro_ac_4}} The claim is: '''they ''defined'' anarchism as anti-statist, not as anti-capitalist'''. This is the third time Alba has demonstated a failure to grasp the difference between ''giving a definition'' and ''propounding one's philosophy''. Luckily, PP, EG, and PK had a better grasp. [[User:Hogeye|Hogeye]]
:There must be some way this issue can be resolved. The article isn't that bad, and anarchism is not that hard to define... it's just hard to get anarchists to agree on the definition. -- [http://uk.geocities.com/james.doran10@btinternet.com james]
{{fnb|pro_ac_5}} "''...we maintain that already now, without waiting for the coming of new phases and forms of the capitalist expoitation of labor, we must work for its '''abolition'''. We must, already now, tend to tranfer all that is needed for production—the soil, the mines, the factories, the means of communication, and the means of existence, too—from the hands of the individual capitalist into those of the communities of producers and consumers.''" — Peter Kropotkin, "Economic Views of Anarchism" (original emphasis). I'd refer to quotes from Proudhon and Emma Goldman as well but it isn't worth my time. Your argument is absurd and invalid. [[User:Bk0|Bk0]]
:Proudhon was soundly anti-capitalist in his productive period; his later transition to "mutualism"/federalism (and, incidentally, Roman Catholicism) is irrelevant to anarchism. Trying to argue that Goldman and Kropotkin were capitalists is laughable. --[[User:Bk0|Bk0]] 01:31, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:One could argue that intelligent design is merely a "marketing device", used by creationists to market their ideas as science. Should we censor their view? Or should we describe the controversy, as [[Evolutionism]] does? I, for one, am not afraid to present the views of my opponents in a fair way. I say, if the view of an opponent is moronic, I don't need to point that out to anyone or censor it; instead, I'll let their view speak for itself.--[[User:Blah99|Blah99]] 19:46, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
{{fnb|pro_ac_6}} From my own experience (yes I know "[[original research|wikipedia:no_original_research]]") I can simply count the different types I've met. I have met two CAs, one IA over 500 (at the same time) anarchists (proper) and about 1500-2000 syndicalists (at the same time). That shows how "noteable and influential" that group is. They are about as influential as [[Flat Earth Society]] is on modern [[geology]].// [[User:Liftarn|Liftarn]]
::I agree wholeheartedly that "intelligent design" is a marketing device. The difference here is that creationists—crucially—are not permitted (or have no interest in) defining what Darwinism means. They have their separate and rival theory of the origin of species and supporters of evolution have theirs; an analogy here would be anarchists and capitalists (or anarchists and fascists) with separate rival social and political theories. However in this case one of the sides is trying to redefine what anarchism is, distorting its history and diluting any meaningful discussion to the point of semantic hair splitting. Whether Proudhon held any allegedly anti-Semetic views is '''entirely irrelevant''' to any discussion of modern anarchism, Mr. "anarcho"-Nazi up above is merely trying to divert discussion and muddy arguments to the point of stalemate. --[[User:Bk0|Bk0]] 20:23, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
===Arguments Against Presentation of Anarcho-Capitalism as Anarchist===
:::I see it as irrelevant as well. No one person can really be expected to fully represent a social philosophy or social movement. If Emma Goldman freaked out and gruesomely killed someone, or Leo Tolstoy stood accused of sexual molestation, I don't see how this would stand as an argument for anarcho-cannibalism or anarchist rapism as a form of anarchism. It would simply mean that they compromised their own values, and not even necessarily intentionally. Unless you can show that anti-semitism was a part of anarchist doctrine itself, I don't see how it's relevant. [[User:Sarge Baldy|Sarge Baldy]] 21:04, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
::::Proudhon ''definitely'' considered anti-Semitism an integral part of his philosophy, and there's no way you can claim it was unintentional. This wasn't a loaded accusation, or something he did in a moment of passion. It was something he really believed. Now if you want to claim that in most of his adherents, the racism has become taboo, that's fine. But some do claim to have philosophies decended from his views through a continuous line, and they ''are'' racist. You can't just wish them away. Would Proudhon say that your rejection of anti-Semitism and chauvanism was a distortion of ''his'' philosophy? [[User:MrVoluntarist|MrVoluntarist]] 23:58, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
:::::I'm not even arguing about that yet. The section that I removed doesn't even attempt to relate it to anarchist philosophy. And even if a prominent anarchist did integrate racist beliefs it into his writings, it isn't significantly relevant to anarchism as a whole unless a number of his followers adhered to that part of his writings. Otherwise they remain simply his own ideas, and belong on his own page. [[User:Sarge Baldy|Sarge Baldy]] 00:26, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
:::The accusation is not that Creationists are trying to redefine Darwinism; the accusation is that they are trying to redefine science. Evolutionists and creationists could argue all day about what science is, and if ID is a scientific theory or not. They would go around in circles, just like us. The solution is not to find the right answer, but to find the right question. In other words, the question is not, "Should we present the controversy or not?" The question is, "On what page should we describe the controversy?"--[[User:Blah99|Blah99]] 21:10, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
* Anarchism was anticapitalist before Rothbard so that's the way it is
::::Well, sure. I think it's relevant to his own article. You could probably dig up dirt on just about anyone calling themself an anarchist. But in a discussion of anarchist doctrine at large, it does seem inappropriate. [[User:Sarge Baldy|Sarge Baldy]] 21:19, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
:: '''invalid''' - [[appeal to tradition]] [[User:Albamuth|albamuth]] 01:06, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:::::Oh, sorry about the confusion, but I wasn't trying to argue that an anarchist having racist beliefs is relevant. Rather, I was arguing that National anarchism should be included if it meets the "notability" test. Whether it is a "marketing device" or not is irrelevant, just as the argument that "Intelligent Design isn't science" is not a valid reason for keeping it out of the appropriate page, which is [[Evolutionism]]. We can argue about what the appropriate page is, but to argue that National anarchism is a "marketing device" is inherently POV.--[[User:Blah99|Blah99]] 21:53, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
::'''invalid''' - just because the various schools of anarchism in the past were against state-backed "capitalism," it does not logically follow that anarchists cannot favor non-state capitalism. {{fn|anti_ac_1}} [[User:RJII|RJII]] 02:18, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::::::OK, well I just went ahead and removed it then. I would agree that removing "National Anarchism" simply because it is perceived as a "marketing device" is a an obvious POV. Although that's not, of course, to say I consider it a form of anarchism either. [[User:Sarge Baldy|Sarge Baldy]] 22:07, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
::'''valid''' every major historical movement/revolt under the black flag has been anti-capitalist --[[User:Che y Marijuana|<nowiki></nowiki>]] <small><small><small>[http://www.revolutionaryleft.com Revolutionary Left]</small></small></small> | [[User:Che y Marijuana|Che y Marijuana]] 20:49, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
::'''largely invalid''' - agree with RJII. - [[User:Nat Krause|Nat Kraus]][[User_Talk:Nat Krause|e]] 08:16, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:Well, [[Emma Goldman]]'s comrade, [[Alexander Berkman]] did attempt to assinate [[Henry Clay Frick]], which was part of his anarchism - [[propaganda by the deed]]. It is not a matter of whether Proudhon 'allegedly' held antisemitic views, the fact is he did. It is not a matter of 'digging up dirt', he was proud of his nationalism. It is not that he is 'accused' of this or that crime, but rather that he held political views which were reactionary, and that he linked his understanding of the cause of liberty with his nationalism. Likewise it is not a matter of Bakunin getting caught secretly vandalising Jewish graves, but of mobilising anti-semtism against Marx. Similarly, [[Rudolf Rocker]]'s racism appears precisely in his theoretical anarchist writings, such as ''Nationalism and Culture''. Nowadays we have [[Bob Black]] - a man not adverse to using the term 'towel-head' as a term of abuse for Muslims - promoting [[Post-left anarchy]] and other anarchists adopting [[New right]] themes, such as [[Euromayday]]. Now if anarchists want to produce an anarchist encyclopedia, fine, but there is no reason why they should have a monopoly on defining anarchism on wikipedia. Personally, I have been a lifelong opponent of nazism, so I find the suggestion that fascists are trying to define anarchism here as somewhat bizarre (unless the person who described me "human slime" is of that ilk, of course). Looking at the [[Darwinism]] page, it of course includes a reference to [[Eugenics]]. Does this unsavoury connection invalidate Darwinism, or does it put in context which shows how reactionaries can take up arguments which others regard as proressive? (When I get the chance I hope to add some stuff of [[Psychological Darwinism]]).
* A/C is an oxymoron because anarchism is anticapitalist.
:What seems to be happening here is that some people want to create an uncritical account of anarchism because they are uncomfortable about certain aspects of anarchism both in the past and in the present, which they would like swept under the carpet. Save that for anarchist propoaganda sheets please.
:: '''invalid''' - the dispute is about whether or not anarchism is to be defined as anticapitalist. [[User:Albamuth|albamuth]] 01:06, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:: '''valid''' From a basic definition you draw obvious conclusions. Anarchism is against hierarchy, therefore it will be againstc capitalism. {{fn|anti_ac_2}} --[[User:Fatal|Fatal]] 01:19, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::'''Petito principi''' Alba is correct. Claiming "anarchism is against hierarchy" begs the question: ''Does anarchism mean anti-state or anti-hierarchy?'' [[User:Hogeye|Hogeye]] 02:31, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::'''invalid''' It is not rule of anarchism to be opposed to "hierarchy." {{fn|anti_ac_3}} [[User:RJII|RJII]] 02:25, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::'''valid''' a handful of internet sites cannot redefine a global movement --[[User:Che y Marijuana|<nowiki></nowiki>]] <small><small><small>[http://www.revolutionaryleft.com Revolutionary Left]</small></small></small> | [[User:Che y Marijuana|Che y Marijuana]] 20:49, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
::'''valid''' --[[User:Harrismw|harrismw]] 04:28, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::'''definitely invalid''' - agree with Albamuth. - [[User:Nat Krause|Nat Kraus]][[User_Talk:Nat Krause|e]] 08:16, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:Other items need to be changed i.e. "Some anarchists form black blocs at protests, in which members of the bloc wear black and cover their faces to avoid police identification and to create one large solid mass. Bloc members confront and defend other protesters from the police, set up barricades, and sometimes engage in the destruction of corporate property." This is very one-sided as sometimes black blocs initiate a fight with the police and then disappear, letting other people face the violence of the police (On occasions this maybe down to agent provocateurs}. Even within @narchist circles, the Black bloc is contentious. Also check the link to the National Autonomists of Germany on the [[National anarchism]] page. They also use the Black bloc![[User:Harrypotter|Harrypotter]] 22:53, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
* Whether or not they use the word "capitalism," all historical authors but Rothbard are against [[capitalism]] as defined by wikipedia.
::If you're referring to the paragraph I removed, this was done because it specifically described the views of two individuals, and doesn't even attempt to relate itself to anarchism as a broader movement. I call it "digging up dirt" because it's dirt now; at the time I'm sure their opinions were quite a bit more acceptable. If you would like to argue that anarchism at large was anti-semitical at some point in its history, then it might be appropriate for this article. Otherwise it should be restricted to the pages of these anarchists individually. In the treatment of a history of anarchism, it is best to examine the values of the philosophy itself, rather than the values of individuals who claim to adhere to it. [[User:Sarge Baldy|Sarge Baldy]] 23:31, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
::What about the French physiocrats, and the Economists (Bastiat, Molerini et al)? Not to mention Tucker and Spooner, who had more in common with ancaps than ansocs. Then there's Von Bauerk(sp), Mises, Hayak, and various Old Right folks like Chodorov and HL Mencken and Oppenheimer and ... These guys didn't call themselves "anarchist", but definitely wrote aboout what we today would call anarchist theory. Oh darn, you had me going...
::I've decided that I simply have to agree with Mr. Potter. If you look at the [[Disambiguation]] page, it says, "Do not disambiguate, or add a link to a disambiguation page, if there is no risk of confusion." If I go to the Anarchism page, and I find "National Anarchism", would I really be confused? National Anarchism alleges that it is a type of Anarchism. Similarly, if I went to a page called "List of Scientific Theories", I would expect to find "Intelligent Design" there, but perhaps in a sub-group called "Controversial Theories". The fact is, there's no mistake that National Anarchism is ''supposed'' to be a system of rules in which there is no government. Whether you believe that it actually is or not is ultimately irrelevant. Of course, using that logic, Libertarian and Libertarian Socialism should really be merged, because they both declare "liberty" to be their highest value, but they define "liberty" differently. You know what? I'm fine with merging those two pages as well.
::'''Irrelevant''' We want to know the definition of anarchism - its essentials and differentia. How "anarchism" was used in the past is not directly relevant. [[User:Hogeye|Hogeye]] 02:32, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::I don't think there's anything wrong with displaying the opinion of many here that "National Anarchism" is not really anarchism, and we can call it controversial. But we should not split the Anarchism page into two pages, because, clearly, all of these theories claim to be based on the same Greek roots, and they all describe a political system that does not involve government, even though they define "government" differently. Can we honestly call the inclusion of controversial types of Anarchism confusing? If not, then I say let them be.--[[User:Blah99|Blah99]] 23:32, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
::'''Redundant question''' - same as the first one. - [[User:Nat Krause|Nat Kraus]][[User_Talk:Nat Krause|e]] 08:16, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
== Edmund Burke, revisited ==
* All other "schools" of anarchism are mutually compatible; A/C is not.
:: '''valid''' Actually all schools of anarchism are compatible with each other in the broad sense, all major things are the same, like the abolition of hierarchy. {{fn|anti_ac_5}} --[[User:Fatal|Fatal]] 01:19, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:: '''false''' individualists' [are] squarely against the collectivist anarchists and they say so themselves. {{fn|anti_ac_6}} [[User:RJII|RJII]] 02:30, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::'''false''' All schools are fundamentally opposed to the State, ergo compatible to that extent. [[User:Hogeye|Hogeye]] 02:37, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::'''valid''' all schools have their disagreements and fundamentalists, but ancaps are the only ones who draw almost unanimous mutual exclusivity --[[User:Che y Marijuana|<nowiki></nowiki>]] <small><small><small>[http://www.revolutionaryleft.com Revolutionary Left]</small></small></small> | [[User:Che y Marijuana|Che y Marijuana]] 20:49, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
::'''valid''' all schools accept that they can not force people to live a certain way (that would be heirarchical) --[[User:Harrismw|harrismw]] 04:28, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::'''false''' - It's possibly true that all anarchist schools other than the individualists are compatible (I don't claim to understand their philosophies), and it's possibly true that the individualists are compatible with ''some'' or even ''most'' other anarchist schools; but I find it very hard to believe that the individualist anarchism is really compatible with every branch of anarchism. - [[User:Nat Krause|Nat Kraus]][[User_Talk:Nat Krause|e]] 08:16, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I didn't change the mention of Edmund Burke this time, because I wanted a little more discussion first.
* Anarchism is a growing social movement, A/C is not.
:: '''invalid'''What's a social movement? If it's rioting in the streets, then no, A/C is not a growing social movement. It's an intellectual one. [[User:RJII|RJII]] 02:30, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::'''bullshit''' You haven't compared page hits for LewRockwell.com, compared to, say, Infoshop.org, have you? [[User:Hogeye|Hogeye]] 02:38, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:: '''invalid''' The libertarian movement is large and significant, with many publications and organizations. {{fn|anti_ac_4}} [[User:Dtobias|*Dan*]] 03:29, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
::'''valid''' handful of websites does not compare to Ukraine, Spain, Seattle and other major historical events and the continuing pace of a global movement --[[User:Che y Marijuana|<nowiki></nowiki>]] <small><small><small>[http://www.revolutionaryleft.com Revolutionary Left]</small></small></small> | [[User:Che y Marijuana|Che y Marijuana]] 20:49, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
:::Ukraine? Spain? Seattle? Other major historical events? Pray tell: to what extent anarchism had any influence on those? In particular: why would anarchists support Yushchenko, a presidential candidate? Spain - which event in Spain in the recent past do you mean? Seattle: stop mingling anti-globalisation and anarchism. Anarchism is just a small part of anti-globalisation; the vast majority of antiglobalists do not oppose the state - on the contrary! [[User:Luis rib|Luis rib]] 21:04, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:::come on CyM, histroical events can be used to say that anarchism is growing now. --[[User:Harrismw|harrismw]] 04:28, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::'''?''' Don't know. --[[User:Harrismw|harrismw]] 04:28, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::'''The revolution will not be televised''' - How could we possibly know what the rate of growth for either group is? - [[User:Nat Krause|Nat Kraus]][[User_Talk:Nat Krause|e]] 08:16, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
* The proponents of A/C inclusion are a small number of zealous campaigners.
:: ''invalid''' - [[appeal to ridicule]] [[User:Albamuth|albamuth]] 01:06, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:: ''invalid'' - First of all, I haven't seen any evidence that those proponents of the inclusion are anarcho-capitalists. [[User:RJII|RJII]] 02:34, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:: '''true''' // [[User:Liftarn|Liftarn]]
:: '''true''' --[[User:Che y Marijuana|<nowiki></nowiki>]] <small><small><small>[http://www.revolutionaryleft.com Revolutionary Left]</small></small></small> | [[User:Che y Marijuana|Che y Marijuana]] 20:49, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
::'''true'''--[[User:Harrismw|harrismw]] 04:28, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::'''trivially true''' - The proponents of both sides are a small number of zealous campaigners. - [[User:Nat Krause|Nat Kraus]][[User_Talk:Nat Krause|e]] 08:16, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:Thanks for being one of the first people to discuss something RJII and I favor before removing it. That's how Wikipedia works. You don't like how something's portrayed, you iron out your differences on the talk page to see if there's a good reason to change it. [[User:MrVoluntarist|MrVoluntarist]] 23:49, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
* This list of arguments shows that the pro-A/C faction is wrong (implied).
:: '''invalid''' - possible [[argument from fallacy]], it's not what I'm trying to do, anyhow. [[User:Albamuth|albamuth]] 01:06, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The problem: Burke anonymously writes an article that explicitly advocates the absense of government; upon discovery that he is the article's author, Burke dismisses said article as satire. Enter Murray Rothbard, et al. Rothbard maintains that Burke dismissed the article for political reasons. Ergo, Burke was an anarchist. Did I cover this well enough?
:No. See below. [[User:MrVoluntarist|MrVoluntarist]] 23:49, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
* "left-anarchism" and "anarcho-socialism(ists)" are [[neologism]]s used in an attempt to re-characterize the anarchist movement.
:: '''valid''' - Phrase(s) coined by Wendy McElroy, not used by other idealogues. They aren't even in the wikpedia [[-ism|list of isms]]. [[User:Albamuth|albamuth]] 05:03, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::'''invalid''' - That's preposterous. What evidence do you have that McElroy invented the term "[[left anarchism]]"? The term has been in wide usage for a long time. An older alternative term for left anarchism, that's been in use for ages, is "collectivist anarchism" [http://www.weisbord.org/conquest11.htm] [[User:RJII|RJII]] 05:12, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:: '''true''' // [[User:Liftarn|Liftarn]]
::'''valid''' collectivist anarchism and "left anarchism" are not the same, as individualists (who used the term) were also anti-capitalist --[[User:Che y Marijuana|<nowiki></nowiki>]] <small><small><small>[http://www.revolutionaryleft.com Revolutionary Left]</small></small></small> | [[User:Che y Marijuana|Che y Marijuana]] 20:49, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
:::The individualists did not use the term "left anarchism." [[User:RJII|RJII]] 23:50, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::'''Invalid''' - The first part is true: they are neologisms. I don't see how they are used to re-characterize the anarchist movement, most of which has always been both left and socialist. - [[User:Nat Krause|Nat Kraus]][[User_Talk:Nat Krause|e]] 08:16, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
My opinion: if Burke dismissed article, so should history. Therefore, the mention of Edmund Burke in the "Modern Anarchism" section is inappropriate. He was always most aligned with "conservatism," and whatever anarchist tendencies Burke is purported to have had should be ignored.
====Notes====
{{fnb|anti_ac_1}} This is a case of people being stuck in the past and wanting to keep everybody else there. Of course, anarcho-capitalism, is incompatible with "traditional anarchism." But, so what? This article is called "Anarchism," not "Traditional Anarchism." [[User:RJII|RJII]]
MrVoluntarist justifies inclusion with the following:
{{fnb|anti_ac_2}} By the same logic one could say that a flower is defined as a plant, but it isn't defined as growing in dirt and requiring water, so those things aren't necessary. From a basic definition you draw obvious conclusions. Anarchism is against hierarchy, therefore it will be against, for example, sexism. Capitalism is yet another obvious thing that anarchism is against. [[User:Fatal|Fatal]]
:(1) Burke wasn't advocating absence of government, but he ''did'' write the article.
::'''Response''': My point exactly; Burke never argued for absence of government except in this article, an article he publicly dismissed.
:(2) Burke dismissed article for political reasons.
::'''Response''': All the worse for Edmund Burke. That's between him and "God, or Athena, as the case may be." He dismissed the article, so should we.
Plain and simple: no one possesses the mind of Edmund Burke in a jar. Anyone can analyze Burke's article till he's blue-in-the-face; it's still revisionism to put thoughts in the mind of a dead historical figure.
{{fnb|anti_ac_3}} You think all anarchism is collectivist anarchism. Traditional individualist anarchism does not oppose voluntary boss and employee relationships as long as they stick to the labor theory of value. Involuntary hierarchy is opposed, of course, but not hierarchy in itself unless you're a collectivist anarchist. Maybe you don't think traditional individualist anarchism is real anarchism? If so, you're wrong. [[User:RJII|RJII]]
Responses? --[[User:TelemachusSneezed|TelemachusSneezed]] 21:21, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
{{fnb|anti_ac_4}} I don't know the exact numbers involved, but the libertarian movement is large and significant, with many publications and organizations (though, as others have noted, they're less prone to rioting in the streets and smashing things, which makes them less-often in the news; however, the local newscast in my area yesterday specifically mentioned the Libertarian Party as the instigator of a successful move to get the county to repeal its ban on Sunday liquor sales). Within the libertarian movement, there are more minarchists than anarcho-capitalists, but anarcho-capitalism (often referred to within the libertarian movement as simply "anarchism", since that term has the meaning of "anti-government" with no socialist baggage in these circles) is widely recognized as the most pure and extreme form of libertarianism even if most libertarians decline to go that far themselves. [[User:Dtobias|*Dan*]]
:There is no assertion that Burke was an anarchist. But, the essay he wrote was anarchism. If this article was called "anarchists," I would not allow the inclusion of him, but it's called "anarchism." I don't think it's proper to call him an anarchist, but obviously he did entertain the concept. And, I'm sure the essay had some influence. If it wasn't the first such essay I probably wouldn't include it in the article, but since it was the first, I think it's historically significant. [[User:RJII|RJII]] 21:42, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
{{fnb|anti_ac_5}} Actually all schools of anarchism are compatible with each other in the broad sense, all major things are the same, like the abolition of hierarchy. And if you're one of these people that likes to use the word government because you think that excludes other hierarchy, i've got news for you, they're synonyms. --[[User:Fatal|Fatal]] 01:19, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:First of all, you are leaving quite a bit out. That the essay advocated anarchism ''is'' relevant historically. The article never says he believed it throughout the rest of his life. Further, scholars other than Rothbard have noted that Burke's style in ''Vindication'' was identical to that used in his other serious works, which again casts doubts on his claim of satire.
{{fnb|anti_ac_6}} Again, as I pointed out above, traditioanl individualist anarchists do not oppose hierarchy as long as it's voluntary. All anarchism is not collectivism. That, together with the individualists' advocacy of private property rights and a market economy pit them squarely against the collectivist anarchists and they say so themselves. [[User:RJII|RJII]] 02:30, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:But more importantly, ''other anarchists'' were influenced by the work. Godwin hailed ''Vindication'' as a precursor to his viewpoint. One of Warren's associates reprinted it in 1858 with comments in the margin, and Tucker praised and reprinted it in ''Liberty'' in 1885. I think that's more than enough to make it relevant to the history of anarchism.
:And by the way, the Athena comment was a reference to your name, Telemachus. [[User:MrVoluntarist|MrVoluntarist]] 23:49, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
== Beyond Repair ==
:I agree. --[[User:Bk0|Bk0]] 13:46, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
:I think it's extremely clear from reading the article that most anarchists oppose capitalism. Every type of anarchism that's listed is indicated as opposing capitalism other than anarcho-capitalism (modern individualist anarchism). [[User:RJII|RJII]] 13:53, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
===Comments===
Well, almost every argument made by either side is either fallacious or has been refuted. Where does that leave us? I think arbitration may be next. [[User:Albamuth|albamuth]] 01:06, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Let's say that by some chance we come up with a consensus. What does it matter? As soon as we get the article the way we want it, a few new guys will show up that weren't a part of that consensus that don't agree with how anarcho-capitalism is represented. Then all of a sudden there's a lack of consensus and we edit war again. I'm just pointing out the futility of the whole procedure. I say just unlock the article and let it be. Whatever is going to happen is going to happen, and happen over and over and over. Recognize the futility of what we're doing. Don't kid yourselves that we're going to come up with any sort of finality here. All of our edits will be erased an infinite number of times over. Enough is enough. Unlock the article so it can be edited. [[User:RJII|RJII]] 02:50, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:Whatever solution we come up with together will probably be more amenable to a bunch of [[FNG]]'s that show up than a permanent edit war. Plus it will have more defenders. --[[User:Albamuth|albamuth]] 16:08, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::::Are you seriously using "Appeal to Tradition" against the "anarcho"-capitalists? Haven't you been using this logical fallacy as a cornerstone of your own arguments? The fervency of the ideologies on this page, from both camps, will not "solve" anything. [[User:Socialisto|Socialisto]] 20:44, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::::::You might have noticed that I have found faults with the arguments on both sides. My aim was merely to point out that both sides have been making the same weak arguments over and over. --[[User:Albamuth|albamuth]] 05:51, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I added a new proposal with the following rationale:
::#To avoid confusion, we all should use consitent language and follow accepted usage.
::#As it stands now, almost all unqualified uses of the word "anarchism" in wikipedia refers to socialist/collectivist anarchism— even Individualist Anarchism is generally qualified.
::#If we accept the default unqualified term "anarchism" to refer to a philosophy that is anti-state '''and''' anti-capitalist, Ancaps aren't "anarchists" by this usage.
::#If an [[anti-capitalist]] article exists, it follows that an [[anti-statism]] article should as well, since the two philosophies aren't by necessity linked.
::#Since the Ancap definition of "anarchism" is synonymous with anti-statism alone, any relevant Ancap material can be added to that article.
I've been trying to NPOVify the ancap article, and my experience seems to indicate that the whole problem stems from a linguistic dispute over the proper definition of Anarchism. I believe both sides are correct. The English language is not as precise an instrument as we'd like it to be, and any solution is going to be, by definition, arbitrary. I suggest the compromise: Accept the socialist/collectivist defintion of the word "anarchism" as anti-capitalist and anti-statist, and use the more general, accurate, and less confusing term "anti-statism" for the Ancap definition of "anarchism" and allow the anti-statism article be a repository for tracing the history and development of anti-government philosophy in general, leaving this page to trace the history and development of socialist Anarchism. This isn't a matter of one side "winning" the debate, but of establishing a common lexicon where people on both sides might find it possible to write a mutually-agreed-upon articles. [[User:Saswann|Saswann]] 30 June 2005 16:27 (UTC)
== Disambiguation note? ==
Hogeye/others, since you seem to have admitted the following: 1) There are multiple definitions of anarchism (as is evident by your forking) 2) You wish to avoid an edit war ; on what grounds can you continue to oppose pointing the reader to anarcho-capitalism by means of a disambiguation note? '''It is standard policy to do this if one meaning is more notable.''' That anarcho-capitalism is less notable than what you call "[[Anarchism (socialist)]]" is clear, no argument necessary.
So I have two questions:
*'''1) Does anyone else see this as a reasonable solution?'''
*'''2) If not, on what grounds?'''
If the answer to the second is irrelevant to wikipedia policy and consists solely of biased whining, you will be ignored. --[[User:Tothebarricades.tk|Tothebarricades]] 01:30, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
:TTB> "On what grounds can you continue to oppose pointing the reader to anarcho-capitalism..."
:For the umpteenth time: the issue is not about the anarcho-capitalism article. The issue is about the Anarchism article - in particular, whether it uses the broader dictionary definition, or the narrower popular definition. The article [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anarchy&oldid=15659925 Anarchism (anti-state)] includes all major schools, socialist and individualist and capitalist alike. The [[Anarcho-capitalism]] article is solely about anarcho-capitalism and its history/influences. Click and compare. Not the same at all - different subjects. [[User:Hogeye|Hogeye]] 02:56, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:It appears that the goal of this capitalist POV war is not to present their "anarcho-capitalist" "philosophy" in an acceptable, NPOV manner; but rather to dilute the definition of anarchism to the point where it loses all coherence and connection with anarchist tradition and history. It is reactionary in the extreme and not at all benign. For that reason alone I'm not comfortable with the "Anarchism (socialist)" nonsense. It's not socialist, it's '''anarchist'''. --[[User:Bk0|Bk0]] 01:46, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::"...or the narrower popular definition." - Unfortunately for you, Wikipedia ''always'' uses the "narrower popular definition" in favor of dictionary definitions (especially when most people would equate the two, since seeing capitalism as "cooperative" is a little off the wall). And that definition gets the main article. Also, by saying, "Click and compare. Not the same at all - different subjects." - are you saying that you agree with what we were saying all along, i.e. that anarcho-capitalism is an entirely different topic? --[[User:Tothebarricades.tk|Tothebarricades]] 03:26, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
:::I'm saying that an overall anarchism article is different from an article about anarcho-capitalism. Obviously. In free-market capitalism, any interaction between two people must be voluntary, and every trade mutually beneficial ex ante. That's cooperation. One man, one veto. That's ''much'' more cooperative than majoritarian-ruled communes. Real cooperation is one-on-one. [[User:Hogeye|Hogeye]] 16:10, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
===Proposed Disambiguation pre-amble===
I proposed the following preamble on the VfD page, which was supported by at least one other user. I propose it again here to end the editwar:
The term anarchism is also claimed by [[anarcho-capitalism|anarcho-capitalists]]. This article deals with the predominant political usage of the term anarchism within [[international English]]. For other uses of the word anarchism, see [[anarchism (disambiguation)]].
This proposal mirrors the construction used successfully on [[Libertarianism]] to end an editwar, where (incidentally) the balance of forces between running dog lackey capitalist-roaders, and damn commo marxist pinkies was the opposite. [[User:Fifelfoo|Fifelfoo]] 05:50, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:There wasn't much opposition to doing that there. There is opposition here. That's the difference. Personally, I'd rather that article cover all kinds of libertarianism --not just right libertarianism. [[User:RJII|RJII]] 14:20, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
: I would use the wording ''The term anarchism is also claimed by other groups. This article deals...'' as it's also claimed by [[crypto-anarchism]] and [[national anarchism]]. Or for that matter the current one does the job. Why change something that works? // [[User:Liftarn|Liftarn]]
: I advocate [[User:Fifelfoo|Fifelfoo]]'s preamble. --[[User:Albamuth|albamuth]] 15:37, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The only way I'd surrender the the main "Anarchism" article to the socialists would be with an honest preamble, such as the one I suggested before:
:'''Anarchism'''
:The term anarchism also has a standard dictionary definition - see [[Anarchism (theory)]]. This article deals with the meaning of "anarchism" prominent on US college campuses. For other usages, see [[Anarchism (disambiguation)]].
''or''
:'''Anarchism'''
:Anarchism refers to a broad range of philosophies which oppose the State. For this meaning, see [[Anarchism (theory)]]. This article deals only with certain anti-capitalist schools of anarchism. For other usages, see [[Anarchism (disambiguation)]].
''or maybe''
:'''Anarchism'''
:This article deals only with anti-capitalist anarchism as defined by Bakunin. For the dictionary meaning of anarchism, as defined by Proudhon, Kropotkin, and Rothbard, see [[Anarchism (theory)]]. For other usages, see [[Anarchism (disambiguation)]].
[[User:Hogeye|Hogeye]] 15:05, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::All of those preambles avoid the real issue, which is the dispute over whether to refer to all writers/followers of anarchism (other than Libertarians) as anarcho-socialists, plus the characterization of any anarchists at all tolerating capitalism. --[[User:Albamuth|albamuth]] 15:35, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
No more or less than the preamble you endorsed, Alba. The best analog to the Libertarian article is
:'''Anarchism'''
:The term anarchism also has a standard dictionary definition - see [[Anarchism (theory)]]. This article deals with the meaning of "anarchism" prominent on US college campuses. For other usages, see [[Anarchism (disambiguation)]].
Fifelfoo's preamble contains a clearly false claim: "This article deals with the predominant political usage of the term anarchism within [[international English]]." We've already shown by looking a random samples of dictionaries that the predominant political usage is ''anti-state but not anti-capitalist.'' [[User:Hogeye|Hogeye]] 16:18, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:Your dicdef is false due to selection bias. The "web" dictionaries you suggested on the fork VFD were of very poor quality. Additionally they were predominantly English-US. Pocket dictionaries are entirely unsuitable to resolve this issue. Additionally, most dictionaries you cite are poor in terms of contemporary usage. OED3 anarchy 1b is the most useful head for us, being "A theoretical social state in which there is no governing person or body of persons, but each individual has absolute liberty (without implication of disorder)." whose usage "1892 Daily News 27 Apr. 5/8 Anarchy means the placing in common of all this world's riches to allow each to consume according to his needs. Anarchy is a great family where each will be protected by all and will take whatever he requires." clearly indicates the common usage of anarchy to present a social state with no government and no disorder (OED3 headword: Anarchy, def 1b, usage 1892 Daily News). Compare, if we shall, to anarcho-capitalism (first use 1969) and particularly anarcho-capitalist (first use 1969, usage, "1969 Libertarian 15 May 3/1 The great majority of revolutionary anarcho-capitalists are highly enthusiastic about the Black Panthers and their potential for leading a black liberation movement." (OED3). These somewhat confused neologisms, whose usage has varied so greatly between 1969 and today that the prior sees the eager support of the Black Panthers and the contemporary sees the worship of the oligarchs of private government (or capitalists, for when money speaks with its iron tongue, that is a form of govern-ing). OED3, due to its etymological concern, acts as a very solid dictionary of international English. Anarcho-capitalism, being a usage strongly at odds with the chief social usage of anarchy in English, being, "the placing in common of all this world's riches to allow each to consume according to his needs," AND, as the smaller social movement, AND, as the more recent social movement, should be disambiguated on a seperate page. It is gross cultural imperialism to subsume international English behind the petty English of US college campuses, simply to tar the article with a brush whose colour you detest. [[User:Fifelfoo|Fifelfoo]] 23:29, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::Fifelfoo's definition from OED3: "A theoretical social state in which there is no governing person or body of persons, but each individual has absolute liberty (without implication of disorder)."
::Even your cherry-picked definition does not rule out capitalism. Anarcho-capitalism is definitely a theoretical social state in which there is no governing person or body of persons, but each individual has absolute liberty. Thank you. We can add one more dictionary which agrees that anarchism is anti-statist but not necessarily anti-capitalist. (BTW, first usages are not definitions.) [[User:Hogeye|Hogeye]] 23:48, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:::You might try reading an introduction to a definitive etymological dictionary, like OED sometime. Usage is meaning, and the collection of distinctive and widespread usages is a key function of an etymological dictionary. Compilers of etymological dictionaries create definitions through analysis of first usages*, thus meaning that usage is very important. Usages prior to 1892 include solid references to the Narodniki's collectivism, Proudhon in his mutualist moment**, and prior to that, the sainted Godwin. Obviously one may make a case for Godwin's usage; whereas it is difficult to bend mutualism into the ultra-propertarian definition of anarcho-capitalism, let alone the peasant-communalism of the narodniks. [*first usages are important because they indicate the time that a usage became common, current or unique from other usages. Second usages are less important. **While Proudhon supported the interchange of possession in his mutualism, its stringing Odysseus' bow to claim that his mutualism is compatible with the freedom of private property declared by anarcho-capitalists.] [[User:Fifelfoo|Fifelfoo]] 00:04, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::::Bottom line: The definition that you cited supports the ''anarchism qua anti-statism'' position. Your appeal to etymology is laughable, since anarchism comes from Greek meaning "without ruler", i.e. without a State. Perhaps you should look a little earlier than 1892 for 'first use.' LOL. BTW, I've already cited Proudhon's first use in 1840 in "What is Property." His def also agrees with the broad tent definition.
:Since some of you seem to only be concerned with joking around, here's an attempt at an honest preamble: ''This article deals with a philosophy which traditionally opposes both [[capitalism]] and the [[State]]. For other philosophies related to anarchism, such as [[anarcho-capitalism]] and [[national anarchism]], see [[anarchism (disambiguation)]].''
:: That sounds like a good compromise (even if it does leave out [[crypto-anarchism]]). It should be acceptable for all parts. // [[User:Liftarn|Liftarn]]
::I won't accept that, because that's not what anarchism is. The title of the article would be wrong. If you want an article about that it would have to be called something like "Traditional anarchism." Anarchism is a cluster of philosophies that oppose to the existence of a state, some of which are mutually compatible and some not. From the premise that anarchists have opposed capitalism in the past, it cannot be deduced that opposition to capitalism is a prerequisite for being an anarchist. That's ancient history. This is today. [[User:RJII|RJII]] 19:02, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:::"China" is also a type of pottery and the name of several American towns. That doesn't mean having a disambiguation note toward these less notable meanings is somehow factually inaccurate. --[[User:Tothebarricades.tk|Tothebarricades]] 19:23, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
:::Anarchists, in the past, were not called anarchists because they opposed capitalism, but because they opposed the existence of a state. Now all of a sudden, some of you want to say that to be an anarchists you have to oppose stateless capitalism. There is a grave error in logic in that reasoning. [[User:RJII|RJII]] 19:29, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:::: Actually they did do that, but what set them apart from other types of socialism was that they also was against a state. // [[User:Liftarn|Liftarn]]
So far, the closest to NPOV is this one:
:'''Anarchism'''
:Anarchism refers to a broad range of philosophies which oppose the State. For this meaning, see [[Anarchism (theory)]]. This article deals only with certain anti-capitalist schools of anarchism. For other usages, see [[Anarchism (disambiguation)]].
[[User:Hogeye|Hogeye]] 23:54, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::I oppose that because "Anarchism" is commonly regarded as referring to theory. It's ''this'' article that needs to deal with the various philosophical positions. If anyone wants to talk about a so-called "social movement" of collectivist anarchists, then that's why you would need another article with an alternative name. Anarchism is commonly thought of, first and foremost, as a set of philosophical positions. We shouldn't let a few POV'ers corrupt the meaning of the term to mean a "social movement" (by social movement I take it that they mean people demonstrating in the streets and/or throwing bombs) which necessarily consists only of collectivists anarchists, and necessarily excludes individualist anarchism and anarcho-capitalism. That's highly non-standard, and "original research." [[User:RJII|RJII]] 00:08, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:::CNT? FAI? Nabatniki? Who died at Genoa? Who made Prague into a good showing or a bloody nightmare (depending on your political views)? Who was blamed over Seattle? Who fought the German police in the 1980s? Who died at Haymarket? Anarchism's common usage refers to a social movement. Even within academic disciplinary political studies (three disciplines to mention: Politics, Political Economy and Social History), anarchism refers to a myasma of theory only in the first*, and to a social movement in the two second. [*The obvious critique of the disciplinary methods of politics in the West needs not to be given, the methodological presumptions against engaging social movements is obvious. One could even say that disciplinary politics is what happens when sociology gets first bite of your area of concern.] [[User:Fifelfoo|Fifelfoo]] 00:31, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::::Encyclopedia Britannica says anarchism is "a cluster of doctrines and attitudes centred on the belief that government is both harmful and unnecessary." If that widely-disemminated and popular dictionary does not give the most common understanding of what is meant by "anarchism" then I don't know what does. Anarchism is most commonly regarded as referring to IDEAS ..PHILOSOPHY. Anarchism is philosophy. A riot is a riot. [[User:RJII|RJII]] 00:37, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:::::Britannica is not a dicationary. Nor is any encyclopedia considered to be of sufficient quality to base any assertion and substantiate it*. Encyclopedia are created with reference to primary sources, and secondary sources of disciplinary qualities, not by reference to other encyclopedia*. A major riot, such as Genoa, has more influence in the substantial definition of a word than a dead-tree encyclopedia. [*Obvious exception: assertions and encyclopedia entries directly related to encyclopedia as a topic.]
::::::A riot in Genoa has absolutely no influence on what anarchism means. A riot is a riot. A riot of anarchists is a riot of anarchists. Rioting itself is not anarchism. Anarchism is the PHILOSOPHY behind these riots. [[User:RJII|RJII]] 01:36, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:::::OED, Macquarie, and other major dictionaries of national or international usage have some basis to speak to usage, the quality of their etymological research. An encyclopedia which summarises for the public does not. That's the reason why wiki has a no-original-research policy, and its why Britannica is not a credible source. [[User:Fifelfoo|Fifelfoo]] 00:51, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::::::Encyclopedia Britannica is an excellent source for attempting to determine what is commonly meant by "anarchism." We should present the most common usage here. The most common usage is, by default, the correct usage. Anarchism most commonly refers to PHILOSOPHY, not the act of rioting in the streets. [[User:RJII|RJII]] 01:36, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
== Anarchism (anti-state) article ==
Those who wish to work on the Anarchism (anti-state) article can do so here: [[User:Hogeye/Anarchism]]. This is the article for the editors who take anarchism to mean ''anti-state (but not necessarily anti-capitalist)''. If you are an anarcho-socialist (or libertarian socialist or whatever) and think that anarchism is necessarily anti-capitalist, then please do not edit this page.
Eventually, this page will either be Anarchism (anti-state) pointed to by the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anarchism&oldid=14880685 Neutral Disambiguation Page], or it will be used to overwrite the socialist shit when the edit war resumes on [[Anarchism]].
There's no sense in sitting on our hands while the main Anarchism article is frozen. Let's continue to improve the ''good'' article while we're waiting. [[User:Hogeye|Hogeye]] 05:14, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::You're forking again simply to avoid the issue, as Fifeloo clearly pointed out, because the real issue about usage of "anarchism". Why create anarchism (anti-state) when it's only going to be a replication of anarcho-capitalism? --[[User:Albamuth|albamuth]] 05:58, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:::We agree that the real issue is a definitional one, not simply a content POV issue. Other than that we are going 'round in circles. Do I need to explain yet again the difference between articles? Hint: [[User:Hogeye/Anarchism|Anarchism (anti-state)]] includes anarcho-syndicalism and national anarchism. [[Anarcho-capitalism]] does not. [[User:Hogeye|Hogeye]] 15:35, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::::Why would you have anarcho-syndicalism on the [[anarchism]] article AND the [[anarchism (anti-state)]] article? Why would you include national anarchism, which is itself the most ridiculous neologism of them all? I don't see the point. The only difference would be mention of Anarcho-Capitalism, and since it has its own article, then there's no need for [[anarchism (anti-state)]]. --[[User:Albamuth|albamuth]] 15:39, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:::::Are you purposely playing dense? [[User:Hogeye/Anarchism|Anarchism (anti-state)]] will replace the current POV [[anarchism]] article as soon as the edit war continues. (Sporadically.) Unless we use the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anarchism&oldid=14880685 Neutral Disambiguation Page] of course. [[User:Hogeye|Hogeye]] 15:45, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::::::Personally, I think the most sensible division would be "Anarchism (philosophy)" vs. "Anarchism (movement)", where the distinction would be between philosophical viewpoints that are termed "anarchist", and a specific political/social movement under that name. [[User:Dtobias|*Dan*]] 17:43, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
:::::::Does anarcho-syndicalism go in philosophy, movement, or both? It seems like most schools would have almost duplicate entries in both articles, i.e. they are both philosophies and movements. [[User:70.178.26.242|70.178.26.242]] 00:01, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::Good idea. I'll work a little on that one. I may sit out on any more debate here. You guys let me know when there's a so-called "consensus" so I can start editing this article. [[User:RJII|RJII]] 06:07, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::: Please do not continue editing this article. You are in clear violation of Wikipedia's NPOV doctrine, and your attitude (which can be summarised as "I'm doing this because I'm right and you're and an edit war is the way to prove it" with a side order of "my POV is NPOV, and anyone who dsagrees with me is simply unable to see beyond their limiting POV") is unacceptable. -[[User:Dayv|Dayv]] 19:53, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::::It would be highly hypocritical for any partisan of the current edit conflict to finger another for unacceptable edit warring and POV-pushing. - [[User:Nat Krause|Nat Kraus]][[User_Talk:Nat Krause|e]] 20:22, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::::The [[User:Hogeye/Anarchism]] article is totally Wikilegal, and (I understand) the proper way to make a scratch article. It is NPOV, unlike the frozen socialist Anarchism article. Dare to compare. The purpose and existence of the [[User:Hogeye/Anarchism]] article is open and public: to continue to work on the broad-tent Anarchism article while the official Anarchism article is frozen. [[User:Hogeye|Hogeye]] 20:40, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:::::Yes, it's one of the two common ways of doing a temporary scratch article. The other one is to use a subpage (for instance, Anarchism/Temp). --[[User:CesarB|cesarb]] 20:56, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:::::Pardon my lack of clarity there. By "this article," I mean the main article on Anarchism (which is, of course, locked at this time), not your scratchpad article. You should, of course, feel free to work on whatever temporary articles you want wherever doing so is appropriate. What I am primarily concerned with is your previous edit and revert warring and your stated intent to continue using these methods once the article is unprotected. While I would not say that the Anarchism article as it currently appears is perfectly free of POV material, your modifications (particularly those of reclassification or deemphasis of forms of anarchism you do not appear to support) come across to me as being far more biased by your own POV. -[[User:Dayv|Dayv]] 06:27, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
==Proposed header==
''Note - Some anarchists deny that some philosophies that purport to be forms of anarchism are actually so. This article takes no POV on this matter, but presents all ideologies that claim to be forms of anarchism.'' [[User:RJII|RJII]] 06:40, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:This is an excellent note, underlining Wiki's policy of neutrality. I'm glad you added it to the [[User:Hogeye/Anarchism|Anarchism (anti-state)]] article. [[User:Hogeye|Hogeye]] 15:40, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
''This article covers the commonly understood usage of '''anarchism''': to denote a [[social movement]] and [[political philosophy]] that is opposed to all forms and causes of social, economic, and political [[hierarchy]], including the [[state|modern state]] and [[capitalism]]. For other uses of "anarchism" and "anarchy", see [[anarchism (disambiguation)]]''. --[[User:Albamuth|albamuth]] 15:10, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:Support this version, improved by the clarification debates above. Reduced POV elements. [[User:Fifelfoo|Fifelfoo]] 01:13, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:Better. I support this as an improvement over the current stalemate. --[[User:Bk0|Bk0]] 01:22, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:That's a wonderful header for the socialist Anarchism article. The [[User:Hogeye/Anarchism|broad-tent article]] starts like this:
::''This article surveys a broad range of political philosophies that oppose the state. For other usages, see [[anarchism (disambiguation)]]''.
::Note - ''Some anarchists deny that some philosophies that purport to be forms of anarchism are actually so. This article takes no POV on this matter, but presents all ideologies that claim to be forms of anarchism.''
:[[User:Hogeye|Hogeye]] 01:42, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:::And the reason why we won't use that is ''presents all ideologies that claim to be forms of anarchism''. Claims? Claims? I should be the anarchist son of God, maybe that will grant me inclusion to your article-version. --[[User:Albamuth|albamuth]] 09:46, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::::Yes it would - if you were a political philosophy. Actually Leo Tolstoy beat you to it. We have a link to [[Christian anarchism]], of course. We also recently included [[Black anarchism]] and [[National anarchism]]. National anarchism is interesting. Its nationalism/race-consciousness is reminiscent of Proudhon's French patriotism and Bakunin's Pan-Slavism. Its anarchism is similar to Kropotkin's mir and Bookchin's municipalism. [[User:Hogeye|Hogeye]] 15:58, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:::::: "'''We''' have a link..." So there's a faction of editors out there that don't feel that their work belongs to everyone, that they get their own little article-space to control without allowing contravening evidence, reason, or opinion. Pray tell, where is this miraculous, '''private''' article of yours? --[[User:Albamuth|albamuth]] 16:39, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:::::::[[User:Hogeye/Anarchism]] maybe? He seems to be developing a temporary article there. --[[User:CesarB|cesarb]] 17:23, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
What happened to all the talk about english anarchism vs american anarchism .. - have u abandoned it for anarchism socialist verses "anti-state" anarchism?? Why do u talk of "TRENDS" on u.s campuses ... after claiming that anarchism traditional never reached yer shores? I think this is still all about a/c POV warriors and their throwaway 'philosophy'... I dig up that quote again from my standard 1st year book at university (using political ideas by barbara goodwin ISBN 0471935840)
"''Their true place (anarcho-capitalists) is in the group of right-wing libertarians described in chptr3''" --------U see my point is A/C should get a mention.. but that is all unless this article is going to [[kowtow]] to the POV requirements of the A/C trolls - [[User:Max rspct|max rspct]] 17:50, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC) '''''also:''''' - i have checked the 4th edition (june2004) and although she has expanded ecology and feminism .. Anarchism and it's paragraph on Anarcho-capitalism remains the same (i am sure i put most of it up ..now in archives) if i can get a code for textbridge pro... i will scan the whole chapter. -[[User:Max rspct|max rspct]] 20:13, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
==Request for Mediation==
I've submitted a [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation#stalemate_over_anarchism|request for mediation]] between myself and [[User:Hogeye]], [[User:RJII]], and [[User:Dtobias]]. If anyone wants to "party up" with me, please add your comment at that link. --[[User:Albamuth|albamuth]] 17:53, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:Count me out of that. I've done enough debating here. And, you misrepresented my position on that page. And even speculated there that I was a working for Libertarian Party. Have I ever said that I supported the Libertarian Party or even anarcho-capitalism? Obviously you're not a reasonable person to deal with, as you have immediately begun that dispute attacking motives of individuals and what you ''perceive'' to be their political pursuasions. [[User:RJII|RJII]] 20:39, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::Yeah, I'm insulted, too. No self-respecting anarcho-capitalist would ''ever'' join the LP; not since Wendy McElroy got run out way back when. The LP uses evil means (electoral politics) and is way, way, too statist. (They're damn ''minarchists,'' for Hog's sake!) Alba is apparently into Wiki gamesmanship. I, too, decline to participate in his new distraction. [[User:Hogeye|Hogeye]] 20:50, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:::I honestly believe it would be better to participate; it's not "gamesmanship" or a distraction, it's instead a way of trying to resolve a conflict. He might have misunderstood you, but his intentions weren't bad. The purpose of mediation is to try to find a common ground both sides can agree on. --[[User:CesarB|cesarb]] 21:03, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::::If anyone, including any mediator, wants to see my positions they can in these discussion pages. I'm not going to rehash everything to a mediator. All this debate is getting really pointless. Actually, there may be a point to it. The point is to drag this out interminably and keep the biased article protected from being edited as long as possible isn't it? Wikipedia policy says that pages should not be protected "very long." This page has been protected for "very long." The protection, at this point, has become a violation of Wikipedia policy, and if not POV motivated, surely gives the outward appearance of a POV-motivated lockdown designed to keep a biased article from being neutralized. Wikipedia is supposed to be a place where anyone can edit an article. After this length of time, this lockdown is contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia. I refuse to take part in prolonging the lockdown, here or in mediation. If, and when, the article is unlocked, then I'll be back to edit it.[[User:RJII|RJII]] 22:34, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I am really really tired of this debate. I started out editing anarchism on wikipedia because it was immediately the topic that interested me. However, I find myself devoting most if not all of my internet time to this article, when I would really like to be working on other articles. I don't want the article protected forever, either, but it's not going to get unprotected until we can work this out. Also, even if you are not with the Libertarian party per se, your admission of association (Hogeye) still shows that we have two unreconcilable POV's to work out. Mine and yours. How does it affect the definition of anarchism? I don't see why you're opposed to mediation...it's just part of the wikipedia process--it's not like they will TELL us what to do. Are you afraid of mediation because you are willfully making false claims, claims that you know to be false, only for propagandistic purposes? Only zealots ignore what they know to be true in order to promate what they want to be true -- if you are not a zealot, and truly believe in your own arguments, why not enter into mediation? If you claim to represent truth, then what do you have to lose? --[[User:Albamuth|albamuth]] 08:57, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:mediation is often more about compromise than truth, although perhaps it will do a better job of achieving balance than the various polls and RfCs to, which are even less about truth, but if the mediation isn't binding, what progress have we made? Not only has the mediation process been inactive for months, I doubt it's decisions would be respected here. The text of your request for mediation, was a distortion, and a dismissal of the positions you disagree with, just as your poll questions on the issues were. The lack of intellectual honesty which makes mediation necessary, probably also makes it doomed to fail.--[[User:Silverback|Silverback]] 09:21, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
::There is a lack of intellectual honesty going around, no doubt about that. --[[User:Albamuth|albamuth]] 28 June 2005 13:10 (UTC)
:Alba> "We have two unreconcilable POV's..."
:I agree. No amount of mediation will change that. I don't believe you will change your definition, and I know I won't change mine. But if you have some new points, present them here publicly on the Talk page, not on some other page. I don't see anything on your RFM page that hasn't been discussed over and over already on this Talk page. [[User:Hogeye|Hogeye]] 16:46, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::I'm requesting mediation because I would like some third party to help figure out how to reconcile this debate. Yes, we've all made the same arguments over and over, polls only point out what we know about each others' positions, and this goes on and on in circles. Something new needs to happen. --[[User:Albamuth|albamuth]] 28 June 2005 07:18 (UTC)
==Moving on -- POLL==
'''Question:''' In 50 words, more or less, what do you object to, in the article in its present protected state?
'''Answers:'''
*It's protected, I think protected articles are contrary to wikipedian principles. [[User:Pedant|Pedant]] 21:06, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)
*The POV definition of anarchism. All other objections follow from that. E.g. the omission of various schools, mischaracterization of what anarchists think/believe. [[User:Hogeye|Hogeye]] 22:39, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
*That it's an article about one particular meaning of anarchism, referring to a specifically anti-capitalist movement, rather than about the broad range of philosophies that can be considered anarchist under a more inclusive definition. [[User:Dtobias|*Dan*]] 01:17, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
*Its dissimilarity w articles on the topic which can be found elsewhere, and that this dissimilarity is based on a wikipedian socialist POV lobby, rather than more balanced references than other sources. This article is proof of failings of both the wiki ideals and anarchism. [[User:Sam Spade|¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸]][[User talk:Sam Spade|¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸]][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Emailuser&target=Sam_Spade ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸] 01:23, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
*The article is not balanced between the two main schools of anarchism, the individualist and the collectivist with prominent mention of anarcho-capitalism in the individualist camp. This lack of balance gives the impression that the well written history and origins of anarchism are "owned" by the collectivist school. The lack of recognition of this primary divide between the individualist and collectivists, does not provide a proper ___location for the key issues that divide them. Is property coercive and is collectivism (which seems to require some kind of enforcement) coercive? --[[User:Silverback|Silverback]] 06:46, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
* It could use some polish here and there, but basicly it's a good article written in a neutral style. Considering how many different branches of anarchism there are it does a good job covering them all. // [[User:Liftarn|Liftarn]]
* I have no problems with the range of topics it covers, but would rather that anarchism be presented via [[evolutionary epistemology]], to show the development and addition of ideas. --[[User:Albamuth|albamuth]] 18:36, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:So you don't mind discussing the evolution of anti-statist liberalism into anarchism (e.g. Bastiat, Molinari,) and the evolution of socialist anarchism into anarcho-capitalism in the 20th century? [[User:Hogeye|Hogeye]] 28 June 2005 14:19 (UTC)
::Just like in evolution, some branches of the meme-pool are dead-ends, and never become a permanent part of it. Unlike biological evolution, influences and sources for the ideas (memes) can be positive, negative (as a reaction against), or even complementary (parallel but not conflicting concepts). For the article, it is not necessary to list every author that influenced anarchist writers (even Isaac Newton would be mentioned), but those authors that framed the concepts that the anarchist movement inculcated and retained. --[[User:Albamuth|albamuth]] 29 June 2005 03:34 (UTC)
::Also, what you call "socialist anarchism" never developed into "anarcho-capitalism." To delineate direct relation of one writer's ideas to another, you have to look at whom they cite and refer to. In the absence of citation (original research), you must see if that writer's ideas became part of the memeplex for what we are describing (anarchism). Does Rothbard draw on the tradition of previous anarchist writers? Is there a movement that follows his ideas? If they call themselves anarcho-capitalists, but no anarchists follow those ideas, then it is fair to say that the anacho-capitalist movement follows Rothbard's ideas and that anarchists do not. Therefore, an article about a social movement that expouses a political philosophy called anarchism need not mention Rothbard, but an article about anarcho-capitalism should. Theory: if in [[evolution]] speciation occurs when two segments of a population become so differentiated that they cannot breed together, then in [[political philosophy]] speciation occurs when two segments of a social movement become so at odds that they cannot purposefully collaborate/agree (take the SWP and the IWW, for example). Caveat: ideologies are not species and memes are not genes, therefore their origination and evolution is not fully analogous. --[[User:Albamuth|albamuth]] 29 June 2005 04:17 (UTC)
:::It looks to me like Godwin, and even Proudhon to some degree, evolved from classical liberalism. Anti-statist liberalism, Proudhon's mutualism, and Bakunin's socialism are all strains of anarchism. Tucker took some of Bakunin's exploitation theory, and a lot of Herbert Spencer's moral theory, mixed in some Ayn Rand, I mean Max Stirner egoism, creating individualist anarchism. Later, Rothbard synthesized individualist anarchism and Austrian economics to get modern anarcho-capitalism. Your focus, Alba, on only one strain exposes your biased POV. At any rate, it's clear that a history-only article would not break the impasse. It just reframes the issue from "what is the definition of anarchism" to "what should be included in the history of anarchism." [[User:Hogeye|Hogeye]] 29 June 2005 07:21 (UTC)
*It's in good shape... apart from protection status - but that is there to prevent loads of spurious anarcho-cap POV.. It still could be expanded but I don't have a problem with it in it's present form. I big-up Albamuth's suggestion of presenting the article in an [[Evolutionary epistemology|Evolutionary epistemological]] way. a good solution for all those concerned? -[[User:Max rspct|max rspct]] 29 June 2005 13:47 (UTC)
::Wait a second. The protection is not supposed to be taking sides in the content dispute. Do you know for a fact that is why the protection was put on? Please give evidence.--[[User:Silverback|Silverback]] June 29, 2005 13:58 (UTC)
:::I requested protection because of all the edits [[User:Hogeye]] and [[User:RJII]] were making over and over while ignoring discussion on the talk pages. --[[User:Albamuth|albamuth]] 1 July 2005 03:41 (UTC)
== Moving on Part Deux - Poll ==
We've had several polls about the socialist POV article. Now let's have one about the broad-tent article.
'''Question:''' In 50 words, more or less, what do you object to in the [[User:Hogeye/Anarchism|Anarchism( anti-state) article]]?
*The title, "Anarchism (anti-state)" is silly; it implies the existence of a "pro-state" anarchism to contrast it to. I prefer the division "Anarchism (philosophy)" vs. "Anarchism (movement)". [[User:Dtobias|*Dan*]] 18:41, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
:Don't worry - it will be called "Anarchism." The Anarchism (anti-state) article will ''replace'' the current socialist article whenever it gets unprotected. Either that or there will be a Neutral Disambig Page which points to both articles - Anarchism (anti-state) and Anarchism (socialist). In the latter case, it is clear that anti-statism is being contrasted with socialism. [[User:Hogeye|Hogeye]] 28 June 2005 14:27 (UTC)
::Threats? In what way are threats helpful? Or did you forget to put in a smiley.
::I'd also suggest that your understanding of 'socialism' is flawed if you think it has anything to do with statism. [[User:Katzenjammer|Katzenjammer]] 1 July 2005 00:08 (UTC)
* It's utter false and missleading. It used invented word like "anarcho-socialist". It giver way too much space for "Anarcho-Capitalism" considering how utterly insignificant it is. The section on individualist anarchism is biased, but could be used with some tweaking (probably in the [[Individualist anarchism]] article). In short, it's biased and adds very little to what aleady is in the current article. // [[User:Liftarn|Liftarn]]
:The first problem can be solved by simply replacing "anarcho-socialist" with "libertarian socialist" everywhere in the article. [[User:Hogeye|Hogeye]] 28 June 2005 14:27 (UTC)
* It's redundant and biased. In short, there's no need for it. --[[User:Albamuth|albamuth]] 28 June 2005 13:07 (UTC)
* The proposed article is merely a POV dupe of this one being pushed by a small number of people sympathetic to anarcho-capitalism. It is inferior to the current article and far more biased. In -depth explainations are below. [[User:Kevehs|Kev]] 30 June 2005 03:52 (UTC)
* Bias, adhoc graphics made up by POV editor/s.. historically inaccurate, misleading..Whole article is contrived to provide POV platform for A/C trollers (talk about ORIGINAL RESEARCH ETC!!!...and that photo of M.Rothbard scares me like the catholic church does) -[[User:Max rspct|max rspct]] 30 June 2005 17:37 (UTC)
== Why the current article is far superior to the one being pushed by POV warriors ==
In particular problems include: (1) the template, which is skewed to over-emphasize anarcho-capitalism and indicates not only that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism (which is a point of contention), but that it is a form of individualism (which is another point of contention) (2) Its claim to take no point of view on which philosophies are a form of anarchism, when in fact the forms of categories it displays and its presentation is biased to the anarcho-capitalist position that they are a form of anarchism. (3) its timeline, which labels someone who never considered himself an anarcho-capitalist as such, and falsely labels bakunin the first anarcho-socialist when many consider mutualism to be a form of socialism, (4) its inclusion of Molinari in the development of modern anarchism, when in fact molinari was not identified with the anarchist movement until the anarcho-capitalists came about 100 years later and revisited history to claim him, (5) its political chart, which is blatantly AC pov that puts Tucker and Proudhon inbetween socialism and capitalism despite the fact that Tucker called himself a socialist, and implies that anarcho-capitalism is in fact a form of anarchism or that capitalism is compatible with anarchism, two claims that defy the history of anarchism and are under contention, (5) its claim that individualist feminism is a form of anarchism, when in fact many individualist feminists are not anarchists, (6) its inclusion of anarcho-capitalism in "schools of anarchism", when it should be placed separately, (7) its heavily biased individualist anarchist section, which along with the individualist anarchism article have been under the control of anarcho-capitalists of late, (8) its "anarchist schools chart", which oversimplifies and misrepresents aspects of both collectivist anarchism (most do not believe in crime) and individualist anarchism (their support of both land and property is qualified, and it is not neutral to claim that this answer is either simpy "yes" or "no", further, Tucker did believe in expropriation in certain instances), (9) the ridiculous contention that anarchists support polycentric law, part of the problem of including anarcho-capitalism outside its own section which misrepresents anarchism as a whole in order to cater to a small sub-movement hostile to anarchist tradition, (10) the ludicrious claim that the "capitalism vs. socialism" is the most controversial conflict between anarchists, when in fact anarchists by and large ignore anarcho-capitalism as an irrelevant attempt to subvert their tradition, further, the presentation in that section is obviously from AC pov (11) the linking of Tucker with panarchism, (12) the inclusion of several sections dealing specifically with AC perspectives, which are already detailed in their article and over-emphasize a relatively small movement, (13) its inclusion of an entire section dedicated to anarcho-capitalist books, which would be as silly as putting such a section in there for all possible anarchist sub-movements and claimaints, and again over-emphasizes anarcho-capitalism, (14) the general tone and direction of the article, whose main purpose is so obviously to emphasize the personally favored philosophy of its editors that it would be hard for them to deny without appearing to be either total idiots or complete ideologues.
For all of these reasons I will not accept any attempt to overwrite the current article, the product of years of work, with this heavily POV anarcho-capitalist replacement. Now will I stand by as such a highly biased piece of writing is used to try to alter the current article which is -more- than fair to this particular sub-movement given its standing in regards to traditional anarchism. [[User:Kevehs|Kev]] 30 June 2005 03:54 (UTC)
: Most of Kev's points are redundant, i.e. are simply different formulations of the core definitional dispute: 1,2,6,10,12,13, and 14.
:(3) and (4) Kev makes the error of ignoring the definition of anarchism and ignoring ideas closely related to anarchism (anti-state liberalism), with the flimsy excuse that so-and-so did not ''self-refer'' as an anarchist. Strangely, Kev doesn't mind that William Godwin never refered to himself as an anarchist, but he ''does'' mind Molinari. POV? You make the call.
:(5) By the modern definition of socialism and capitalism, Proudhon (and mutualists in general) have some similarities and dissimilarities to each. See the chart comparing anarcho-socialism to individualist anarchism to anarcho-capitalism. Clearly, mutualism is somewhere between socialism and capitalism, with some features of each.
:(7) Kev has a history of trying to put a detailed individualist anarchism article within other articles, rather than a few essentials and a link to IA.
:(8) Kev makes the ridiculous claim that most collectivist anarchists "do not believe in crime." Let's check the veracity of that claim:
:"Powerful states can maintain themselves only by crime, little states are virtuous only by weakness." - Bakunin
:"Have not prisons - which kill all will and force of character in man, which enclose within their walls more vices than are met with on any other spot of the globe - always been universities of crime?" - Kropotkin
:Maybe Kev meant that most bald punkers with circle-A tatoos believe that. I dunno.
:(9) Kev: "...the ridiculous contention that anarchists support polycentric law."
:Kev must have misread. The article reads, "While some anarchists reject organized defense of liberty outright, many have proposed forms of polycentric law."
:(11) Kev: "the linking of Tucker with panarchism"
:Again, a misreading of the article. It does not link Tucker with panarchism at all. It links Tucker with tolerance. E.g. Tucker's article in Liberty praising Auberon Herbert as an anarchist. Herbert was pro-capitalism by the way.
[[User:Hogeye|Hogeye]] 1 July 2005 18:42 (UTC)
:LOL! [[User:RJII|RJII]] 30 June 2005 04:03 (UTC)
::As it happens, I agree with most of Kev's criticisms. Vis a vis 4) Molinari could readily be included and be described as a "close predecessor" of pro-capitalism anarchists. I don't necessarily agree with 7), as Kev has his own POV when it comes to "bias" on individualist anarchism. Regarding 8), I wonder whether it is really a good idea to continue thinking of "individualist anarchism" exclusively in terms of Tucker; are there really no other individualists worth citing? I'm also not sure about 11) (I really have no idea), and 14) is entirely a judgment call. - [[User:Nat Krause|Nat Kraus]][[User_Talk:Nat Krause|e]] 30 June 2005 04:37 (UTC)
::: As I explained above, I don't think precursors of any faction should be included in the general history. First, because they are only precursors of particular factions and this is a general history, they can all be put on their own pages. Second, because these claims tend to be controversial. Third, because it would overload the history with a lot of factional speculation and inevitably lead to edit wars. If we must include some precursors in the history, and we might as well, they should be ones for anarchism in general, rather than any claimed by only one or two factions. Other than that, only people who actually refered to themselves as anarchists should be in the history.
::: I do have my own bias when it comes to individualism, my bias is that their works not be misrepresented to make it appear that they supported things that they in fact rejected wholesale. I believe in staying true to their memory, I find it distrubing that people can claim their tradition while at the same time ignoring it. I agree that Tucker should not be the sole indicator of individualism, but neither should sweeping statements about individualism be made when they disagree with the views of any particular individualist. [[User:Kevehs|Kev]] 1 July 2005 17:18 (UTC)
: I agree that the current article is far superior to the one being pushed by POV warriors. // [[User:Liftarn|Liftarn]]
::Kev, I think we officially win, RJ has stooped to the Sam Spade level of argumentation, that is to say, interjections of capitalized internet slang :P (two personal attacks in one comment, oh yeah - i'm just kidding folks). Anyway I think the issue is very, very obvious at this point so I'm not going to get worked up with any more silly arguments. I agree wholeheartedly with Kev's sentiments. --[[User:Tothebarricades.tk|Tothebarricades]] June 30, 2005 11:22 (UTC)
==[[Anarcho-communism]]==
There is a suggestion on it's talk page that it get moved to [[Anarchist-communism]].. what do people think - Is it anglo vs american usage of the term? -[[User:Max rspct|max rspct]] 30 June 2005 14:10 (UTC)
:It really doesn't matter, so long as one redirects to the other. It's just another synonym, like "libertarian communism." [[User:Hogeye|Hogeye]] 30 June 2005 14:25 (UTC)
Well it does matter to some extent.. But yo reaction is predictable, in light of your vaunting of 'left anarchism' and 'anarcho-socialism' (misleading, made-up words.. very rarely used except by detractors) The article should use the most widely used word - and redirect from the other one. -[[User:Max rspct|max rspct]] 30 June 2005 17:27 (UTC)
:I don't use the term "left-anarchism," since ''all'' anarchism, including anarcho-capitalism, is left - i.e. opposes the ''ancien regime'' aka the existing State. Cf: [http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard33.html Left and Right: The Prospects for Liberty] by Murray Rothbard. I consider "left anarchism" and "right anarchism" to be commie terminology used by anarcho-socialists like Ulrike Heider ("Anarchism: Left, Right, and Green.) I have never ever heard a market anarchist self-refer as "right anarchist." [[User:Hogeye|Hogeye]] 30 June 2005 20:06 (UTC)
I've never heard someone today call themself an anarchist-communist, when people identify that way, the dominant term today is anarcho-communist. There's also libertarian communist and free communist (however practically no one uses these anymore). If they're going to integrate the two articles, put them all in anarcho-communism. --[[User:Fatal|Fatal]] 30 June 2005 19:47 (UTC)
== A bit off the subject but... ==
does it strike anyone as funny that a straightforward definition of anarchism is taking longer than 3 years to hammer out? Wikipedia is by its very nature anarchist, so this seems to me to point out some reasons why anarchism and a strict adherence to consensus process work best on a small scale. Anarchists, if you want to show that anarchism works, lets get it together and move forward on this article.[[User:Pedant|Pedant]] 2005 June 30 19:13 (UTC)
:This has demonstrated the instability and hopelessness of collective ownership - that's for sure. It's pretty clear that the Wiki article on anarchism will never have the quality of e.g. the privately owned [http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/anarfaq.htm Anarchist Theory FAQ], simply due to the controversial nature of the topic. Private ownership, of course, solves problems such as this by providing clear jurisdiction. It took Josiah Warren two years at Robert Owens' utopian community to figure out that individualism and private property were ''where it's at''. Here we've demonstrated the same thing in under a month! [[User:Hogeye|Hogeye]] 30 June 2005 19:57 (UTC)
::I'd disagree. I'd suggest that it demonstrates only that, to survive, any community must have a way to prevent vandals from wreaking their will. There will always be a small group of anti-social people who gain enjoyment from destruction and the imposition of their will on others. That doesn't really impeach the idea of communal ownership at all. Communal ownership is voluntarily practiced by over 700M people throughout the world as of 1995--more than twice the population of the USA. And it works fine for us. If you want to see an example of communal ownership that has endured for at least 300 years, look back through the issues of National Geographic. You'll find an article about a communal irrigation and farming system in New Mexico. Every year the village allocates land, and on an agreed day everyone turns out to de-rubbish the canals. The elderly and infirm have their equal allotment, and the rest of the people take care of it for them as a matter of course. It's very nice. Many peoples living a pre-industrial life successfully practice communal ownership because the people around them depend for their lives, too, on mutual respect and talking things out. [[User:Katzenjammer|Katzenjammer]] 1 July 2005 12:26 (UTC)
:::You are right, Katz, that remote desert aboriginals can make collective ownership work. Why will that work, but not Wiki collective ownership? Mainly due to the closed system and the common values. Probably a stranger to the culture would have great difficulty joining the tribe. In fact, very few outsiders ''want'' to participate in such primitive lifestyles, so the question rarely comes up. Similarly, the few successful utopian communities limited themselves to like-minded religious cultists, and were typically very stict on who could join.
:::Constrast that with Wiki, where anyone can join, and where the commons is open to anyone and everyone, and is easily accessible from any computer rather than in a remote desert. Sure, Wiki could make its commons work - if it severely restricted who could become editors, and protected its property with passwords and such. [[User:Hogeye|Hogeye]] 1 July 2005 16:42 (UTC)
:::: Thus completely destroying most potential of a wikipedia freely edited by all users, and most of its spectacular growth over the last couple years. Kinda like propertarianism and its effect on the economy, sacrifice most of its potential in order to strictly control what little you have left. Good analogy Hogeye, very informative of authoritarian views. [[User:Kevehs|Kev]] 1 July 2005 17:21 (UTC)
::::[giggle] I'm not sure I'd call US citizens living in New Mexico with all the trappings of modern industrial life 'remote desert aboriginals'. :-) You seem to have a much more gloomy view than I of human willingness to cooperate. Yet it's been demonstrated that, except for the few psychopaths under the tail of the distribution, most people respond to their socialization by becoming cooperative. It's only later in their lives, because of the split-personality nature of Capitalism (it rewards competition in school, then demands cooperation on the job while rewarding pseudo-cooperative competitiveness) that people's socialization starts to break down under the strain. We get what we reward. [[User:Katzenjammer|Katzenjammer]] 1 July 2005 20:13 (UTC)
:::::Katz> "You seem to have a much more gloomy view than I of human willingness to cooperate."
:::::I wouldn't say that. I ''would'' say that I have a much broader view of what cooperation among humans is.
:::::Katz> "Most people respond to their socialization by becoming cooperative."
:::::I agree. People have achieved an amazing amount of cooperation in production by use of ''division of labor'' and ''private property''. This capitalist cooperation has already brought much of the world out of starvation and poverty.
:::::Katz> "It's only later in their lives, because of the split-personality nature of Capitalism (it rewards competition in school, then demands cooperation on the job while rewarding pseudo-cooperative competitiveness) that people's socialization starts to break down under the strain."
:::::I find it rather bizarre that you use schools, heavily dominated by government, to be an example of capitalism. I see the government schools as statist indoctrination centers - the enemy of capitalism.
:::::Frankly, your implicit premise that ''people are motivated primarily by competition vs. cooperation'' is mistaken IMO. People are motivated by self-interest, as they perceive it. They are much more interested in whether an action is in their interest than whether it is cooperative or competitive. I consider both cooperation and competition to be natural and good. Most actions have elements of both.
:::::Kev> "Thus completely destroying most potential of a wikipedia freely edited by all users..."
:::::The so-called potential is undermined by a fact of reality: overuse. This is the classic ''tragedy of the commons''. Either Wiki gets overgrazed (edit wars and semi-permanent freezing of articles), or it must limit the number of users. All successful communes (e.g. the family) are small. Small is beautiful. Wiki's growth is precisely what will make it unworkable. [[User:Hogeye|Hogeye]] 1 July 2005 21:58 (UTC)
::::::Well, this little OT discussion has been fun and I wouldn't mind continuing, but I'm feeling a little too guilty about doing it in this context, so I'll stop here. [[User:Katzenjammer|Katzenjammer]] 1 July 2005 22:30 (UTC)
Using your analogy, it's more accurate like this: the local community consensus agrees on one thing, and then a guy flies in from out of town, who doesn't even believe in consensus, and runs into the room screaming "I'm being excluded! I'm being censored! CONSENSUS!! INCLUDE ME!!!" essentially ruining the original consensus of a community they were never part of. It's like a republican coming into an anarchist festival and demanding that everyone adhere to their love for "america" and capitalism because they are personally offended by the black flags and revolutionary literature. I don't think I ever met an anarchist that believed consensus should be used on a scale of hundreds of millions. Consensus is something that supposed to be used in groups no bigger than a community or neighborhood, given that almost all decisions that are important can be made locally, when the need for larger opinion is needed, they don't negotiate in one larger meshing of the two, they decide what their collective decision is in their community and tell the other, and yes it makes a huge difference. To debate using consensus, you first have to actually believe in consensus, and to debate anarchism you have either be an anarchist or know what the fuck you're talking about and know about anarchism, two requirements that hogeye and the other vandals on here DO NOT HAVE. --[[User:Fatal|Fatal]] 30 June 2005 19:59 (UTC)
:Fatal> "Using your analogy, it's more accurate like this: the local community consensus agrees on one thing, and then a guy flies in from out of town, who doesn't even believe in consensus, and runs into the room screaming "I'm being excluded!"
:That's not a bad analogy, Fatal. It recalls the Puritans of Massachusetts in the 1600s. The local community consensus was no Sabbath-breaking, strict dress codes, puritanical codes of conduct and work, and that everyone should be a good Puritan. Occasionally a Quaker or Baptist would wander through. These heretics would be imprisoned, beaten, mutilated, or "whipped through town." This latter was popular - you remove the shirt of the Quaker (man or woman), tie them to the back of an ox-cart, and whip the shit out of them in every town on the way to the border. Then dump them in the atheist hell-hole of Rhode Island. Of course, in the virtual world, your whip is replaced by mere pixels on a screen. It's going to be hard to whip the blasphemers through town with mere pixels. You might have to share the commons; either that or have a commons war. [[User:Hogeye|Hogeye]] 30 June 2005 21:33 (UTC)
::The concept of consensus is grounded in the idea that those joining a group that seeks consensus in decisions will also seek consensus, not purposefully join in order to disrupt consensus. Your analogy to Puritanism is entertaining, but misplaced. --[[User:Albamuth|albamuth]] 1 July 2005 03:57 (UTC)
==Responding to the RFC==
I'm a pro-social anarchist (and currently embroiled as such over in the misnamed 'libertarianism' page). I believe that the bare term 'anarchism', like the bare term 'libertarian', is too general to be colonized by any sectarian group. In other words, I see no reason why the pro-Capitalism sect can't have equal room under the anarchism umbrella. This implies that the 'anarchism' page itself be a pure portal/distributor/disambiguator page, and that each of the sects settle for having a page with a fully-qualified/disambiguated title.
I'm arguing that same position over at 'libertarianism', and plan to lodge an RFC on Monday as the first step in the conflict-resolution process. Since the pro-Capitalism forces are taking the same stand here that I am taking over there (I found that wonderfully ironic, needless to say), can we count on having your support for making that page, too, be a disambiguator rather than the highly partisan POVful page it is now? [[User:Katzenjammer|Katzenjammer]] 1 July 2005 00:01 (UTC)
:I can't speak for any of the other pro-capitalists, but I just might be willing to go along with a compromise position that gives more "balance" to the "left" and "right" varieties of libertarianism (notwithstanding that pro-capitalist libertarians such as myself don't actually consider ourselves "right wing", as we reject the one-dimensional political spectrum altogether), provided that a similar thing is done with respect to anarchism. [[User:Dtobias|*Dan*]] July 1, 2005 00:39 (UTC)
::That's what I'm talking about. I think the most NPOV solution that can be reached is to 'demilitarize' the small-l/small-a terms, and cede the big-A/big-L terms to the pro-social and pro-Capitalism groups respectively as proper nouns/terms of art that have somewhat settled associations (in the case of Anarchism, going back more than a hundred years) [[User:Katzenjammer|Katzenjammer]] 1 July 2005 11:43 (UTC)
:I would not mix the issues with of one article with another. --[[User:Albamuth|albamuth]] 1 July 2005 03:54 (UTC)
::I think they're mixed naturally--don't you find the terms to be synonyms in practice? I certainly do. [[User:Katzenjammer|Katzenjammer]] 1 July 2005 11:43 (UTC)
Katz> "This implies that the 'anarchism' page itself be a pure portal/distributor/disambiguator page, and that each of the sects settle for having a page with a fully-qualified/disambiguated title."
I take it you mean something like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anarchism&oldid=14880685 this Neutral Disambiguation Page]? That was suggested here (by me) early on - but every single one of the ansoc partisans rejected it out of hand. (And even got the sub-pages deleted.)
Yes, I do think the [[libertarianism]] article would be more NPOV were it to have a similar "portal/distributor/disambiguator page." E.g.
'''Libertarianism''' in its most general sense is a philosophy holding liberty to be the primary political value.
'''Libertarianism''' may mean:
*[[Libertarianism (capitalist)]] - the a political philosophy favoring personal and economic liberty or freedoms to the extent that they do not infringe on the same freedoms of others.
*[[Libertarianism (socialist)]] - political philosophies dedicated to opposing coercive forms of authority and social hierarchy, in particular the institutions of capitalism and the state.
Also see [[Libertarianism (metaphysics)]] - a conception of free will.
[[User:Hogeye|Hogeye]] 1 July 2005 02:42 (UTC)
:Yes, that's what I'm talking about. I like your proposed disambiguator pages, too. I'd probably urge some tweaks, especially in your proposed anarch page (e.g. everyone is anti-state), but nothing really major. [[User:Katzenjammer|Katzenjammer]] 1 July 2005 11:43 (UTC)
:I would split those into individualist and collectivist, or right and left (left and right is probably the most common use). [[User:RJII|RJII]] 1 July 2005 02:48 (UTC)
::I think you'd have to define 'collectivist' before I'd know what to say about your suggestion. The meaning I have for that term doesn't seem to fit. [[User:Katzenjammer|Katzenjammer]] 1 July 2005 12:46 (UTC)
::Why not talk about [[libertarianism]] on the appropriate talk page? ;) --[[User:Albamuth|albamuth]] 1 July 2005 03:54 (UTC)
:::I don't think we're so much talking about libertarianism as we are about both l. and anarchism and how to resolve the conflicts that are mirrors of one another. [[User:Katzenjammer|Katzenjammer]] 1 July 2005 12:46 (UTC)
IMHO does the current disambig (''This article describes a range of political philosophies that oppose the state and [[capitalism]]. For other uses, see [[anarchism (disambiguation)]]'') a good an NPOV job. // [[User:Liftarn|Liftarn]]
::::I disagree completely with Katzenjammer. I think the current disambig scheme in both Anarchism and Libertarianism is the way to go. The Libertarianism page has already been through a RFC, and multiple people have come and gone trying to get liberatrian socialism on that page. It never works!!! At least try learning from past mistakes. My biggest problem is what other word would you use for non-anarcho-capitalist anarchism, and what would you call non-libertarian socialism libertarianism? To rename both would require us to basically make up a new term. Unlike what was said above, not all non-individualist/non-capitalist anarchism is anarcho-communism (anarcho-syndicalism and post left anarchy are completely different). The best word to use might be social anarchism, but that word was originally used as a contrast to individualist anarchism, and may not include some newer variants. In short, anarchists use the word anarchism (with no qualifiers), anarcho-capitalists, use the word anarcho-capitalism. Let them have their page, and point to that page where nessecery in this article, just as libertarianism points to libertarian socialism whenever it might be mentioned. There's no need to reproduce info. in several articles just to appease some people who haven't been here to see these same edit wars ad nauseum. [[User:Millerc|millerc]] 1 July 2005 13:02 (UTC)
:::::Perhaps you misunderstand what Dan, Hogeye, and I are suggesting? We're not talking about 'get[ting] libertarian socialism on that page'. We agree that 'it never works'...or certainly is unlikely to work as long as people believe their needs can only be met by a zero-sum solution.
:::::We're talking about letting every sect have their own page both there and here, letting each sect define the small-letter term 'libertarian' or 'anarchism', parenthetically qualified, entirely as they please. We could probably increase the NPOVness by also allocating rebuttal pages to every sect so that, for example, the pro-Capitalist anarchists/libertarians could complain about the shortcomings they find in the corresponding pro-social pages and vice versa.
:::::Our presumption is that everyone wants to get their understanding of the term anarchism or libertarianism published in a way that doesn't make it seem as though their definition is less valid or central than any other definition. Can you agree with that characterization of people's goals? [[User:Katzenjammer|Katzenjammer]] 1 July 2005 13:57 (UTC)
::::::I think you're the one who misunderstood. I have no problem with describing different political philosophies. What doesn't work is trying to label non-anarcho-capitalists as something like "socialist-anarchist" or someother BS, since they call themselves anarchists (no qualifiers). In fact, the best solution I've heard so far is the historical approach advocated by albamuth. Its what worked for the liberalism article, which seems to have achieved as much of a NPOV as a political article can. But this has already been suggested in the past (see the archives)! No one else's idea of anarchism or libertarianism or liberalism is being pushed aside. 'Libertarian socialism' is seen as a valid term by libertarian socialists, but there is no corrosponding valid term for what I would call right wing liberatrianism. The same is true for anarcho-capitalism and anarchism... [[User:Millerc|millerc]] 1 July 2005 16:13 (UTC)
:::::::Perhaps you're right and I do misunderstand. But let's see whether we can come to an agreement about what people's goals are. Can you agree with the statement I made, above? If not, would you please say in what respect you think it's in error?
==No New Arguments?==
Since I made the Summary of Arguments above, I've noticed that no new arguments not on that list have popped up. Is it really that simple? Have all the relevant arguments been made? Does anyone have any new insights arguments to add? Why not let this go to mediation, then? Or failing that, arbitration? --[[User:Albamuth|albamuth]] 1 July 2005 04:04 (UTC)
:Wouldn't it be more true to our pro-social beliefs, as Pedant implied above, to agree a cooperative solution in which everyone gets a fair share? [[User:Katzenjammer|Katzenjammer]] 1 July 2005 12:08 (UTC)
:: Everyone having their "fair share" does not entail that a handful of people in a town of 10,000 should get half the representation, over and above even more significant factions such as primitivists and individualists. Currently the article is already disambiguated, there was only one single group which wanted it disambiguated and it was done just for their sake. This should be all that is necessary. Then the anarcho-capitalism section was added back in, which is redundant when it is already disambiguated since this page is no longer supposed to be about their selective definition. I'm happy to go with either of these solutions (rather than both), and either is completely "fair" given both the controversial nature of their claims to our tradition and their relative insignificance historically, they are getting their very own page to detail their views, and either way a method by which to link from this page to their own. To do what the anarcho-capitalists are attempting to do, have this page both disambiguated and introduce anarcho-capitalism, -plus- change the definition to suit their bias, and add in a bunch of misleading charts combined with over-simplified comparisons, and rearrange categories to make it appear that wikipedia itself supports their claims, and put in tons of links to their own factional books, is certainly not in the realm of "fair". [[User:Kevehs|Kev]] 1 July 2005 17:10 (UTC)
:::Kev still doesn't grok the difference between disambiguating different definitions of "anarchism" and links to particular schools. Well, Katz, you see the problem. Not a single partisan anarcho-socialist supports the neutral disambituation idea. I suspect that some may come around in the long run, but only after months of edit warring (and/or article protection) when it will become apparent that they will never regain absolute control over the article. It seems to me that so long as the ansoc faction sees the possibility of "winning", either via binding arbitration or edit warring, they will not come to the table willing to negotiate. [[User:Hogeye|Hogeye]] 1 July 2005 17:44 (UTC)
:::Kev, have we been sufficiently clear about what we're proposing? Your description makes me feel that we haven't. We're talking about a bare-bones page that points to sectarian pages. That would mean that this current page would no longer be required to have '''''any''''' pro-Capitalist content at all, not even links. It could be made 100% pro-social, with all negotiation limited to like-minded people. All NPOV-ness would be encoded in the tree structure of the pages, not in the content of any page. This page, under our proposed solution, could become the 'Anarchism' page rather than the 'anarchism' page. The 'anarchism' page would be the neutral, bare-bones page that would point to all the second-tier pages.
:::How do you feel about that? [[User:Katzenjammer|Katzenjammer]] 1 July 2005 19:32 (UTC)
::::Now ''I'm'' not clear. I think Wikipedia ignores capitalization of the first letter. Are you sure it's possible to have both an '''anarchism''' and an '''Anarchism''' article? I was thinking we'd have to have something like '''anarchism (anti-state)''' and '''anarchism (anti-state + anti-capitalist)'''. [[User:Hogeye|Hogeye]] 1 July 2005 20:12 (UTC)
:::::You might well be right, I've been too busy to do any experimentation to see how it works. In fact, now I come to think about it, you almost certainly are right. It might even ''force'' capitalisation of the page title, for all I know. But I've been assuming all along that, even if the linkage can't be flagged to be case-sensitive, we can achieve the goal in an honest way editorially. [[User:Katzenjammer|Katzenjammer]] 1 July 2005 20:29 (UTC)
: Alba, if all relevant arguments have been made then mediation is useless. In any case, as you see there is still a lot of discussion of the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anarchism&oldid=14880685 Neutral Disambiguation Page], and about enlarging the discussion to include a deal concerning the [[libertarianism]] article.
: I just don't understand your insistence that mediation would help. Is there some brilliant mediator you have in mind that would come up with a magic bullet to change your mind about the definition of anarchism? Who would you like to be mediator? As for arbitration: I prefer continued attempts to convince people than giving the decision to some unknown arbiter. Furthermore, I question what mediation or arbitration means in Wikiworld, since every new editor overrides all previous decisions. [[User:Hogeye|Hogeye]] 1 July 2005 16:14 (UTC)
::Hey Hogeye, the libertarian party called, they're missing one of their members.
:::Reason #37 why LPers don't like me: [http://ns52.super-hosts.com/~vaz1net/bill/music/lyrics/HogeyeBill/TweedledeeTweedledum.html Tweedledee or Tweedledum]. [[User:Hogeye|Hogeye]] 1 July 2005 22:51 (UTC)
::Not to mention, the people who get bored of debating (like me) and wait for you guys to come to a consensus then come back and start editing. This whole procedure of coming to a consensus is a sham. I'm convinced this protracted lockdown is POV based to keep the article from being changed. I suggest that anyone who wants the article to be unlocked, stop debating. Official Wikipedia policy says pages shoulnd't be locked for very long. It's going on a month now. . This lockdown is in violation of policy. We're just playing into the rogue adminstrator's hands by dragging out these debates so he can keep the article locked. [[User:RJII|RJII]] 1 July 2005 22:31 (UTC)
:::I wonder what the record is for lockdown time? [[User:Hogeye|Hogeye]] 1 July 2005 22:51 (UTC)
| 