Talk:Anarchism/Archive 19

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

→

For general information: announcing policy proposal

This is just to inform people that I want Wikipedia to accept a general policy that BC and AD represent a Christian Point of View and should be used only when they are appropriate, that is, in the context of expressing or providing an account of a Christian point of view. In other contexts, I argue that they violate our NPOV policy and we should use BCE and CE instead. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate for the detailed proposal. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:55, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Ideas

I glanced through the page, and it looks pretty comprehensive, but a few things could make it better:

The template is huge. Perhaps instead of listing everything (e.g. every school of anarchism) in the template, we could put in links to the categories of articles (like schools of anarchism) and so on. See the new Libertarianism template, for example.
The article itself is too long. Surely some of this could be removed or moved to other articles?
More criticism should be available to the reader, though perhaps not in this article. Maybe Criticism of Anarchism or something.

Good luck, Dave (talk) 16:19, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with all those points. --albamuth 04:38, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

And I don't. Here's my retaliations;

Then you instead suggest they should trough even more sub-articles to find their wanted school, thus makin' it more complicated than needed, instead to find it all on one, clean and simple template? There were never anything wrong with "long templates", and should stay so! Filling every need.
BARF! Outrageous suggestion. So we should rather, "deinformatize" the topic instead, you suggest? "Shred off the excess details"? Nonsense. And it would not find context to be put anywhere, what-other article? A "sub-article"? Utterly needless moving and "decantralization", and also, doesn't change the size of thing to "chop it down in pieces", it still takes as much bandwith..or even more...just makes it more harder to find, when putting in another category.....and as for REMOVED, that's out of question! An article should be as long as it haves to, no information subtracted or hidden! Wikipedia is here for to ABSORB KNOWLEDGE, and we must feed it by giving alot of information. This cannot devolve backwards into some kind of "rough guide" or "basic information" stuff. There's summaries on top fer that.
Surely, yeah, we could MAYBE link to people who have made criticism's of Anarchism, But not make an own article for it! That's too little on for. It just basically revolves around "it would create chaos!"-arguments, or variants of that. It could be made, however, but a short section mentioning the most important ones (....) of Anarchism.

From, one who is very close to Anarchism politically (Council Communist/Luxembourgist): --OleMurder 15:42, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Retaliation" is the right word. Perhaps you could try being a little less aggressive? Anyway, my own perspective:

I think the template could do with a little editing to make it shorter, but really, any discussion on this point should go to Template talk:Anarchism
The article is too long - there are suggested limits on article size for a reason. But there are already separate articles about most of the different schools of anarchism (just look at the template!), so really all that needs to be done here is just to summarize each of the schools and provide a link to the main article. We shouldn't remove the sections on the different schools or types, just make them more concise.
A separate article for criticism of anarchy wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. After all, anarchy is a highly controversial viewpoint. We have separate articles for Common criticisms of Microsoft, after all, and Microsoft is just a company, not a political viewpoint. And there are specific criticisms that can be brought forth against anarchy - for example, that people wouldn't be productive in an anarchic society because there's no reason for competition. Of course, there are also counter-arguments, and so on, but it's not Wikipedia's job to evaluate whether a certain standpoint is reasonable or not - Wikipedia is just here to describe them. And that's what I think it should do.

Daekharel 14:38, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

VFD- Anarchism vs. anarcho-capitalism

I have put this POV/original research ditty up for deletion. Find the VFD system confusing? Anyone lend a hand? check it out! - max rspct 16:42, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Anarchism as a result of neuroscience research

Is it posssible to add a more science (neuroscience) approach to anarchism: As the neuroscience found evidence that there is no free mind, it would be unfair to judge anyone who had no controll over his actions. In german see: http://www.heise.de/tp/r4/artikel/19/19774/1.html

Eh? What has this got to do with anarchism? It sounds more related to philosophical debates about free will versus determinism, or something like that. Could you explain more clearly what you are talking about for those of us who don't read German? — Chameleon 13:41, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Its a article about self organisation which is direcly related to anarchosyndicalism. It states that because of the fact that some areas in the brain organize itself with each other this behaviour can and does also occour at human interaction level and would be a proper system in certain areas. — Helohe 16:03, 25 May 2005 (GMT + 1)

Babelfish attempt at translation: [1]

From what it sounds like the linkage from self-organizing systems to anarchism is something that is not written about extensively and from what I can make of the article is hardly authoritative on the subject. It cites the work of Ralf Burnicki, but all my Google results of that person comes up in German. Certainly the german editors of anarchism should be interested in this material but unless you can find anarchist scholars that link anarchism to neuroscience, I don't think this material is appropriate for the article, no matter how interesting it is to us. --albamuth 04:16, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

PS: i love it when babelfish comes up with translations like this: Self organization goes thus - naturally it goes. And not only in the fat pan, but also in high-grade arbeitsteiligen systems. We must only try it.

Another Question

Wouldnt it be good to have a section about comunities practising anarchism at present and in history. examples are Auroville, Kristiania, Zaffaraya. Or in history the people arround Durruti Ascaso etc...

Anarchist objections to "authoritarian" hierarchy vs "social" hierarchy

I have reverted some of the wording of this article, believing that some of it should return to that used prior to a few edits of the last few weeks. Specifically the substitution of hostility to social hierarchy rather than to authoritarian hierarchy, and the change from "On its own anarchism does not provide a world view beyond the idea that imposed authority is undesirable and unnecessary." to "...beyond the idea that social hierarchy (of all sorts) is undesirable and unnecessary."

I spent some hours in thought before I changed these back to the previous wording, and am now presenting some of the reasons that I did so.

Breaking with the notion that there are individuals or groups that can be relied upon as if they were divinely established as entirely superior or inferior to others is an important step of great wisdom. Proceeding from that to the notion that there cannot be or must not be any form of value based hierarchy at all is a step into absurdity.

In any group, some form of formal or informal social hierarchies innately must exist, even if they are of trust and distrust based merely upon personal experiences. Authoritarian hierarchies, where the valuations of one or many are imposed on others without their consent are objectionable to the concepts of justice and are not innately mandated by reason or passion, though they have often been so by custom and habit.

Apart from absolute recluses, and not even excluding solipsists, one can, and indeed MUST have some form of social hierarchies... hierarchies of valuation and association that come into play in interactions with other individuals.

In ideal states of awareness and interaction hierarchies that exist will be acknowledged and honored based upon mutual recognition and consent, but there are many hierarchies that are real and necessary, whether one is able or inclined to acknowledge them or not. In all forms of human endeavor we must expect that there always are, and always will be hierarchies of the honest and the dishonest, the aware and the unaware, the active and the passive, the strong and the weak, the fortunate and the unfortunate. In all human activities there always are and always must be hierarchies of the involved and the uninvolved, the caring and the uncaring, of truth and falsehood, certainty and uncertainty, clarity and obscurity, security and danger, wisdom and confusion.

To speak of life or existence without any form of hierarchy at all is often a reaction to some of the more foul, unjust, brutal and artificial hierarchies that have existed, yet it is ultimately a form of sheer nonsense, often proclaimed by those who have given the matter but a very shallow and casual examination.

I can heartily agree that any form of Anarchy philosophically adheres to the idea that in any human society, imposed authority is undesirable and detrimental, but apart from those who dwell in states of profound ignorance and extreme confusion, I don't believe that there are any who would or could absolutely reject all notion of hierarchy, social or otherwise.

Though the analysis of benefits and detriments can often be very complex and variable, even within the minds of individuals, there are very few people with any depth of insight who would even pretend to embrace the absurd positions that there are no valid, important, and indeed vital hierarchies of good and bad, even if notions of each must vary considerably from person to person, culture to culture, and age to age, and the prospect of establishing any clear definitions or absolute standards appear forever remote or impossible. Most people, however hostile they might be to some specific forms of hierarchy can recognize that there are hierarchies of superiority to societies that embrace paths of liberty, justice, honor and reason, above those that embrace tyranny, indifference, treachery and treason to all forms of human dignity. ~ Achilles † 12:46, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

No offence but this is byfar one the most outlandish things I've seen on here. How in the hell can you claim the word hierarchy does not means classes, or authority or any other words you want to use. Anarchy is NON-HIERARCHAL in every facet! Exerting your authority over another invidual or group of individuals is social hierarchy. Social hierarchy includes racism, sexism, ageism, homophobia, etc. --Fatal 22:24, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

There is an implicit claim to authority in a few of your declarations, and your suggestion that I "read a book". I have read many books; I would suggest you use your reason a bit more thoroughly. Hierarchy is a term often used in defining matters of valuation that do not include the manifestations of artificial or imposed authority. There are truths, there are falsehoods, there is wisdom and foolishness, clarity and error, and there are usually a great deal of gradations between many extremes which impel hierarchal perspectives upon things. People can have equal right to express themselves, argue their views, change or develop their opinions, without falling into the absurd contention that an absolute rejection of tyranny impels an absolute rejection of social hierarchies of valuation, based on various forms of practical competence in social endeavors, or an absolute presumption that what some particular people find to be "outlandish" is what everyone should find so. Tyrannical social hierarchies have definitely existed which have focused on many or all the abhorrent criteria that you cite— they have also, at least occasionally, existed in non-tyrannical forms, involving relations of mutual understanding and consent, that focus on such criteria as being honest, lucid, considerate and able to look at things from more than one range of perspectives, or one narrow set of definitions, interests, or objectives.

The article had existed for some time with the previous wording, and I find the newer adjustments to be far too absurd to merit permanence. ~ Achilles † 06:40, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

This link provides some common definitions and concepts of hierarchy, most of which do not innately imply any abhorrent impositions, though certainly many cases of such can be cited. Although many people often have blithely and casually denounced the hierarchies of others, for valid or invalid reasons, from the perspectives of their own hierarchies of value, and such narrow and constrained definitions that they hold to be authoritatively absolute and unquestionable, to my knowledge there has not been any instance where attempts at a complete rejection of hierarchy have been able to maintain any form of stability or permanence, beyond the limited life-spans of some adamantly obstinate individuals who might vociferously deny that they have anything to do with hierarchies, while they never for one moment can completely abandon them, in any real sense. Saying, or even believing, that one is opposed to all hierarchy does not make it so. Saying one is opposed to all artificial and imposed hierarchies is something that can be rationally, and practically maintained, by both individuals and by societies that have endured, prospered, and inspired many, though often to such extent that they attract the envy and resentments of others who become intent on damaging or destroying them.

I support Liberty, Truth, Honesty, Compassion and Fairness as ideals worthy of attention and promotion, and assert that one cannot support them very ably if one has but a very narrow sense of what people can mean when they use the terms, or would insist that only one's own particular manner of defining things is useful or accurate. In a very narrow way, ignoring all other possible definitions and perceptions, some of what you say can make perfect sense, but in very many other ways that many people can be inclined to interpret it, much of it is patent nonsense. I strongly support liberty of thought and action, but I have cringed when people take such absurdly absolutists stands as many do, against the notions and absolutes of others, and do so while they insist that they reject all authority or hierarchy.

"Question Authority", certainly. ALWAYS. But question one's own assumptions as well as those of others, and do not think that in questioning or rejecting the authority and hierarchies of others, that you are ably questioning or rejecting all possible authority, and all possible hierarchy, especially when you are prone to speak of your own judgment and definitions of things as if they were solely and absolutely authoritative. ~ Achilles † 10:46, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you Achilles. To an anarchist, a "hierarchy" shouldn't matter unless coercion is involved. Some people are physically stronger than others.That's hierarchical, but so what? As long as the stronger aren't imposing themselves on the weaker it's still anarchism. (At least it's still anarchism if anarchism is to be a cogent and rational philosophy. Maybe it's not.) RJII 12:32, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Being physically stronger then someone is not social hierarchy. You said it "As long as the stronger aren't imposing themselves on the weaker it's still anarchism." --harrismw 01:04, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Question: What does "imposed authority" actually mean? Sure you have a point with some of what you say about the term "social hierarchy". Its meaning does not include (imo) rejecting some modes of thought; it involves rather the interactions between people. Anarchists reject (imo) being forced to do anything, including by the majority.

The term imposed authority seems to me to be a capitalist one. That is you have a choice of working for one person for a pittance or another for the same amount, there is no imposed authority you choice which one you want. However, surely anarchists would reject this state of affairs all together?

Yes there are problems with "social hierarchy", but I feel there are more problems with "imposed authority".--harrismw 01:04, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

What does this mean: "forms of imposed or involuntary authority including social hierarchy." ?? The whole statement seems incoherent to me. Would different levels of wealth be considered social hierarchy? And would that constitute involuntary authority? If so, how does someone having more stuff than me constitute involuntary authority over me unless he engages in coercion against me? What if he minds his own business ...is that still involuntary authority? This hierarchy thing just seems absurd. Can someone explain? RJII 17:59, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

a few clarifications

I seek to keep anarchy something that remains recognizable as the very "broad tent" range of ideas it long has been, rather than attempt to shoehorn it into a few particularly narrow channels of ideology.

To defend my position that Anarchy is NOT innately hostile to all hierarchy and all authority, I will cite the expressions of someone that even few of those who most casually call themselves anarchists could accuse of not being a genuine spokesman for Anarchism, one of the founding theorists of modern anarchism (whose birthday it happens to be), Mikhail Bakunin, from his excellent work, God and the State (1876):

Does it follow that I reject all authority? Far from me such a thought. In the matter of boots, I refer to the authority of the bootmaker; concerning houses, canals, or railroads, I consult that of the architect or engineer. For such or such special knowledge I apply to such or such a savant. But I allow neither the bootmaker nor the architect nor the savant to impose his authority upon me. I listen to them freely and with all the respect merited by their intelligence, their character, their knowledge, reserving always my incontestable right of criticism and censure. I do not content myself with consulting authority in any special branch; I consult several; I compare their opinions, and choose that which seems to me the soundest. But I recognize no infallible authority, even in special questions; consequently, whatever respect I may have for the honesty and the sincerity of such or such an individual, I have no absolute faith in any person. Such a faith would be fatal to my reason, to my liberty, and even to the success of my undertakings; it would immediately transform me into a stupid slave, an instrument of the will and interests of others.

AND

I bow before the authority of special men because it is imposed upon me by my own reason. I am conscious of my inability to grasp, in all its details and positive developments, any very large portion of human knowledge. The greatest intelligence would not be equal to a comprehension of the whole. Thence results, for science as well as for industry, the necessity of the division and association of labor. I receive and I give— such is human life. Each directs and is directed in his turn. Therefore there is no fixed and constant authority, but a continual exchange of mutual, temporary, and, above all, voluntary authority and subordination.

This is perfectly anti-authoritarian recognition of the reality and necessity of BOTH authority and hierarchy, that rejects all artificially imposed hierarchy or authority.

How are these views that I share with Bakunin himself to be deemed "beyond the pale" of Anarchy. Persistence in what certain individuals would like to claim to be the absolutely "non-hierarchal" nature of "Anarchy" is itself an absurdly authoritarian-like attempt at the imposition of an absurd notion, which to my perspective is itself not only an abuse of the term anarchy, but of rational integrity itself.

If I am often a bit "wordy", when I do express ideas, I would state that it is mostly because I spend much more time reading, observing, and actually thinking than I do in pronouncing my views, or vacuously regurgitating the expressions of others. When I do attempt to express ideas I am well aware that there are often many perspectives of many people to take into account, and when there is any conflict between the two, meticulous honesty is a better ideal to aim for than impressive or apparently witty boldness. I am acutely aware that I might come into conflict with the short attention spans, bigotry, and limited intellectual capacities and integrity of many people, and yet I feel that I should not be too casual in expressing statements upon such things as most people are inclined to be far too casual in thinking upon or interpreting. I don't presume that I always get things right, or express things in the most ideal way, but I usually make an effort to express what appears right to me as precisely and thoroughly as I can, within such circumstances as exist.

A common set of attitudes and practices with many people is to presume that they are entirely right, others entirely wrong, and all discussion of the matter is but a troublesome nuisance to the promotion of such views as they feel should be accepted without question or objection. It is especially and irritating when such behavior and attitudes are evident in those who would claim to be speaking for policies like Anarchy, or ideals like Liberty and Justice.

Revising things for coherence and consistency, I had edited the first two sentences to read:

This article describes a political philosophy that opposes coercive practices of the state, capitalism, and all forms of authoritarian hierarchy. For other uses, see anarchism (disambiguation).

Anarchism is a term which encompasses a variety of political philosophies, social movements, and political ideologies that advocate the rejection of all forms of imposed authority or involuntary social hierarchy maintained by coercive power.

This was edited with the comment "rv unecessary, convoluted POV changes..." to:

This article describes a political philosophy that opposes the state, capitalism, and all forms of social hierarchy. For other uses, see anarchism (disambiguation).

Anarchism is a term which encompasses a variety of political philosophies, social movements, and political ideologies that advocate the abolition of all forms of imposed or involuntary authority including social hierarchy and coercive power.

The wording I had employed might not have been perfect, but at least it was an attempt at greater rational coherence. My edit had been an attempt to correct this, though it also remained in many ways imperfect, and it would difficult to be more convoluted than to refer to "abolition" of all forms of imposed or "involuntary authority", including social hierararchy and coercive power. "Abolition" usually implies the employment of coercive power, rejection does not, and "involuntary authority" is not a very clear way to refer to authority that is imposed on someone in an involuntary manner, as the words can easily seem to indicate an authority held in some involuntary way, rather than one imposed on involuntary subjects.

Perhaps better than either of these would be a statement such as this:

This article describes a range of political philosophies that oppose the coercive practices of statism, capitalism, and all forms of authoritarian hierarchy. For other uses, see anarchism (disambiguation).

Anarchism is a term which encompasses a variety of political philosophies, social movements, and political ideologies that reject all forms of artificial authority or social hierarchy maintained by coercive power.

I have definite points of view on many subjects, and there are many definite points of view that I can accept as valid and beneficial, but no point of view that I would seek to impose upon anyone as absolute or unquestionable, as a few self-appointed spokesmen have attempted to do. Though I express definite opinions, my behavior in presenting my assessments is the exact opposite of those who are so ideologically constrained and narrow in their perspectives and presumptions that they cannot conceive that there are or can be any valid or proper points of view other than those that they have come to prefer. It is especially absurd when individuals proclaim they are acting against "all" hierarchy an authority, as they attempt to establish their own de facto hierarchies and authority, whether by the rule of obstinate majorities or obstinate minorities. Anarchy and all forms of social theory are innately contentious subjects, and probably always will be, but I assert that the concepts of Anarchy have a far broader scope to them than some people have been implying in recent edits.

Labels and words are often necessary tools of the mind, but they are rarely, if ever, sufficient indicators of truth, and can always be very dangerous toys to play with, especially by those who would employ them with malice or resentment, and I am truly appalled by the PLETHORA of labels that are being bandied about and accumulating on this page, and in society in general.

Touching upon what seems to have been a previous debate here, I would agree that capitalism does in most regards involve systems and attitudes which are usually innately coercive, and in opposition to anarchism. Even so, a person might in many ways be anti-capitalist, as well as anti-authoritarian, and yet not seek to totally condemn or exclude people who would call themselves "capitalists", or anything else, though their aims and assumptions might be alien to many of their own. Even if some people are very hypocritically presumptive authoritarians who would like to call themselves "communists", "socialists", "anarchists", or "capitalists" I would not presume them to be totally right or totally wrong in all their views. I would assert that they would not be very capable or reliable allies in any quest for the rejection and abandonment of capitalist policies or the authoritarian domination of governmental systems. ~ Achilles † 04:15, 30 May 2005 (UTC) + minor revisions ending at 07:23, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

There are a few assumptions here that are not correct. When Bakunin speaks of the "authority" of the bootmaker, he is not (and nor is anyone else in the same context), using the word "authority" in the same way, in a hierarchal sense. Tons of words have multiple meanings and authority is one of them. A politician is used with the word "authority" to mean someone higher on social hierarchy, and person dominating those 'below' him. However, when one says that one is, for example, "a great authority in art" they mean that they are very knowledgable of art. One who is knowledgeble in art in this way is not exerting authority over others, one who is to be asked permission to make art or anything in a hierarchal sense, it's simply a different use of the term. When anarchists say they want to abolish all authority, all hierarchy, it is very clear to me and to really anyone else, including one who knows nothing of anarchism other than that definition, that anarchists are speaking of authority in that sense, a hierarchal, dominating, sense. To eliminate all domination. Quivelling over these uses of words is pretty trivial. Words don't matter, it's what the person says and means by them that is important. If one were to create a term like "yakkanomium" whose meaning was freedom, I would shout yakkanomium from the rooftops! Just in case you intend on bringing it up, when people quivel over little details of "what if a child is running into the street about to get hit by a car? Is it authoritarian to stop them?" some anarchists will come up with the terms irrational and rational authority. However I don't like these terms given they're confusing, however the concept is pretty straightforward, that if you're doing something like saving someone from running into a car, then that's rational, however I think it pretty irrational to call that authoritarian. More like concern for others. However these are the sorts or rediculous concepts people come up with when they want to explain the insanely intricate details of a philosophy or way of thinking, when it's the broad idea that is the most important. Arguing about these little things is much like what the idiot Marxists do, who anarchists so vehemently oppose, but if we're going to oppose the Marxists who do nothing but spend decades in a room debating to death what every little word meant that Marx and Engels said, then we can't act like them. And just to make it a little more clear, yes I am indeed using this to refer to your comments about "authoritarian" statements in my last post. This is much like the uneducated responses people give to anarchists when they have absolutely no idea what they are even arguing about, but constantly looking for some kind of weakness in another person so they can try and "catch" them when they're not looking, which is a self-defeating and pointless activity. --Fatal 17:04, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't think the distinction between being an "authority" by being knowledgeable and well-respected in a field, and the hierarchical sort of "authority" that is opposed by anarchists, is not as much of a clear, bright-line distinction as the anarchists would like it to be. In fact, in communities such as that of the arts, science, technical fields, "computer geeks", and so on, there are social hierarchies that began simply as the voluntary social relationships of respect for those who were more knowledgeable and skilled at the given field; over time, this naturally evolves into a social hierarchy where the more "popular" people (partially a meritocracy based on ability, but partly a social "popularity contest" based on social skills and the good and bad luck various newcomers had at making a first impression on the "insiders" with more social power) have lots of influence on the entire group, which they can sometimes wield in a manner that seems coercive to those who end up on their bad side. This is an inevitable part of human nature, manifested everywhere from middle-school cliques to the treatment of people with unconventional ideas by the scientific community. It's also found in the behavior of chimpanzees, so it's apparently embedded in our DNA. It's not something that anarchists are going to make go away in their utopian society, no matter how much wishful thinking they put into it. *Dan* 17:55, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

Also, every time I see people of a socialistic bent advocate a society totally free of hierarchy, where "all (men/women/persons) are created equal" with absolutely no difference in status and power, I'm reminded of Harrison Bergeron, the Kurt Vonnegut story where equality is forced on all by the imposition of handicaps that drag down the intelligence, strength, and beauty of everybody to a lowest common denominator so that nobody stands out, and gains greater power in a social hierarchy, by being better than anybody else in any way. Enforcing this takes a massive degree of government power, so obviously it's not possible in an anarchist society, but it would seem to be the only possible way of even attempting such a "non-hierarchical" society. *Dan* 18:04, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

I think there is a significant confusion between equality and sameness. Former is a refference to not being forced by another to do something and not forcing somebody else oneself. Latter is about having the same ammount of food. Here is the example: Person A likes sandwiches with the crust, while person B cannot eat crust at all... and they both want two sandwiches. By the law of sameness we will give each a sandwich with crust and a sandwich without... making both misirable. While equality would mean that they get what they actually want, although it is not the same thing. Now as for DNA forcing us to force others to do things, it is possible that it is true, however, having public orgies is the way that some chimps resolve their social problems... but how many times do you see this happening in our society today? (Well i know that i don't see it all that often.) Beta m (talk)

User:Achilles brings up a good point about the use of the word authority. While it is true that an "authority on bootmaking" would not imply a social hierarchy, the readiness of people to simply accept the word/advice/commands of an authoritative person without question is something that anarchist are quick to oppose -- you only have to look at the Freethinking tradition of such anarchists as Voltairine De Cleyre, or the conclusion of "pathological fascism" by Deleuze & Guattari in Anti-Oedipus. To be a truly ontological anarchist one must even question the authority of experts. And remember that for the article we must use words that describe anarchists well, rather than the words anarchists would prefer for themselves.--albamuth 05:21, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Added "government-sponsored" as a modifier to "capitalism" in second paragraph

Even the Wiki article on "capitalism" admits that the definition of capitalism is widely debated, and within anarchist circles the primary focus of anti-capitalist action is confined to economic systems subject to state control. The exchange of goods between two parties, theoretically a capitalist action, is not largely condemned by anarchists; the phrase "opposition to capitalism (is an) unvarying principle of anarchism" is an oversimplification.

Anarchists have historically also been in opposition to other state-sponsored economic systems, including Stalinist socialism. It may be more accurate to say "opposition to state-sponsored economic systems" to acknowledge this, but I chose not to make such a large change without feedback.

I agree with you. "Opposition to capitalism" doesn't mean much when different schools of thought have different definitions. There is no telling what peculiar definition of capitalism any given radical may have. It would be better to spell out exactly what elements or practices are opposed. "Opposition to capitalism" in an Anarchist article tells me nothing. RJII 00:23, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Though, I think those of a socialistic mindset have an emotional need to be firmly "anti-capitalist", whether or not they can actually come up with a coherent, consistent definition of just what it is they are opposing. *Dan* 01:39, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

I am the person who made the edit in question, and since it's been reverted by User:Fatal (who chose not to contribute to this discussion) I thought I would explore my reasoning a bit more.

I find the phrase "opposition to capitalism (is an) unvarying principle of anarchism" to be problematic for a myriad of reasons. The primary reason is that capitalism is not a concrete system existing in space-time - it is a concept, no more capable of existing than the infamous Platonic chair, perhaps even less because the "vital essence" of capitalism is itself debated. As such, if we are to talk about capitalism and the anarchist critique of its effects on real people existing in space-time, we must place it within the context of a real system which also occurs in space-time - the reason why I added "government-sponsored" as a modifier to "capitalism."

Another problematic factor is that the phrase excludes any critique of other models. Nearly every economic system existing in modern history has been opposed in some way by anarchists, including systems based on socialist, communist, and capitalist philosophies.

To rigidly state that anarchism is inherently opposed to one exclusive philosophy implies an extremely authoritarian and logically unsound assumption and ignores a significant mass of anarchist action throughout history. Amaz0n

If this comment from its Talk page is any indication, you are not going to receive a reply of any coherence: "I'm interested in deleting anything related to capitalism! --Fatal 21:54, 20 May 2005 (UTC)" MichaelWarron 09:06, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And we now have someone quoting out of context...Can't tell the difference between a joke, and serious comment? millerc 15:36, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In anarchist texts, it has been written many times in many ways that anarchists oppose the capitalist philosophy. Whether it is making profit off the labor of others (the socialist critique), collecting interest off of loans, or gathering rent from private property, regardless of State involvement. To say otherwise implies that anarchists accept capitalism in the American-Libertarian-Party form, which they do not. --albamuth 05:11, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I thought anarchists did not make the Appeal to Authority logical fallacy. http://www.fallacyfiles.org/authorit.html MichaelWarron 09:00, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And we thought you were smart enough to know that this article is about what anarchists believe, so it depends on what anarchists say. Who cares if you don't agree with anarchism, take your ideological battles elsewhere, wikipedia is not a soapbox. millerc 15:32, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What is the point you wish to make? --albamuth 14:17, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, anarchists oppose capitalism period. "Anarcho-capitalists" oppose only state-sponsored capitalism. I'm not sure if this has been resolved but it's really not a debatable issue; people arguing about what anarchists believe should read at least one anarchist text, methinks. --Tothebarricades.tk 16:46, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

Your social hierarchies are better than that of the anarcho-capitalists' social hierarchies? MichaelWarron 19:55, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC

What social hierarchies? --Tothebarricades.tk 21:45, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)--Tothebarricades.tk 21:45, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

What's up with all the new users?

What's up with all the new user names; who all seem to be trying to make this page "coherent" (that is, coherent with their own ideology)? millerc 15:36, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And to all the new users don't vandalize other user's pages.[2] millerc 15:43, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's the third time User:MichealWarron has vandalized a talk page (see this talk page's history). MichaelWarron 19:55, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Category:Anarchism stubs

I have created Template:Anarchism-stub. Use {{anarchism-stub}}. Hopefully I've done this correctly. --Tothebarricades.tk 01:12, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

Classic Books

I put the anarcho-capitalist classics back in. Please, Tothebarricades.tk, don't delete books simply because authors don't agree with your sect.

The article isn't about anarcho-capitalism. Besides, an obscure branch of right-libertarianism founded rather recently cannot yet have "classics" on par with things like God and the State and certainly shouldn't be bunched in like that without comment. It's misleading. An observer would be lead to believe that Rothbard is the leading anarchist thinker, when in fact he's not even an anarchist and like eleven people have heard of him. --Tothebarricades.tk 02:19, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

On the new edit - this may be acceptable, but trim it down. Surely all of those works are not "classics." --Tothebarricades.tk 02:30, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

Rothbard is "Mr. Libertarian," the father of anarcho-capitalism. (Well, there's Molerini...) All the readers of LewRockwell.com and Mieses.org number well over 11. Fact: Rothbard is a leading anarchist thinker. That's an objective NPOV evaluation. So I'm going to add in those anarco-capitalist classics, and add one more classic: Leopold Kohrs' "The Breakdown of Nations." The NPOV policy requires that both anarcho-socialism and anarcho-capitalism be presented in an unbiased manner. This means that you should not delete ancap books. --Hogeye 17:13, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Whoever made two sections - ancap and ansoc - for books: Good idea! You probably prevented an edit war. --Hogeye 17:42, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Naming the section "anarcho-socialism" is incorrect. Not all anarchists can be called "anarcho-socialists." Creating a binary opposition between socialist and capitalist anarchism is just anarcho-capitalist bullshit (like a lot of this article). And to whoever keeps trying to list Murray Rothbard's complete works, please stop it. --Tothebarricades.tk 22:27, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality Dispute

There's a "Neutrality Disputed" notice at the top of the page, saying to check out the discussion on the talk page. Where exactly is that discussion? Should I delete the notice? The current version looks about as even-handed as it's ever going to get. --Hogeye 19:56, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Better yet could somebody make a list of the NPOV disputes within this article so we can systematically eliminate them? --EatAlbertaBeef 21:54, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Let's give it a few days, and if no one has a dispute we'll erase the notice. --Hogeye 23:43, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What is meant by the italics?

I thought the disclaimer was originally added to get anarcho-capitalist crap out of this article? If the AC stuff is still here, what's it for? --Tothebarricades.tk 22:30, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

It looks to me like it's intended to be a link to non-political meanings of anarchism. Tothebarricades, would you please write any POV concerns you have in the preceeding topic. (It sounds like you might have some.) --Hogeye 23:50, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tothebarricades.tk is right, the disclaimer is meant to show that this article focuses on a meaning of anarchism that editors have been debating over for a long time. Check the archives: a survey taken clearly shows that the article should focus on the anti-capitalist, anti-state anarchism. --albamuth 01:02, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Since when did we decide that "balanced" meant changing the meaning of anarchism?

We've debated the inclusion of anarcho-capitalism so many times it's making me sick. I'm not opposed to including A-C in the "Schools" section, because that makes sense. However, to simply redefine anarchism as being only essentially anti-statist is absolutely ludicrous. Should I de-archive the last big debate, or do people know how to click that link? Obviously, the unwillingness to let this issue lie as the majority of people see fit (that is, to have the article be about the commonly inderstood meaning of anarchism as anticapitalist AND antistatist) is simply belligerance from the same biased editors trumpeting their cause, in the guise of making the article "fair and balanced." Read Talk:Anarchism/Archive16 and look at that whole survey process we went through; Observe that a large majority agreed that anarchism is about an anti-statist, anti-capitalist political philosophy. People were split on whether or not to mention A-C 'at all in the article, so we do include it, but not as part of the article's own definition of anarchist beliefs. That is the reason for the disambiguation in the first place. --albamuth 01:27, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. I was wondering if I had went crazy since I remembered a consensus being reached about three months ago. Methinks people who violate said consensus should be dealt with as trolls. --Tothebarricades.tk 02:37, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

This has gone on in cycles several times over the past year, each time this article seems to just get worse. I've also seen quite a few editors come and go in that time. Each time new editors join the war both "sides" become less willing to compromise. Now we've even gotten to the point where some are erasing the NPOV tag, even when its obvious to anyone with any bit of rationality left that the current article is in dispute. I would suggest that you don't make any substantial edits until these sock-puppets and new eduit warriors are finnished having their fun, at which time we can just revert back to the previously stable edit. millerc 02:51, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No worry. It's just that there IS no consensus. And, appropriately, the article should be in a constant state of flux. That's how Wikipedia works. There's not going to be any resolution. Once one side gets it how they want it, it will all be trashed, and the other side get it how they want it, the process continuing ad infinitum. No problem. RJII 04:45, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

When will these anti-capitalist types learn the definition of "anarchism"? An-archy = without ruler. Period. Any philosophy consistent with that is anarchism. So I'll reinsert the books, etc. --Hogeye 18:29, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, that argument has also been presented in the past, please read the archives. And it's about as obvious a logical fallacy as arguing that fascism is an ideology based on bundles of sticks or that conservatism and conservationism are equivalent. This is not a dictionary of word origins, it's an encyclopedia, and 99.99% of anarchism is inherently anti-capitalist, except for a peripherally relevant trend with almost no influence or historical significance. Directing the very small percentage of readers who would come to this page looking for information of anarcho-capitalism to the proper article rather than deliberately misleading the large number of people who have never heard of it is a very reasonable course of action. --Tothebarricades.tk 19:01, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

A good definition must give the common characteristic and how it differs from other ideas. TTB, you seem to want to define something by what it has been traditionally. If I define a "dildo" as "what has traditionally been considered a dildo," that is a piss-poor definition. That's what you are trying to do with "anarchism." Face it - the essense of anarchism is anti-statism. --Hogeye 19:32, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalism has been around since at least the 50's so it does have a "tradition." Before that were the individualist anarchists who opposed the socialist or left anarchists and supported private property. Anarchism covers a wide spectrum, so this article should as well. RJII 01:22, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Graphics

I've removed that horrendous chart from the article, as it added nothing to the article and didn't make much sense anyhow. I'm going to hunt down pictures because there just has to be some good graphics out there to liven up this gigantic hunk of text. --albamuth 01:36, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've replaced the political ideology map graphic, which shows at a glance the differences between different schools of anarchism and the differences between archist schools. --Hogeye 01:59, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The image itself is highly POV. Does anyone else find it absurd that the (US) Democrats are on the "socialist" side of the chart? millerc 02:33, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not really. It makes perfect sense to me they be closely related to socialism. Their goals are sometimes indistinguishable. They occasionally pay lip service to the market, but they seem to be all about egalitarianism.CosmicV 00:12, 10 Jun 2005

Exactly. Also it shows Hitler and Mussolini as capitalists. Huh? Nazism was short for National-Socialism, was it not? My point is that political tendencies cannot be reduced to simply two axes on a chart and I know of no cases of anarchists referring to charts to describe their politics. Not only that, but it oversimplifies the difference between the "schools" of anarchism (most of which do not even disagree with each other enough to qualify as disparate "schools"). The difference between Proudhon and Bakunin cannot be reduced to: "Proudhon is more capitalistic than Bakunin" - that just doesn't make any sense!! --albamuth 02:48, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

While I don't think that Nazism is a form of socialism, I would agree that they are too far to the capitalist side; I would put them closer to the center. But, again, even our disagreement here, shows how hard it is to plot these sorts of things on a simple chart. millerc 02:57, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Whats all this ideology map rubbish - oversimplification/wrong - They don't even teach this in high school or college - why have it here ... It doen't fill the huge knowledge gap regarding anarchism that our current "Anarcho-capitalists" trollers have. Good on Nat Kreuse for admitting he knew fuck all on the subject! -max rspct 13:21, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not only do I not know anyone by the name of Kreuse, but I'm not entirely sure which admission you are referring to. I do agree that I know rather little (more than most people, I suppose) about left-anarchist theory, "economics", etc., which is why I have never attempted to add material on those subjects. It's all yours. As for the meaning of word "anarchism", I think I have a pretty good grasp, which is not to say that I don't disagree with some others about it. For the record, I don't care much for the sort of graphic that is under discussion here. - Nat Kraus e 14:33, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree that this graphic was vastly oversimplified. Actually I once found a similar, but much more detailled and nuanced graph. I'll try to track it down again. However, if my memories are correct, that graph didn't mention anarchism, so it may be useless for this page anyway. Luis rib 13:50, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I found a version of it here on wikipedia (without examples, though). It's called Eysenenck model. See Political spectrum. That page also has other models to analyse the political spectrum. Luis rib 13:54, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Nov/Dec. 1991 Utne Reader (#48) has a political chart which appears to have four dimensions (though it's squashed into a two-dimensional paper graph anyway). *Dan* 17:31, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

To hell with these political spectrum charts. How about some pictures of protestors waving Black Flags, the Paris Commune, illustrations of the Haymarket riot, photos of Emma Goldman, eh? sheesh. If you want a chart that can map Situationists, Nazis, and Anarcho-Capitalists, it would have to be a six dimensional hypertoroid, full of black holes and self-contradictions. --albamuth 17:10, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't arguing about including such a graph here. I was just saying that in case you want one, there's more accurate and scientific ones than the one that was here. Luis rib 17:32, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

>Does anyone else find it absurd that the (US) Democrats are on the "socialist" side of the chart? Not I, since the Demo faction of the War Party tends to favor nationalisation (e.g. health insurance, state ownership of airwaves) while the Rep faction favors regulation.

>Also it shows Hitler and Mussolini as capitalists. Huh? Nazism was short for National-Socialism, was it not? Yes, but the means used - Mussolini's govt controlled corporate cartels and such - kept the capitalist form of de jure private property, as did Hitler (most of the time.) Please read the caption on the ideomap, as that may help understanding.

>I found a version of it here on wikipedia... Yes, the ideomap is basically a more detailed version of the chart used by the Political Compass Organisation, shown in Political spectrum.

>The difference between Proudhon and Bakunin cannot be reduced to: "Proudhon is more capitalistic than Bakunin"... Was Proudhon more tolerant of outward capitalist forms? Obviously. He didn't want a revolution, with violent destruction of capitalism. He wanted his mutuals to out-compete capitalist firms. You might say that Proudhon (and Tucker) considered capitalism a vice, but not a crime.

Now of course we can nit-pick about e.g. where the Demo faction should go, but the model given makes sense. So I'm putting it back in. --Hogeye 19:14, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually, your map is a more biased version of the Political Compass map. Democrats and Reps are authoritarian? yeah, sure.... Luis rib 19:16, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Do they tax? Yep. Do they regulate? Yep. Do they support the US occupation of Iraq (Afghanistan, Kosevo...)? Yep. Is your question a joke? It must be.

Are you doing original research? Yep. Check the Political Compass website to see where they really put international politicans like George W. Bush. Luis rib 19:29, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I just checked it out. They put George exactly where I do. (Note that their's is oriented upside down compared to mine, i.e. they have authoritarianism at the top instead of bottom.) --Hogeye 19:40, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

They don't call him authoritarian though, as you do (biasedly) in your graph.Also, he's only slightly higher as Mandela. Also, fascism is not at the extreme angle (which would mean total economic liberalism) but in the middle between communism and liberalism. Luis rib 19:45, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Are we looking at the same graph? http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/images/USelection2004.gif They clearly show Bush as Authoritarian-Right. --Hogeye 19:51, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Check this site: [3], you have to go to the analysis section. BTW I was wrong with Mandela. Pope Benedikt XIV is more like it. Luis rib 19:58, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Of course there is a consensus. If you don't accept it, that's your problem, not ours. Luis rib 19:47, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

LOL! Maybe you need to look up "consensus" in Wiki. The fact that I disagree proves there is no consensus. --Hogeye 19:54, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nope, it only proves that you are taking an extremist position. Of course extremists never conform to consensus. Consensus doesn't mean that everyone agrees to it, only that a large majority does. Luis rib 19:58, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not according to Wiki's def. (2-1 a large majority? Anyway, I'm an anarchist, not a majoritarian statist.) --Hogeye 20:10, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

66% is a large majority. Tough luck if you're an anarchist. Welcome to the real world. Luis rib 20:17, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Map back! Tough luck if you're a majoritarian. Welcome to the real world. --Hogeye 20:38, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So what? I won't even bother to delete it as someone else surely will. Luis rib 20:41, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I may also point out that you are in violation 3RR (three reverts rule). Luis rib 20:06, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Fine. I changed the explanation. Now it's no revert. Shall we dance three more times? --Hogeye 20:38, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nope. It's still a revert. You have to adhere to the spirit of the law, not only to the letter of it. Luis rib 20:41, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

LOL. I have to??? --Hogeye 20:53, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As I understand it, Luis, you contend that the "ideomap is biased and POV." Your only explanation that I see is that you don't believe that the Republican faction or the Democrat faction is authoritarian. Do I understand you correctly - that this is your big objection? --Hogeye 20:53, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually, no. I find it unproductive to put the authoritarian label next to the names of both parties, instead of putting it where totalitarianism is placed. Also, Fascism is placed totally incorrectly, as fascism or nazism were not liberal (economically), nor totally statist. Check Political Compass website again. Also, Friedman, according to the same website, is not anarcho-capitalist, but would be placed where you put libertarians. In all, it would be better to have the Political Compass map with a mention where anarchism would probably be placed. That's in case people here want a map. Luis rib 20:57, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

File:Ideomap2.gif

Political ideology diagram, showing anarcho-socialism at the upper left and anarcho-capitalism at the upper right. The up-down dimension represents the extent of government; the left-right dimension represents the outward appearance (legal fiction) of property ownership. Thus both socialism and capitalism have statist and anti-statist variants. The placement of persons and parties on this graph are only a rough guide. They are approximate and debatable.

Luis> "I find it unproductive to put the authoritarian label next to the names of both parties, instead of putting it where totalitarianism is placed."

"Authoritarian" and "libertarian" are relative terms. Totalitarianism and anarchism are absolute terms. IOW Totalitarianism is extreme authoritarianism, and anarchism is extreme libertarianism. Perhaps this relative authoritarianism of the Demos and Reps would be better illustrated if I moved the dots up a little, and put the party labels above the dots. Would this address your concern that the Dems&Reps are labeled authoritarian? (As opposed to my intention - that they are relatively authoritarian.)

Luis> "Also, Fascism is placed totally incorrectly, as fascism or nazism were not liberal (economically)..."

But, as the caption notes, "Capitalism" here does not mean economic liberalism - it means "the outward appearance (legal fiction) of property ownership." Did Hitler and Mussolini keep nominal private ownership forms, or did they nationalize industries in the name of the collective? Almost always (with the notable exception of Volkswagon) they opted for the former. Do you agree?

Luis> "... nor totally statist."

Here I get it. Good point. (Testing my understanding...) You are saying that fascism describes the whole lower right quadrant, that it's a relative term. Would it suit you if I relabeled the Hitler/Mussolini/lrcorner dot as "Totalitarian Fascism"? (And correspondingly the llcorner relabeled "Totalitarian Communism"?)

Luis> Also, Friedman, according to the same website, is not anarcho-capitalist...

Whoa! The compass site was talking about Milton Friedman. I'm talking about David Friedman (Milton's son) who is a full-fledged anarcho-capitalist. (Most famous book: "The Machinery of Freedom.") Hence the "D."

Luis> "In all, it would be better to have the Political Compass map with a mention where anarchism would probably be placed."

But the section is about schools of anarchism. The point is to differentiate between schools. The ideomap shows approx. where the different schools (or famous proponents of those schools) fall. You'd only need a one-dimensional libery-authority map to show where anarchism stands. (The y-projection of the ideomap.)

--Hogeye 21:36, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I get your points, but that doesn't tell me if this classification was made by any credible source (e.g. some political scientist) or by yourself (in which case it would be original research and contrary to wikipedia policy). I understand that you want to show where different anarchists would probably be placed, yet that should be done in a scientific way (like, for instance, the Political Compass, who studied the writings and speaches of the politicians they analyse). Luis rib 18:29, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Edit Warring

Hogeye, you have injected the article with your interest group propaganda, and continue to revert edits. Obviously you have not reviewed the talk pages, as we ask all new editors to do when trying to alter the article contents so completely. You are not bringing up anything new, you're simply being a nuisance. --albamuth 01:04, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In case you're too lazy to look through the archives, I dredged up the survey results:

What are the distinguishing characteristics of anarchist philosophies?

A movement against hierarchy, which requires opposition to capitalism, statism, racism, etc. (8 responses)
An extension of the word "anarchy" (1 response)
Opposition to any individual, group, or organization governing or ruling over any individual without any other implications. (1 response)
There are too many interpretations of anarchism for it to be defined by strict criteria. (1 response)

What purpose should this article serve?

It should give a very certain definition (mostly traditional) of anarchism and show examples in strict accordance to that definition. (4 responses)
It should do the above, but also include controversial claimants to which there is a good account of. (5 responses)
It should supply the reader with sufficient information on what anarchism is. (1 response)
It should comply with wikipedia policy. (1 response)

What criteria should be used for inclusion in this article?

Should only include notable flavors of anarchism that don't contradict "mainstream" anarchist values. (5 responses)
Should include mainstream, historical information but also include notable, semi-related movements. (5 responses)
Only criteria should be quality of source reference. (1 response)
The article needs disambiguation. (1 response)

All this looks pretty authoritarian to me. RJII 01:23, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Explain how, please. --albamuth 01:31, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, you made a little survey and now you're trying to use it to boss everybody else around. I guess that fits some definitions of "authoritarian". Some of us might wind up feeling socially dominated if this goes through! Anyway, this is a textbook example of a bad survey. No one who voted in this survey was a neutral party. All it shows is that the belligerants of one side outnumbered those of the other at that particular time. - Nat Kraus e 04:58, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia dispute resolution process suggests conducting a survey, which is what I did. Since I am not an admin, how is what I am doing any more "authoritarian" than editors who simply change the article 8 times a day without regard for ongoing discussions and past agreements? --albamuth 12:10, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It seems no less authoritarian to me than some of the relationships that anarchists describe as "authoritarian" or "coercive". But that's neither here nor there. Further response below. - Nat Kraus e 04:04, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I was a neutral party. I have very mixed feelings about anarchism, seeing it as a bit of a wild card / rhetorical trick. Sam Spade 06:56, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I didn't have you in mind. I agree that you are the neutralest party in this debate, but it appears that you didn't vote. - Nat Kraus e 08:41, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I was sure I did... does anybody have a link to where the vote was in the archive? I'll go look. Sam Spade 09:01, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I did vote, I'm the guy w the broken link for a signature :? Sam Spade 09:03, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it's authoritarian. Speaking for myself, I've tried hard to base my arguments on reason and not pointing to wikipedia policies but I'd have to say hogeye loses on both accounts in this case. It is authoritarian however to attempt to subvert the will of a community and its processes for discussion by enforcing your opinion through what is wikipedia's equivalent of force.

Nat, you seem to think that the only argument against hogeye et al. is that we don't like their ideas because we're fanatical anarchists. I don't think this is the case. The case for including AC analysis throughout this article simply doesn't hold up. What I and others have been arguing is already a compromise, I believe initially the idea was not even to mention the phrase "anarcho-capitalism" - that is of course not neutral, but recognizing its pariah status and treating it as such within this article is the only viable way to go. The article is not called, after all, "Anarchism vs. anarcho-capitalism" which it would have to become if we introduce the very different ideas of AC - the AC article should likewise not be peppered with quips from Bakunin. Including it in the "Schools" section and creating a very visible disambig-type header at the top is reasonable and I don't see how one could object on grounds other than ideology. --Tothebarricades.tk 17:32, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

I was arguing specifically against the use of the survey, not your attempts generally to conduct the dispute by reason (rather than by voting). I do not mean to say that you have no other basis for arguing against hogeye. Personally, I don't see the point, either, in discussing A-C and socialist anarchism together on the same page, interspersed with each other. They should be separate articles; the only question in my mind is where to put the article on the latter. The compromise you suggest seems acceptable to me. - Nat Kraus e 04:04, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well I agree with you Nat. The problem is, the A-C party wants to characterize the A-C faction as a major split with historical anarchism, which I feel is misleading because they are such a severe minority/interest group. The truth is that A-C's are not a splinter group from traditional anarchists, but a outside group that is trying to co-op the romantic allure of the "anarchist" radical label. At least, that is all their actions are aimed at achieving. Personally, I think that that real A-C's should be contributing and expanding the anarchist economics article, as it is more specifically involved in their ideological battle, particularly with a theoretical stateless economic system. The anarchism article is about history, and historically, the anarchist movement has not been defined by debate about the semantics of capitalism.--albamuth 05:20, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Definition Dispute Solved(?)

Since ancap and ansoc partisans differ in the very definition of anarchism, and since any NPOV article will be disputed if not destroyed, and since the article can have no stability due to permanent edit war a reasonable thing to do is disambiguate per Wiki policy. --Hogeye 04:10, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The article was already disambiguated months ago, as it made clear to anyone who bothers to read as far as the second sentence. In fact, it is that disambiguation which made it entirely inappropriate to continue presenting anarcho-capitalism in this context. Kev 04:29, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The article you have is not neutral. The new page is. I don't care what your buddies decided. It's obvious that anarcho-capitalist views are ignored, and I don't really want a permanent edit war. --Hogeye 04:40, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It was agreed a long time ago (3 months) that anarcho-capitalism was too important to be omitted from the article, but not important enough or large enough to characterise a major split in the anarchist movement. Hello, do you realize that the anarcho capitalist POV is a too small a minority to demanding the exposure it wants? --albamuth 05:05, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's not about popularity, it's about accuracy. BTW what do you base your "too small a minority to demanding the exposure" claim on. Certainly not LewRockwell.com page hits! When you characterize anarchism as necessarily against capitalism, like on the very first line and saturated in the prose, you are violating the NPOV criteria. A neutral disabiguation page is just what's needed. Now you can edit your own page at will, and not be bothered by people who know what "anarchism" means. Let the Wiki user choose. --Hogeye 05:21, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It is the NPOV policy of wikipedia that all significant POVs be described in situations like these. AC is significant enough to merit description, I don't think anyone is denying that. Thankfully, AC has a good deal of description here on wikipedia, including its very own page, many links to it, and brief mention in dozens of other articles.

However, it is also NPOV policy that representing all POVs does not imply representing them disproportionate to their significance. Traditional anarchism has a much longer history, including unions and federations of hundreds of thousands of people and significant influence on major historical events, yet you want to present it side-by-side with equal space for anarcho-capitalism by redefining the very definition of anarchism to ensure that it is compatible with the AC conception thereof. This would be about as ridiculous as committing half of this article to primitivism, or redefining the intro to ensure that it is compatible with any and all possible claimaints to the title regardless of there modern or historical significance, like say nationalist anarchism or anarcho-monarchy, or my personal favorite, anarcho-facism. But none of this matters to you, all that matters to your is that your flag gets pushed a little farther toward the front of the line, intellectual integrity and political context be damned. That is why I'm reverting you, and will continue to do so until you and several other partisans show some sign of relenting in this POV war. Kev 05:57, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This article is actually looking pretty good. Just keep the anarcho-capitalists from sabotaging it. I can't believe that there are still people out there who believe in the oxymoron that is "anarcho-capitalism." -- Chuck0

Chuck, your attitude shows why the only NPOV solution is to split the question. I've petitioned to protect the Neutral Disambiguation page. I think that is the only solution that will allow some stability. --Hogeye 20:08, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

POV forks

The articles at Anarchism (anti-state) and Anarchism (socialist) are on VfD. --cesarb 01:09, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hey, I'm new here, and have a question about 'rules of order.' Do the previous requests to 'Protect' take priority over this new request to delete? Or do deletions take priority? Or is it a race? --Hogeye 01:41, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The requests to protect seem to be for Anarchism, while the requests to delete are for the two forked pages, so they're not mutually exclusive. Anyway, protection isn't necessarily mutually exclusive to deletion; protection merely stops all but administrators from editing a page, but the page can still be voted on for possible deletion (which would be done by an admin if the consensus is in favor). *Dan* 01:54, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

So it's possible for the Neutral Disambiguation Page to get protected, but the articles it's pointing to get deleted?

In fact, if something gets protected, it probably won't be the disambiguation version. Most administrators would protect the page on the state it had before the dispute started (i.e. the "stable" version) — see the protection policy. But I don't believe a page protection is needed for now. Also, the protection isn't forever; it's meant as a way to cool down an edit war. --cesarb 02:38, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't think any of the anarchism pages can be said to have ever had a "stable version"... edit-warring has been pretty much continuous. *Dan* 11:52, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Kev> "It is the NPOV policy of wikipedia that all significant POVs be described in situations like these. AC is significant enough to merit description, I don't think anyone is denying that."

Bullshit. Every little mention of anarcho-capitalism gets deleted. Every little ancap counter-point to even the most outrageous claims get deleted. Anarchist books in the book section get deleted. Perhaps not you, Kev, but too many ansocs think they "own" the definition.

It is only your own ignorance that has brought you to this perception that my claim is "bullshit." Had you bothered to even read the history of this article, and the talk pages which are so conviently archived above, you would see the basis for my comments. That no one is denying that AC is significant enough to merit description is evidenced by the fact that no one has ever tried to VfD the AC article (this is more than I can say for several of the traditional anarchism articles btw, which anarcho-capitalist sympathizers have on more that one occasion either tried to VfD or simply blanked). That referance to it in -this- article is removed by many people, sometimes even myself despite the fact that I have often indicated my desire to have it referanced here, is certainly not an attempt to remove AC from wikipedia altogether. My own recent removals have mostly revolved around the continuous attempts by several AC partisans to import horribly biased wording or slanted presentations, over and over again regardless of how many times their same arguments have been dealt with, apparently because these people fail to understand or actively try to dismantle the NPOV policy of this project.

The more general attempts to remove referance to AC from this page stem from an attempt by ACs some months ago to do this themselves. Several individuals took it upon themselves to disambiguate this page in an attempt to ensure that "anarchism" linked to a page that prominently displayed AC as one of only two forms of anarchism, they reverted to this solution of their so often that pretty much everyone gave up and simply allowed it. I warned them against this many times, cause I had seen it attempted before, but they kept pushing, and in the process they made it clear that this page was no longer about anarchism in general (that was now the domain of the disambiguation page), but rather traditional anarchism. Unfortunately, for them, their attempt totally backfired when the disambiguation page was fleshed out with all the myriad forms of anarchism that actually belonged on it, making it clear to all wikipedia readers not only that anarcho-capitalism is merely one of many claimaints, but one that is of dubious credit that is almost universally rejected by the other, as well. This is what lead to the situation today, where a few editors are unwilling to see this article even referance AC, because it was the ACs themselves who so resolutely insisted on disambiguating the page and they see it as a slap in the face that this page would -both- begin with a disambiguation indicating that this is not the only meaning of anarchism -and- describe anarcho-capitalism in it as a form of anarchism when the entire point of making the disambiguation page was to make further descriptions of ac in this article unnecessary. The hilarious thing is that this is exactly what you are trying to do now, create yet another disambiguation page, even though it has already been done before and will eventually lead to exactly what it already has (a disambiguation page that does not over-emphasize anarcho-capitalism as you are trying to do, and a general anarchism page that does not mention anarcho-capitalism at all). Kev 10:20, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Kev> "However, it is also NPOV policy that representing all POVs does not imply representing them disproportionate to their significance."

Fine. That's not the problem here. The problem is "defining away" the other school. E.g. It is not neutral to claim that anarchism is anti-capitalist. I have no problem with the article saying "many anarchists consider anarchism to be anti-capitalist," nor with having the bulk of the article about anarcho-socialist movements and history.

Then you must not have any problem with a definition which states that anarchism is compatible with state government. After all, there are real live, I kid you not, people out there who call themselves "anarcho-monarchists", and according to your standard the only neutral way to handle their claim is to make sure that the very page which defines anarchism on wikipedia changes the actual meaning of anarchism in order to deal with the ridiculous claims of what is at best a minor branch off the actual philosophy and at worst a horrible attempt to subvert it. Kinda like anarcho-capitalism, in that regard. There are also total idiots, people not so unlike our very own Sam Spade, who think that because some people refer to anarchy as chaos this must mean that anarchism is the philosophy advocating chaos, even though there has never been a single philosopher who has ever advocated anarchism as such, nor even much evidence at all that the word anarchism has been used to refer to such in any significant context. Must we now change this article to allow for those who believe in the total destruction of all human institutions? I can see it now, "Anarchism is the philosophy which advocates chaos and disorder, states ruled by monarchy, capitalism, and the rejection of all the above. Anarchism is whatever wikipedia editors say it is, all depending on the political axe they have to grind." I'm sorry Hogeye, but I'm not personally prepared to stand aside as you strip all meaning from the word anarchism just because it gives some small measure of support to your political preferances. Kev 10:20, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Kev> "That is why I'm reverting you, and will continue to do so until you and several other partisans show some sign of relenting in this POV war."

And that is why this POV war will continue until a resolution (such as the proffered Neutral Disambiguation Page) gets implemented. --Hogeye 02:07, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Been there, done that, and here we are again today. The only difference is that you weren't here last time this was done, or the other three times that people tried to make this page a disambiguation page, while I was. But I can assure you, even if I sat back and allowed you to totally bias this page toward anarcho-capitalism by over-emphasizing it to an extreme, the eventual result of your handiwork would not please you at all. Maybe you should attempt to do something that only 2 anarcho-capitalists (Rothbard and McElroy) have ever tried to do, and learn the history of the situation before you come to conclusions about it. Kev 10:20, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, now you know three. I particularly like Bakunin. He could savage the State almost as good as Ayn Rand! Re "anarcho-monarchists": I doubt if their definition of anarchism can be supported by etymological and usage grounds (like the anti-state def) or on 19th century tradition grounds (like the socialist def). Please cite where in the archives you've ever had a problem with "anarcho-monarchists" demanding representation. --Hogeye 16:20, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The only non-joke references to "anarcho-monarchism" I find on the web are to Han-Hermann Hoppe ("Democracy: The God That Failed") and Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn. The former is simply an anarchist who believes that democracy is worse than monarchy. Hoppe makes it very clear in his book that no government is best of all. As for Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, I don't know for sure since I haven't read his book. Judging from a review (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0895265370/002-7864288-2741627?v=glance) he may be making the same point as Hoppe. --Hogeye 16:45, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No anarcho-monarchists have yet appeared to stump for their cause on wikipedia, so-called anarcho-nationalists have, but that isn't the point. I have met two people who consider themselves to be anarcho-monarchists in the past, and if you want I could try to dig up the contact information for one of them. I don't see why this is remotely relevant though, as the point is not that there are stupid people saying stupid things, we both already know that, but that just because some small group makes claim to the larger tradition of anarchism this does not mean that wikipedia must change the basic meaning of anarchism in favor of a cherry picked definition of said small group. Kev 18:20, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalism added to "controversies" section

I would like to request comment on my addition of anarcho-capitalism to the controversies section. Is this minimally acceptable? Please feel free to revise it in the most NPOV way possible. Anarcho-capitalism may be a minor movement among Anarchists, but so are many of the other movements listed in the "schools" section. If you believe it should be removed, please explain why. --Academician 01:51, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Excepting a couple minor changes, this is an acceptable way to present anarcho-capitalism within this article. That is precisely why the ac partisans will not allow it to stand as is without pushing farther and farther, but it is a good attempt. Kev 01:55, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I moved it to the "Schools of Anarchism" section, where it belongs. --Hogeye 02:20, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There you have it. Kev 08:30, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Free-Market Anarchism

Free-market anarchism has been around since the beginning of anarchist philosophy--long before so-called socialist "anarchism" came on the scene. See, e.g., A Vindication of Natural Society by Edmund Burke (1756)--for commentary on this, see the article "Rothbard and Burke vs. the Cold War Burkeans" by Joseph R. Stromberg, April 1, 2002 http://www.lewrockwell.com/stromberg/stromberg32.html . See also Josiah Warren's writtings, who the historian Prof. James J. Martin believes was the first person to adopt the label anarchist (for more on this, see the article "American Anarchism" by Wendy McElroy, January 1, 2000 http://www.independent.org/issues/article.asp?id=10 ).

Besides Edmund Burke and Josiah Warren, let's not forget Gustave de Molinari, Lysander Spooner, Benjamin Tucker, Auberon Herbert, Albert Jay Nock, Murray N. Rothbard, David D. Friedman, or Hans-Hermann Hoppe. One can even include Lao Tse in the laissez-faire anarchism camp.

It is the phoney anarchism of the socialists which ought to have no place in an entry on anarchism other than to point out their misnomer, due to their use of the misnomer "anarchism" as referring to their raving statism. Qadir 17:18, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Definitely. The socialist/communist/collectivist Euro-anarchist bias in this article is unbelievable. RJII

lol, this is just sad. Have there been anarchists who believed in a free-market for as long as there have been anarcho-socialists? Of course, I follow in that tradition myself, But all of the "free-market" anarchists of that time were resolutely against capitalism, and would have believed that the "free-market" advocated by anarcho-capitalists is not free at all. Apparently, the only way ACs can even attempt to add legitimacy to their claims is to purposefully overlook this fact, to use the same terms the individualists used but in totally different ways, much like the anarcho-capitalists use the term anarchism to mean something totally different than what it meant before. You might as well be a state president talking about expanding freedom by invading other countries at this point, because that is how much meaning you have to strip from the words you are using in order to make them consistent. Kev 18:25, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You might want to consider: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anarchism&oldid=14947877#Socialist-.22anarchists.22 Qadir 21:54, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nothing much to consider there apart from misrepresentation, ignorance, and straw-men. Kev 03:28, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you define capitalism as being enforced via the state, then ALL anarchists would be opposed to that. How can ANY anarchist be against a free-market devoid of coercion? Is that not what they seek? [4]

Would Socialist Anarchists be tolerant of Free-Market Anarchists should the state disappear? Would the socialists try to stop the free-marketers from owning cars and homes by force?

Would the Free-Market Anarchists tolerate the Socialist Anarchists should the state disappear? Would they allow them to set up communes and unions leaving them to their own devices?

In my opinion, the Free-Market Anarchist would tolerate the Socialist Anarchists and leave them alone. I don't think the Socialist Anarchists would be as tolerant based on what I've read about their theories - sounds exactly like state-sponsored socialism to me.

Two Version Editing Dispute

There are two main definitions of anarchism:

Anarchism (anti-state) - the theory or doctrine that all forms of government are unnecessary, oppressive, and undesirable and should be abolished.

Anarchism (socialist) - philosophies, movements, and ideologies that advocate the abolition of capitalist exploitation and all other forms of authority.

The dispute is about whether it is better to have the Neutral Disambiguation Page, or have a page using one or the other or both definitions given above.

The first alternative has these advantages:

avoids an intractible edit war
allows the user to decide which meaning he's interested in
resolves a real ambiguity in the meaning of "anarchism"

The second alternative has the advantage of keeping to one article, but has a major problem: permanent instability. There has been and will continue to be a continuous edit war over the "proper" definition. The anti-state definition is more inclusive - socialist forms of anarchism are a subset of Anarchism (anti-state). OTOH the socialist definition of "anarchism" is exclusive - it denies that propertarian statelessness is anarchism at all. What does this mean in practice, taking into account Wiki institutional constraints? It means that the more numerous anarcho-socialist partisans will continually attempt to censor out references to anarcho-capitalism, and slant the article to their anti-capitalist POV.

Basically, the choice comes down to this: Either we have two relatively stable articles,one for each definition, or we have one highly unstable article, which switches definitions depending on who edited it last.

The logical question is: are there really two legitimate definitions? The practical question is: Is it better to have two good articles or one contentious article and permanent edit wars? --Hogeye 17:25, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think there should an article called "Anarchism" that that encompasses all forms of anarchism, including both collectivist and individualist forms. As the writer in the above section noted, the individualist market anarchists have just as much or more "tradition" than the Euro-anarchists. And given, that anarcho-capitalism is a form of individualist anarchism it should be mentioned as well. The writers of this article either had no clue that there was anything but Euro/collectivist anarchism or are just biased beyond belief. It's time for a change. I support your efforts. RJII 18:13, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalism is only a form of anarcho-individualism in the wet dreams of anarcho-capitalists. You would have to silence objections to that claim before and of the rest of your case would be compelling, and silencing objections might be difficult in that case given that the most important ones come from the individualists themselves. Kev 18:34, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Denying that anarcho-capitalists are real anarchists makes about as much sense is denying that individualists anarchists are real anarchists. Benjamin Tucker even denies that those who oppose private property are anarchists. There's always people from each school of anarchism denying that the other schools are real anarchists. If this article is to be objective it needs to rise above that and allow all schools that consider themselves anarchists. RJII 18:43, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And if you ever read Tucker, you would know that the kind of private property he is refering to is possession, and that he rejected the type of private property now advocated by anarcho-capitalists. And I agree that all who claim the title anarchist and are significant should be represented in some form on this page, but putting anarcho-capitalist claims into the context of the fact that they are a much more recent group, a much smaller group, and a group almost universally rejected by all anarchists, is totally compatible with that. Kev 19:42, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Relatively recent? Anarcho-capitalism has been around since at least the 50's. That's ancient history ...way before my time. Just because they haven't been rioting in the streets blowing things up to get attention doesn't make them insignificant. RJII 14:25, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct RJ, understanding the meaning of my statement would require that you know what the word "relative" means. Since you appear not to, I really shouldn't expect you to be able to follow along. Kev 19:01, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Is it better to have two good articles or one contentious article and permanent edit wars?" -Didn't we already decide to have two seperate articles and direct the reader to anarcho-capitalism from this page? Having a disambig page is against the general standard that the most well-known meaning of an article is the "main" one with disambig notes at the top. Face it guys, no one cares about anarcho-capitalism except for anarcho-capitalists and wikipedia gadflies, unless that is, if they are vehemently denouncing it. So just casually portraying it as an accepted school of anarchist thought (as with the "anarcho-capitalists, on the other hand..." stuff in the one section) is patent nonsense. I just don't see why its not reasonable to have a disambig note and keep a section under schools, it's not like we're trying to speedy delete the anarcho-capitalism article (which I tend to leave alone). By the way, trying to include it here based on your own philosophical beliefs ("anarcho-capitalism is a legitimate form of anarchism regardless of what the rest of the world says because: a, b, c..."), and the above argument about supposed connections with Tucker, is a perfect example of original research and can easily be rejected solely on those grounds. --Tothebarricades 20:17, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

TTB> "Didn't we already decide to have two seperate articles and direct the reader to anarcho-capitalism from this page?"

Perhaps someone decided that, somewhere. I certainly did not agree. Anyway, that misses the point. The anarcho-capitalism article is a separate issue. Here we are talking about an anarchism article. The dispute is about what anarchism is, not about other articles.

TTB> "I agree that all who claim the title anarchist and are significant should be represented in some form on this page, but putting anarcho-capitalist claims into the context of the fact that they are a much more recent group, a much smaller group, and a group almost universally rejected by all anarchists."

Q1: Do you agree not to define "anarchist" as anti-capitalist?

Q2: Do you think people like Fatal will be as reasonable?

--Hogeye 22:18, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Listen, new kid on the block. You may have just got here but this EXACT same issue with the EXACT same arguments has been argued about and been edit warred over MANY MANY MANY times. Do I expect you to read the archives? Yes I do, even though you won't, in fact even if you said you did I'd know that you wouldn't because to date not a single one in your position has ever done such an act, so don't even bother. I believe you're mixing this article up with Capitalism which is available through the link I made. Certainly this article's contents would look a bit strange on the page you're looking for! So I can understand your misunderstanding. I give you the benefit of the doubt that you accidently clicked on the wrong link and got here because surely you wouldn't be one of those capitalist nutcases that wants to intergrate your crazy profitful system into anarchism, a milieu entirely opposed in every single aspect to capitalism, currently, 5 minutes ago, 50 years ago, and the values of anarchists before capitalism even existed were opposed to anarchism. Terribly sorry, but you don't change hundreds (if not thousands if you count examples like the taoists and other anarchistic groups of people) of years of opposition to hierarchy simply because Al Gore invented the internet so that you can attempt and fail miserably to spread your completely false views on a philosophy you clearly know very very little about. --Fatal 21:25, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Maybe Hogeye is a "new kid on the block." But, sometimes it takes a new kid on the block, who wasn't involved in the so-called "consensus" process, to realize that an article is crap. I happen to believe this article is basically worthless garbage --horribly conceived, horribly written, horribly organized, and horribly deficient. It doesn't matter if some or all of this has been gone through before and a consensus was reached. Today is a different day, and it's time to war again. Past consensus is irrelevant. Now there is not a consensus. After this edit war is settled, there will be another, and another, and another, ad infinitum. If you want something that lasts, write a book. Otherwise, engage in the futile exercise. And, don't be so rude to newcomers who may be brighter than you. RJII 02:45, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

RJII, that's nonsense. I don't think perpetual edit war is a desirable state and it could easily be avoided by steps I've discussed above. One section under schools, one disambig note, and we have a stable and neutral article that directs the reader to information about anarcho-capitalism if he or she so desires. No minority viewpoint should have excessive representation in any article (notice that the government article is not 50% anarchist viewpoints, for good reason). You think anarcho-capitalism is legitimate, fine: it doesn't really matter. That's original research, and secondly is a highly controversial view that no other anarchist, probably no one but the anarcho-capitalists themselves and their three or four wikipedia partisans, agrees with. --Tothebarricades 14:32, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Do you realize that individual anarchists, such as Benjamin Tucker, claimed that the communist anarchists are not real anarchists, because they oppose private property and wages? The various schools of anarchism compete with each other. You're just being a baby, like Tucker, in claiming that the others are not "real anarchism." Whatever, dude. Every school that regards itself as anarchism is anarchism, and should be included. Anarcho-capitalism has been around since at least the 50's. It's well established. Anarchism is not one movement, but a set of movements with different beliefs. RJII 15:38, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Would it be acceptable for a communist to support capitalism? Would he still be a communist? What if a capitalist supported state ownership of the means of production? Still a capitalist? Tucker and Kropotkin fit into an accepted framework. No one supports the claim that anarcho-capitalists are anarchists except for anarcho-capitalists. The same cannot be said of any other school of anarchism. And who's saying it should not be included at all? I'm not. You are being unreasonable. --Tothebarricades 20:51, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

TTB> "'No one' supports the claim that anarcho-capitalists are anarchists except for 'anarcho-capitalists.'"

Wrong. Tucker comes to mind right off the bat. (Cf: His defense of Auberon Herbert.) --Hogeye 21:34, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And Auberon Herbert is an anarcho-capitalist according to whom? You? --Tothebarricades 21:40, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, me. And Benjamin Tucker. And anyone familiar with the definition of anarcho-capitalism. --Hogeye 21:58, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'd like a source for this supposed use of the term "anarcho-capitalist" by Benjamin Tucker. --Tothebarricades 22:06, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)--Tothebarricades 22:06, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

The claim is that Tucker considered Herbert to be both anarchist and capitalist, not that Tucker used the modern term "anarcho-capitalist." Here's your reference: Benjamin R. Tucker - Auberon Herbert and his Work --Hogeye 22:15, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Odd, I see that article referance capital, but not Herbert as a capitalist. I also see that article referance Herbert as "inspired by the same idea" that leads to anarchy, but I see no referance to him as an anarchist. Since neither of your claims seem solidly evidenced here, I assume there must be a good deal of interpretation on your part. Or perhaps you accidentally gave us the wrong link? Kev 00:38, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Benjamin Tucker: "Mr. Herbert ... is inspired by the same idea that gave birth to this journal, caused it to be christened Liberty, and determined it to labor first and foremost for Anarchy, or the Abolition of the State."

I think unbiased readers will admit that Tucker thinks Herbert is an anarchist, not only from this comment, but the lavish praise Tucker heaps upon him.

Tucker: "Mr. Herbert proved beyond question that the government of man by man is utterly without justification, but is quite ignorant of the fact that interest, rent, and profits will find no place in the perfect economic order."

Translation: Herbert is beyond question an anarchist, but his his capitalism is mistaken.

If you don't know enough about Herbert to realized he's a hard-core propertarian capitalist, I suggest you read, "The Right and Wrong of Compulsion by the State." Auberon Herbert was the ideological 'son' of Herbert Spencer, another well-known capitalist. --Hogeye 00:54, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tucker was definitely not an anarcho-capitalist; he opposed capitalism (capitalism being the entirety of a set of conditions). But, like the anarcho-capitalists, he was an individualist anarchist. Anarchism can be divided into two broad schools ..individualist anarchism and collectivist anarchism. It looks like this article, so far, has wanted to be just about collectivist anarchism. RJII 03:00, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalists want to make a false divide between socialist anarchists and individualists. I am both an individualist and a socialist. So was Tucker. So are many anarchists today. Yes, anarchism can be divided into individualist anarchism and collectivist anarchism, it can also be divided into anarchists who pick their noses and anarchists who don't. The fact that we can make artificial divides as intellectual tools does not in itself lend credence to AC claims.

As for Tucker calling Herbert an anarchist, I can't help but note that he in fact did not. You have interpreted his statements as such, when at most all he said (as I already made clear), was that Herbert was inspired by the same idea. I'm inspired by many of the same ideas as Socrates myself, but that doesn't make me a Greek philosopher. If you are trying to tell me that according to your own personal definition of anarchism Herbert is an anarchist, then you aren't telling me much of anything at all. Kev 03:25, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Hogeye in that the page should be about the broadest reasonable definition of the term. Simply because AC has been more recently defined, doesnt mean anything. Example... Blood types were previously unknown. Then the the definition was broadened to include A, B, O, types. Then it was broadened again to include pluses and minuses. This hardly means that newer blood types definitions dilute the original definition, it means were more clearly defining the definition. Same with anarchism.CosmicV 00:06, 10 Jun 2005

No, CosmicV, it would be like saying that milk is a type of blood and insisting that the article on blood gave equal space to milk. Grace Note 07:50, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

How so? Every concept maps over completely except for the fact that some people's definition of the term Capitalism differs from others. In my view, capitalism is identical to a free market system. i.e. If I made a paper airplane and traded it to you for your twinky, thats capitalism... Some would obviously disagree. To the extent that you would forbid people from trading freely, I would point that its you that are trying to impose your "system" on them.CosmicV 16:45, 10 Jun 2005

Yet again, someone completely ignorant of anarchism comes to comment on it. Could you please point out the anarchist philosopher that declared that they would forbid people from trading freely? No games, no imported interpretations of your own making. Find the quote or eat your words. Kev 00:33, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"some people's definition of the term Capitalism differs from others"! Well yes. The guy defines it as not involving the exploitation of others and so, pouf, the problem disappears! "Anarcho-capitalists" require definitions of both "anarchy" and "capitalism" that are very far removed from those common. Mind you, ACs would have to give the States back to the Indians -- "In particular, once a place or good has been first appropriated by, in John Locke’s phrase, 'mixing one’s labor' with it, ownership in such places and goods can be acquired only by means of a voluntary – contractual – transfer of its property title from a previous to a later owner." (Hoppe, see AC page)-- and the material wealth of the West to the impoverished Third World it was stolen from, so they should probably be encouraged ;-) Grace Note 01:01, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Only kidding. Of course, Hoppe went on to say that this was not at all retrospective. You have the right to what you already have. So "anarcho-capitalists" don't want to rid us of hierarchy. They want to entrench it as the status quo. Grace Note 01:04, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The key sentence in your response is ""Anarcho-capitalists" require definitions of both "anarchy" and "capitalism" that are very far removed from those common". The truth is that practically all of the definitions of capitalism Im seeing at various dictionaries or encyclopedias say pretty much the same thing. Example: http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article?tocId=9359742&query=capitalism&ct= Note how in the summary paragraph there is no mention of corporations. Why? Because corporations are not the defining characteristic of capitalism. So your concept of a common definition of capitalism being one that differs from mine isnt entirely true. YOU may think corporations are required for it, but most sources dont imply they are required.CosmicV 11:05, 10 Jun 2005

Stop the misrepresentation of milk! You "socialists" have been defiling the word "milk" for long enough!

Hogeye, I mean this in the most intellectual way, are you fucking stupid? Go find me another human being on earth that thinks anarchism isn't opposed to capitalism. This search excludes the five people with websites who troll the internet looking to start fights with real anarchists. Did I come here to criticize your views on this article? No, I came to make a proposal to disambiguate the article on Milk because it inaccurately describes it as a dairy product. This is POV!!! Not everyone views milk as a dairy product, in fact I'll bet you can find some people that don't even know what dairy means, surely they would not call Milk a dairy product! I'm sick and tired of all this misrepresentation and disillusion with what Milk REALLY means, that is the truth, that Milk is also (in fact more popularly) known as a blend of Yarn. Not only should this be mentioned in the article on Milk, but the article should be complete split in two! In fact, we should just abolish completely the current article since it is completely biased. Milk is soooo not a dairy product, I just knit a sweater with Milk! Don't you dare try and tell me I'm wrong because me and my five friends have formed an international alliance against the mislabeling of Milk. We being the yarn business men of the world, hereby label ourselves Milkists and wholly support Milk in all its uses, whether it be for clothing or for pleasure. We are vegans for Milk because Milk is NOT dairy and on a different note, vegans are not against the white substance that comes for cows that some call Milk. In fact, I, a vegan, just got finished eating meat and sowing together a sweater made of Milk. SAYING THAT Milk IS A Dairy PRODUCT IS JUST ABOUT AS RIDICULOUS AS THOSE PEOPLE THAT CLAIM ANARCHISM IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH CAPITALISM! :) (For those whose brains are painfully slow, i.e. capitalists, this was one big anaology to show how insane and silly your argument is) --Fatal 21:15, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalist: "Milk is the nutrient fluid produced by the mammary glands of female mammals."

Anarcho-socialist: "Milk is the stuff which has traditionally been called milk, at least during the 19th century."

LOL! --Hogeye 22:03, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Anarchists arn't opposed to capitalism, just ask a Somalian. Ask a Anarcho-capitalist. Ask dictionary .com. Some communist anarchists are opposed to capitalism, but Bakunin didn't invent the concept, much less the word. Sam Spade 22:09, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

See also www.answers.com. Sam Spade 22:18, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, and notice that most dictionary definitions don't even mention socialism or anti-capitalism, but they all cite anti-statism. --Hogeye 22:20, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And that those that do mention anti-capitalism or socialism clarify it as rooted in Bakunin, who stands in contrast to the concept overall. Sam Spade 22:46, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

First of all, three cheers for use of wit and humor instead of bickering or other unpleasant means of expression. Second Milk says:

Milk most often means the nutrient fluid produced by the mammary glands of female mammals. It provides the primary source of nu--albamuth 12:13, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)trition for newborns before they are able to digest more diverse foods. It is also processed into dairy products such as cream, butter, yoghurt, ice-cream, gelato, cheese, casein, whey protein, lactose, dried milk, and many other food-additive and industrial products.

It can also be used to mean

the white juice and the processed meat of the coconut in, more or less, liquid form, used especially in Thai, Indian (Kerala), and Polynesian cuisine.
a non-animal substitute such as soya milk, rice milk, and almond milk.

So by analogy, "Anarchism most often means (description of noncapitalist version followed by) It can also be used to mean (description of other uses)

I feel like creating articles on Anti-Anarchist Anarchism (the REAL anarchists (Muhahahahah)), the Nihilistic Anarchists (who oppose the heirarchy within anarchism), and the Procratinatory Anarchists (who will be Anarchists when they can get around to it). 4.250.201.44 23:01, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

While you're at it, you should contribute to the libertarian fascism page and rewrite the anarcho-capitalism article to include this major split from traditional Libertarians...oops, I mean, "anarcho-capitalists". :P --albamuth 12:13, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Libertarian fascism" makes about as much sense as "libertarian socialism", if we're into oxymorons. *Dan* 13:55, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Isn't it odd then Dan, that there were libertarian socialists before their were libertarian capitalists? Man, those people a hundred years ago must have all been complete morons, thinking that capitalism was not a philosophy of human liberation. Kev 18:58, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sam Spade: "Anarchists aren't opposed to capitalism, just ask an 'anarcho'-capitalist." Now THAT'S funny! Of course the Yankees are the best team ever, just ask a Yankees fan! I can barely keep from laughing reading sam spade talking about how "some" anarchists are anti-capitalist (of course he'll never even cross the boundary of "sorta") and trying to sound all intellectual. You are truly hilarious and you seriously must be saying this stuff either for our entertainment or for the sport of trolling. You make anti-capitalism sound like a small issue in the anarchist milieu, a clear indication you've never talked to an anarchist in your entire life, outside of the so called "anarchists" you said you used to get drunk with. Maybe that alcohol went to your brain. To say that anarchists have not been anti-capitalist is like saying that Israel hasn't killed Palestinians or that wood doesn't come from trees. Go cling to your dictionary definitions, because those capitalist, establishment, state-supported dictionaries will certainly accurately define words. --Fatal 23:06, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Stop the Misrepresentation of Music!!!

Once the edit war over milk is complete, one must next turn one's sight to music. Centuries of tradition, and the works of many great composers, have made it clear that music is, by definition, classical. A few misguided fools, in recent times, have bizarrely applied the word to such unmusical things as jazz, rock 'n' roll, and hip-hop. This must stop; the article on music must be returned to a focus on true music, as defined by its great composers for centuries, with the other alleged musical forms relegated to a minor mention, at most, in a section about things that are sometimes mistakenly referred to as music. *Dan* 23:48, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

No, the milk analogy was closer to the mark. — Chameleon 00:36, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hogeye's milk analogy was pretty much right.—Nat Kraus e 03:46, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You people are all out of arguments, all you can do is make snide comments now. Kev 07:32, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

FYI, it was Fatal who started the section ==Stop the misrepresentation of milk! You "socialists" have been defiling the word "milk" for long enough!== and began it with "Hogeye, I mean this in the most intellectual way, are you fucking stupid?". - Nat Kraus e 09:38, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

True, he started the whole analogy thing. Anyway, let's look at the analogies. The one about music is clearly nonsense. Classical music is not the original form of music, changed only in recent years only by hip-hop etc. For centuries, there has been stuff like bagpipes, flamenco, bongo music etc. The meaning of "music" has not changed in the last century. The term has always covered a wide range of rhythms and instruments. Someone plucked from the Middle Ages would recognise jazz as music, whether he liked it or not. Therefore, those of us who object to the appropriation of the term "anarchism" have no problem with "music" referring to things other than classical music, and on this we are consistent. We would, however, have a problem with the term "music" being appropriated by music of the spheres enthusiasts, because the music of the spheres, despite its name, is not music. It deserves a place on a disambig page only. In this we are consistent.

As for dictionary definitions, they are over simplified. The OED says "belief in the abolition of all government and the organization of society on a cooperative basis." [5]. That sounds good to me (and excludes capitalism), but it forgets to mention that anarchists are not just negatively against government but positively in favour of freedom — I don't think anyone denies that this is a key part of any good definition of the term. Since pro-capitalists are not against tyranny per se, but are simply in favour of power being wielded by unaccountable entrepreneurs instead of elected representatives, there can be no question that their ideology is as far removed from anarchism as the music of the spheres is from music. — Chameleon 10:16, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I think the phrase "music of the spheres" is using a definition of "music" that's much older than the modern, narrower restriction of that word to the auditory arts; the ancient Greeks used the word "music" to refer to a wide range of artistic expression, not all involving sound. But anyway, regarding "pro-freedom anarchism", I've always regarded anarcho-capitalism as being the variety of anarchism that truly supports freedom -- free minds and free markets -- while the other varieties will tolerate whatever limited subset of freedom may be permitted by the collectivist syndicates and communes that are in control. *Dan* 13:59, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, "music" derives from "muse" and was extremely broad in Greek times, basically equivalent with "culture." Do you see what madness the music article would be if we based it on word origins and subjective conclusions based on these origins? That's what some are trying to do here. --Tothebarricades 14:38, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Cham> "The OED says 'belief in the abolition of all government and the organization of society on a cooperative basis.' [6]. That sounds good to me (and excludes capitalism)..."

??? No it doesn't exclude capitalism. In capitalism, society is organized on the cooperative basis of private property. Perhaps you don't know the difference between "cooperative" and "collectivist?" --70.178.26.242 15:43, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I in no way am calling my comments on milk intelligent or productive. Rather, they're the opposite of both on purpose. In case you didn't notice, I did that to very clearly make fun of the idiotic logic of capitalists trying to jump up and down saying "Me too!". Private property is coercive, read any one of the many many anarchists texts that discuss this topic. I suppose all those anarchists squatters robbing landlords of their private property around the world are in favor of capitalism right? I suppose the anarchists in seattle in 99 were capitalist right? I suppose the "propaganda by the deed" attacks on capitalists were indeed capitalists who simply had personal grievances with them! I suppose Emma Goldman was a capitalist, given that she gave countless speeches against capitalism not to mention actions and arrests, I suppose she was being sarcastic right? I suppose the 2000 anarchists that met in DC recently to counter the inauguration were capitalist right? I suppose the 7 million people that create an anarchist society in Spain in 1936 were capitalist right? I suppose every anarchist in history was a capitalist making comments simply on a humorous note right?? Show me a capitalist at any of these events and I'll show you a waiver for a mental hospital! Your definitions, textbooks, property, and money won't save you when the truth comes back and bites you. --Fatal 23:17, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)