Talk:Anarchism/Archive 42

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 35

←

Archive 40

Untitled

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

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

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

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

Extra ward quotes on anarcho-capitalism

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

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

Religion section (again)

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

Thank you, anarchocapitalists

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

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

Archived talk page

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

Bogus sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Then, it goes on to say:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What are you doing, DTC?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Opposition to AC as anarchist a "minority view"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I've been an active anarchist for over two decades and I can state that very few anarchists consider "anarcho"-capitalism as a form of anarchism. No anarchist I've ever talked to does so and it gets mentioned only very rarely, if at all, in the anarchist media. If you read the major works of anarchism you will see that people like Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Malatesta, Goldman, Bookchin, etc. all state that anarchism is against the state but also capitalism. They usually state they are socialists and/or communists (all the listed people said so) and that anarchism seeks a transformation in the economic as well as political system. As far as individualist anarchism goes, this minority trend is closer to liberalism than the mainstream anarchist movement but its supporters usually called themselves socialists (Tucker and Labadie did so, repeatedly) and they opposed capitalist exploitation. So the idea that anarchism is not purely anti-statism is obvious and one the vast majority of anarchists hold. The fact that academics and scholars include "anarcho"-capitalism in modern accounts of anarchism is simply because "anarcho"-capitalists call themselves anarchists -- and that does not make it true. Serious scholars would indicate the gulf of difference between "anarcho"-capitalism and anarchism and note that almost all anarchists reject the notion that "anarcho"-capitalism is a form of anarchism. As should Wikipedia, if it is interested in reporting the facts of the matter (unless, of course, the assumption is that academics know more about anarchism than anarchists). As it stands, the notes at the top of the page seem to reflect reality far better than the attempts of "anarcho"-capitalists to ignore the history of anarchism and the views of anarchists past and present. User:BlackFlag 10:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

American individualist anarchism

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

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

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

"most activists"...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Settle down

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I protected the page

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

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

If you have a problem with anarcho-capitalism getting equal representation then why do decrease the representation of other movements in this article? Here we see you cutting down the information on anarcho-communism to where it's not very informative anymore: [1] It seems to me that if you think ancap is equally represented then it seems to me that you would be increasing the representation of the other schools. Also, you have been adding sources that don't back up things you're saying in the article. They don't say what you say they say. DTC 16:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also, I apologize to Donnacha as I was just as antagonistic to him as he was to me. Whis key Rebel lion 19:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

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

Thanks. And I believe you. Whis key Rebel lion 21:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Individualist anarchism]]? Well, when we tried to include a bit about Lala Hardayal and the Ghadar Party, we were faced by the an onslaught from so-called mainstream anarchists who wanted refrences to this revolutionary movement of thousands removed . . . largely because it did not fit their eurocentric views about anarchism. Of course we shall return to this topic burt after more work has been done on people like Bakunin and his involvement with the League of Peace and Freedom. I think this p[age will always be controversial.Harrypotter 19:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who me? Whis key Rebel lion 01:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

"there should be more about"

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article needs a lot of work

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

anarcho-capitalists reject any level of state intervention, defining the state as a coercive monopoly and, as the only entity in human society that derives its income from legal aggression, an entity that inherently violates the central axiom of libertarianism.[4]

Socialism refers to a broad array of doctrines or political movements that envisage a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to social control. [1]

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

Whiskey is right. Anarcho-capitalists, like all individualist anarchists oppose monopolization of capital. That's one of the reasons that they're anarcho-capitalists. You have to understand that anarcho-capitalists do not define capitalism in the same way that the old anarchists defined it. Benjamin Tucker and his buddies defined capitalism as the state protecting capital from competition. Anarcho-capitalists do not define it that way. They define capitalism pretty much like it is ordinarily defined today, which is a free market system where the state does not intervene to protect business from competition: "an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market" (Merriam-Webster) "Anarcho-capitalism" is confusing to many anarchists because they're so used to defining "capitalism" in a non-standard way, that frankly is just wrong in our modern english language. Fred Foldvary says, "there is individualist or atomistic anarchism. Its adherents like to confuse people by also calling it anarcho-capitalism." [2] All individualist anarchists, including anarcho-capitalists, think that the state intervention is the cause of monopoly. There is no real way for a business to have a monopoly unless the state is causing it by having laws against competition, subsidies, etc. hot 19:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Thank you, thank you, thank you, Dan T. and hot. Whis key Rebel lion 19:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Solution to problem

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are you kidding me Hot? As for the Rand thing, I've seen a few other sources call her an an-cap, so it's a relatively common error. The fact of the matter is, Rand was a free-market capitalist with a contempt for the state, and although she may not have gone all the way to an-cap, she was sort of close. Anyway, lets forget that he mentioned Rand for a second. He says why an-cap is not a form of anarchism proper (in his view), and it's exactly the same reason everyone else here has been citing. I doubt you will deny that an-caps fit the description he gave as anti-statist free-market supporters. I also want to say, I made a mistake. My second-to-last sentence above was supposed to read "this isn't really the final word...". As for the error with the source, like I said, it's understandable and has been made by others. There is even a discussion about Rand in the archives of this page. [3] Also, the section on this article says that an-cap was influenced by Rand. Calling her an anarcho-capitalism seems to make about as much sense as saying Thoreau was an anarchist IMO. Neither claimed the label, but there are at least some similarities to anarchism and/or anarcho-capitalism (I will say, Thoreau is probably a bit closer, but still...) Anyways, no source is infaliable. There is no point though to throw the baby out with the bath water as they say. This source, even if it's flat-out wrong (which I don't think is the case), shows that some "neutral" and "reliable" sources (as defined by wikipedia) say that an-cap is not a form of anarchism (or at least anarchism proper) and that most anarchists are anti-capitalist. You asked for sources. Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 04:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

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

I did read what you said and you seem to be playing a semantics game. Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 18:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yay for ethnocentrism! Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 01:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Failed featured article

I just checked this [4] (This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed.) The following was why it failed:

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

Okay. Looks like not much has changed in the last two years. Whis key Rebel lion 04:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd be interested to know what the ";)" meant. Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 05:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fascism and socialist-anarchism

Here's an example of state sanctioned capitalist theft.

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

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

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

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

WP:TPG

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Most Anarchists are opposed to 'Anarcho'-Capitalism

OK, once again people have tried to cut that statement from the article. The majority of anarchists do not view 'anarcho'-capitalism as anarchism. Peter Marshall says it in Chapter 36 of Demanding the Impossible. It is cited in a book. Therefore, it is good enough for this web page. I added it before, and was removed. Here's the link - [6]. Whenever this page gets unprotected, feel free to add it. Supersheep 13:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

It's in the article: "Most anarchists refuse to accept anarcho-capitalism as anarchism.[46]" It's right at the end of the anarcho-capitalism section, and Marshall is the reference. hot 15:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

This is Hilarious

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

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

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

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

And there was much rejoicing!

Finally. Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 02:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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