Talk:Anarchism/Archive 43

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 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

→

How about more good faith and good facts, folks?

A few thoughts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is no place for "anarcho-capitalism" in an entry on anarchism anymore than Dan Brown's fictional book "The Da Vinci Code" should be included in the entry on Catholicism. Anarcho-capitalism may be a label adopted by a handful of misguided, misinformed people, but they should not be allowed to add their ignorance to the anarchism entry. It's a real shame that Wikipedia doesn't have a rational process for dealing with situations like this. Chuck0 04:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Neutral Disambiguation Page

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

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

Anarchism may mean:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What about what I proposed up above?

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

The proposal itself wasn't addressed much. Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 23:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Damn, I didn't know Marxists were anarchists too! Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 01:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's the topic of this section.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Donnacha 16:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

This is an interesting argument. Perhaps you should put the anarchism (anti-state) with a smaller font so people know that it's a minority view :)... Seriously though, I agree with the proposed disambiguation, I think it's a good idea, even if it might be a minority view to some undefined extent (perhaps more, perhaps less). For the "traditional" anarchists, I think it is unfair to object on the grounds that you are trying to maintain the philosophy based on the traditional anarchism, defined as fundamentally anti-capitalist. An encyclopedia is not the place to maintain any specific idea, in my opinion, especially one made in the style as wikipedia is made. It is created with the very goal of allowing words to change with time, as their meanings change, and if there are multiple meanings it seems more logical (in keeping with the goals of wikipedia and the general movement) to caution on the side of too much, rather than too little. There is no question that there is a significant enough (though minority) group which considers anarcho-capitalism anarchy. Furthermore, it fits within the context of the dictionary definition. Finally, if you ask the average person what anarchy means, I am willing to bet that most of them will understand something "anti-state" rather than fundamentally anti-capitalist (I know that wikipedia is not a huge popularity contest - but we should keep in mind what people are looking for when they search anarchism - I expect that they are looking for the generally recognized definition, ie "anti-state", and not the specific traditionally supported definition "socialist"). I am aware that these arguments are not individually perfect, but together it seems there is no real reason to exclude the idea of anarcho-capitalists. Actively resisting the introduction of more ideas while favoring "traditional" and more restricted definitions, while there seems no solid basis to do so, seems rather against the whole idea of wikipedia.

I also realize that everyone wants to see their version of anarchy as high up on the article as possible, and for people interested in the subject to said version. Putting both "anarchism (anti-state)" and "anarchism (socialist)" in no way equates them in terms of historical or philisophical weight. Instead, it simply differentiates them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gbathree (talk • contribs).

Anti-statism

Ok, so Marxists are anarchists. Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 02:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Britannica also says that anarchism is anti-capitalist. Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 03:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As for the quote "[Humanity's] natural inclination [etc]," it is partially about Gerrard Winstanley, a leader of the Diggers/True Levellers, but says

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

The article clearly considers these basic principals of all anarchists. Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 01:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This isn't the place for theoretical debate. Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 01:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Unprotection?

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

Well, I requested it, so I support it. Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 06:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gandhi was an Anarchist

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not quite[1], though he was influenced by Kropotkin. Donnacha 16:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Festival of puppetry

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

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

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

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

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

WP:SOCK

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh, yeah. Because Encyclopedia Brittanica is a horrible source, huh? Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 05:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

anarchist tradition

Fowler about the 19th century anarchist tradition:

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

Then:

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

Later:

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

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

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

On coercion

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

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

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

minority view?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sarge is one of the people who has been staying away from the page due to all the crap that goes on here. I don't blame him. FrancisTyers (an admin, along with sarge) used to be involved a bit as well. Also, I do feel I need to say that the anon you mentioned Blockader is probably Aaron (the anon admits to being a non-active user). Still, most of the people historically who have been here advocating an-cap are now banned users or their socks, (btw, you seem pretty new to wikipedia [2], how did you find this page so fast? Funny). Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 18:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

Anarcho-Capitalism (the editor not the idea)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Forty more pages of this?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The intro of anarchism

Anarchism is the name of a political philosophy or a group of doctrines and attitudes that are centered on rejection of government, or the state, as harmful and unnecessary and support its elimination.^[1]The term "anarchism" is derived from the Greek αναρχία ("without archons" or "without rulers"). Thus "anarchism," in its most general semantic meaning, is the belief that all forms of rulership are undesirable and should be abolished.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Having read the Goodwin book, I see that "anarcho-capitalism" is lying about what she says rather than "An Anarchist FAQ." She does note that "anarcho-capitalism" does exist, but then goes on to point out that it does not really share that much in common with the other schools of anarchism. She talks about inequalities of wealth produce inequalities of power and how all other anarchists are socialists. She notes, if I remember correctly, that "anarcho"-capitalism hates both equality and socialism. She then makes the obvious point, as quoted in "An Anarchist FAQ" that "anarcho"-capitalists' "true place is in the group of right-wing libertarians" not in anarchism. In other words, she notes that "anarcho"-capitalism exists, discusses it and concludes that it a form of right-libertarianism rather than anarchism -- a position shared by many writers, I should note. One last note, I have to wonder if "anarcho-capitalism" is RJII with a new internet account? Similar sort of writing technique and similar hatred of "An Anarchist FAQ." User:BlackFlag 10:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying that quote Anarcho-capitalism provided is false? -- Vision Thing -- 16:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Goodwin's introduction to anarchism ends with the lines, "...anarcho-capitalists abhor equality and socialism equally. Their true place is in the group of right-wing libertarians described in Chapter 3." Chapter 3 is "Liberalism." The claim that An Anarchist FAQ "lies" doesn't stand up. Libertatia 17:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

If she says that anarcho-capitalism is a form of libertarian anarchism, claim that anarcho-capitalists true place is with right-wing libertarians doesn't suggest that anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism. If "An Anarchist FAQ" provided only the latter quote, then it misleads its readers. -- Vision Thing -- 17:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vindication of Natural Society

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

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

One can read it as well here [3]. Intangible 15:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Removed inappropriately placed comments

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

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

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

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

Agree with Donnacha. Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 05:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clearly you are in the dark, because you weren't aware that the drive for profit is responsible for the abundance of food we have in the world today. No "hunter-gatherer" is going to be able to mass-produce food and set up a worldwide distribution system. Countries where a lot of people are starving are those where there is not capitalism. If you advocate a society where stealing is legal then you're going to have a very chaotic society indeed. It would be "anarchy" alright, but only in the sense of chaos and violence. Yes you are sold water. Why should water be sent to your faucet for free?Anarcho-capitalism 15:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, agriculture is responsible for the abundance of food we have today. And btw, hunter-gatherers usually had enough food to feed themselves, so there was no need to create a surplus through agriculture. More people (percentage wise) starve now in our "modern" time of abundance than when people were foraging for food. And as Donnacha points out below, the reason people are starving is due to the after-effects of profit driven colonialism (and nowadays, neoliberalism). The reason capitalist countries have it is because they stole it from the poorer countries. And there is nothing wrong with stealing it back. Rob from the rich and give to the poor. I don't advocate a society based on stealing. But in this current society which is already based on theft I think it's perfectly acceptable to steal from your oppressors to survive. Also, even here in America there are people who are under nourished, even while others die from clogged arteries and too much food. It's ridiculous. Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 17:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

LOL, this is hilarious. Modern capitalism grew out of mercantilism, which was based on massive theft in the colonial era. Most countries where people are starving today are the countries that were victims of unbelievable theft during the colonial era and, unsurprisingly, those that are rich today are those that carried out the theft most efficiently. In a society where private property is abolished (using the Proudhon distinction between personal and private property), crime and violence would most likely lessen as they are most often based on inequality of access to resources. What you advocate would bring about massive levels of social conflict and violence - exactly the sort of thing that led to the foundation of the modern state. You do realise that the modern state was founded by bourgeois capitalists to defend their interests from the masses, don't you? Progressive concessions from the state towards the people are rarely done out of any humanitarian wish, they are done to fend off social unrest. The ultimate irony of "anarcho"-capitalism is that it argues against the very thing capitalism requires to survive - the state that props it up and keeps the masses from rising up. Donnacha 16:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not defending the state, as the state. The state does some good things, in some countries. It protects private property and protects people from each other who wish to aggress against each other but they finance it through theft. Anarcho-capitalists want to privatize those functions. Those functions are necessary to protect private property from those, who like Ungovernable, think stealing is fine. If you want to find massive poverty, go to a country where private property and profit is not protected, because of a lack of the rule of law or because the state confiscates most of the profits. The ability to profit with the least taxation as possible is what brings abundance of goods and services.Anarcho-capitalism 16:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations, you've managed to completely miss my point. The centralisation of the services of the state was one of the primary accomplisments of early bourgeois capitalists. It used to be private, they used to have their own police, etc. until they realised that economies of scale made centralised services more efficient. Most true capitalists would laugh at the idea that you abolish their servant, the state, except in those few countries where authorities oppose capitalism. Who'd go to war on behalf of oil interests if not for puppet states? Who'll go to war in the predicted water wars if not the puppet states? States spend taxpayers money to fight wars and then give contracts to business to profit from them. Also, the real driving force behind abundance of goods has rarely been simple profit, but conflict. State-funded research in conflict times generally yields far greater innovations than any private business. Technological advancement during the Cold War far outstrips that since. On the flip, some of the most important new technological advancements are open source - the exact opposite of profit motivation. Donnacha 16:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Well I don't know what you're point is then. I'm not a state capitalist but an anarcho-capitalist. Are you trying to defend the state? You couldnt be more wrong that state-funded research yields more innovations than privately funded. It is true that if the state steals money from the private sector it can invest in things that have benefit, but at the same time it is taking resources away from the private sector that would be invested in things that the private sector actually wants. So, what you have is things being produced that are less valuable than the things that would be produced if investment was left to private individual decision. People don't need a central authority telling them what they have to invest in. Open source has profit motivation as well. Profit is just the value you receive over the cost you pay for something. It is the same with business. You don't sell something unless you value what you get in return over what you're selling. That's profit. You don't contribute to open source unless you're going to get something out of it more valuable to you than the amount of work that you put into it. If you didn't you wouldn't put any effort into it. As long as your rational, that is. There are always going to be irrational people who will put more effort into something than the value they receive back.Anarcho-capitalism 16:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks like Marx's fairytales still aren't obsolete in some circles. Just two points: 1) Today all the people in the world have on average 10 time more wealth then before discovery of Americas and beginning of colonization. 2) Countries like Ireland, Finland or South Korea are amongst today's most developed nations and they haven't had any colonies, in fact they were under the rule of foreign imperial powers. Maybe the difference is that some countries accepted Marx's ideas and others Smith's. [4] -- Vision Thing -- 18:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nocommie version

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anarchism may mean:

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

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

Hogeye 02:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

I don’t think they are reliable sources according to Wikipedia standards, but I could be wrong. Woohookitty, do you think these were reliable sources? -- Vision Thing -- 11:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely nothing in there implies that articles from a mainstream broadcaster's news website are unacceptable, quite the contrary. And, as the other sources were largely from left-wingers writing directly about left-wing actions, they're absolutely acceptable. Donnacha 12:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

My role here

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

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

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

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

Festival of Puppetry II

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All authentic anarchism is anarcho-communist or similar. There is no such thing as a market-based anarchist society. That is a corruption of what anarchism is all about. In an anarchist society people share all the goods that have been produced and all resources of the earth. There is no money and no need for money. Look at the definition in M-Webster [5]. Even a simple dictionary definition points out that it is based in "cooperation". So-called individualist "anarchism" is based in competition and buying and selling. In an anarchist society there is no markets, no money, and no greed. "Individualist anarchism" is a bastardization of what anarchism is all about. It's no surprise that it comes from the U.S.A. which is the capital of greed. Revolution Guy 03:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The heading of this section is quite appropriate. It seems Revolution Guy is a sock puppet created to put forth ridiculous positions in order to prove a point. Now Hogeye and others can make the claim that all types of anarchism are disputed, which he has been trying to make all along, by pointing to him. Unfortunately, he has to make it by resorting to this silly gaming of the system; he's already stated that he views this article in the context of game theory. Furthermore, a certain fact is continually ignored by some editors, here: it does not matter what you think, or if a majority of editors who are active on this page believe something to be true; what matters are common opinion and verifiability. --AaronS 20:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Correction. What matters is "sourced" opinion. Sources from communist anarchists do say that individualist market anarchism...whether it's of the anarcho-capitalist type or not, is false anarchism. PlayersPlace 23:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

No I am not a "sock puppet". Revolution Guy 23:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

One True Meaning & MSTCrow's Suggestions

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

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

I don't think attempting to split it on a single issue, "degrees of property ownership" is an appropriate way to segment the article. The nuances between "collectivist" and "individualist" are great. - FrancisTyers · 23:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

Famous individualist, Joseph Labadie was an individualist, anarchist, socialist and fraternised with both other individualists, incl. Benjamin Tucker, and also trade unions. - FrancisTyers · 23:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

(edit conflit)Oversee? That doesn't seem very anarchistic? Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 06:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

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

MSTCrow: "There are two general schools of anarchist thought, collectivist anarchism and individualist anarchism, and neither is ever going to accept the other as being a form of anarchism."

While the collectivism/individualism schism is one dispute, it is not the main one here. The fundamental dispute is over the definition of anarchism: whether it is opposition to the institution of State or opposition to State plus anti-capitalism. This is broader than the individualist/collectivist issue, e.g. it emcompasses what writings and philosophies should be in the article (see the discussions re Vindication of Natural Society) and who should be included and noted (see discussions about Thoreau, Gandhi, and Stirner).

MSTCrow: "What should be done is for a history and explanation of each form of anarchism to be placed on the text, written from a facts only perspective (apart from which is anarchist or not), and let others decide for themselves which form of anarchism rings truer to their own ears."

This is a good idea, but it is extremely doubtful it can be implemented in one article - which is why I've suggested a Neutral Disambiguation Page. The fundamental dispute carries over to facts quite apart from which is anarchism, e.g. quoting luminaries' critiques about what is coercion/exploitation, why so-and-so is wrong, and so on. The result, as we've seen, is articles on schools that accumulate more critique than explanation of the school. Furthermore, we can't really avoid making some distinctions on what schools and luminaries to include, if only to stay within size limits. Finally, there's the Wiki systemic fact that there's no way to enforce any agreement, especially for future editors. Even for current editors, do you really think everyone will e.g. agree to stop labelling anarcho-capitalism as "disputed" in the template, or to generalize (all) anarchists believe X when in fact it should read e.g. all but anarcho-capitalists and some mutualists. Do you really think the socialist hardcores will ever stop trying to marginalize anarcho-capitalism?

MSTCrow, what is your opinion about the Neutral Disambiguation Page? Hogeye 17:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The NDP, as currently designed, won't help any uninformed reader make sense of the distinctions involved. Hogeye's insistence that people who reject the anarchist label should be prominently featured in the anarchism article doesn't seem helpful. A balanced historical approach could work, if the warring factions were willing to stick to it:

pre-history, proto-anarchist writings
Proudhon and mutualism
Warren and "individual-sovereignty"
anarcho-communism and anarcho-collectivism (Bakunin, Kropotkin, Dejacques, etc.)
proto-ancap figures
anarchism in the IWA, individualist-collectivist rifts, propaganda by the deed, Haymarket, etc
the bulk of "standard" social anarchist history
emergence of an-caps
60s stuff, including SI, Movement for the Libertarian Left, etc.
modern movements, including reemergence of mutualism (Kevin Carson)

That's off the top of my head, but it wouldn't be hard to flesh out. And if the details start to overwhelm the article, they can be moved out to more specific topics. But a certain amount of meanwhile, back among another faction shuttling will be necessary. MSTCrow's let the readers decide approach will work if we simply let each other make the clearest cases for each variety of anarchism. The bottom line is probably that none of us have anythng like a complete system to present anyway. Most of the folks trying to cast other factions out seem to be engaging in some special pleading. Libertatia 18:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Libertatia: "The NDP, as currently designed, won't help any uninformed reader make sense of the distinctions involved."

I disagree. Even the most naive reader will generally know whether he's interested in anti-statism or anti-capitalism. The short one-line descriptions give a good guide, and the reader can always read both.

Libertatia: "Hogeye's insistence that people who reject the anarchist label should be prominently featured in the anarchism article doesn't seem helpful."

Should closet homosexuals be included in an article about homosexual personalities? Should closet atheists, people who call themselves e.g. "freethinker" or "agnostic" instead but clearly don't believe in gods, be included in an article about atheists? Of course! The notion that people who were clearly anarchists who, for rather obvious reasons, wanted to avoid the label, should be excluded from the article is ridiculous. It seems to me to be a rather transparent partisan excuse to exclude anarchists from pro-capitalist and non-standard schools, like Auberon Herbert (who preferred the term "voluntaryist") and Gandhi (who preferred the term "swaraj".)

Libertatia: "A balanced historical approach could work, if the warring factions were willing to stick to it."

Agreed; but hell will freeze over before the warring factions agree, and most new editors will rebel. Look at point #1 "pre-history, proto-anarchist writings" - we have people that want to censor out the first anarchist essay simply because they don't like the author! (Cf recent edit war about Burke's "Vindication of Natural Society".) Look at point 5: "proto-ancap figures." There's nothing proto about Molinari, he was anarchist pure and simple. Do you really think socialist diehards won't delete him as in the past? Your 10 points simply multiply areas of disagreement and warring; it doesn't solve the underlying definitional problem.

Libertatia: "MSTCrow's let the readers decide approach will work if we simply let each other make the clearest cases for each variety of anarchism."

This we agree on. But I see the only practical way to do this would be to make two articles - the NDP approach. Separate but equal articles where each definitional faction can make a clear case without interference and subterfuge, where vandals can be directed to "their" article, and where there's a chance for a good relatively stable article (or two) to emerge. Hogeye 21:23, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe that due to the insistence of certain parties on defining anarchism in exclusionary terms, the best approach would be an NDP, as suggested by Hogeye. The article could be split into two general categories, individualist anarchism and collectivist anarchism, possibly. Libertatia's idea would work quite well if certain variables were removed, but due to the design of Wikipedia, I don't see any prospect for a 100% scholarly and dispassionate userbase of contributors on a single anarchism article. - MSTCrow 22:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The NDP simply moves the terms of the debate back about a decade. The only part of the broadly-defined anarchist tradition that is uncontroversially anti-state and not anti-capitalist is anarcho-capitalism. We already have an anarcho-capitalism article. The first time someone tries to write about the 19th century individualists or Proudhon in either article, the controversies will rage again. I'm suggesting an inclusive strategy—one that makes space for the figures claimed as sources by contemporary anarcho-capitalism, but also respects the the traditional uses of the term anarchism up to a point. It does not "multiply areas of disagreement," because we're already fighting about all these issues. If we could make even a reasonable attempt at filling out my outline, or something similar, we would be actually achieving the sort of results that Wikipedia claims. We would have a fuller and fairer account of anarchism broadly defined than just about any currently existing—and we would have built something around which further debate could develop. But maybe squabbling is more fun. Libertatia 14:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I liked the plan you detailed above, though i was unaware of a "reemergence of mutualism." collectivism and individualism are not necessarily antithetical as in a truly anarchist society they would not be mutually exclusive. likewise, ancap communties/individuals could certianly exist in said society. that is not the dispute here. the dispute here is over giving undue weight to a fringe position within anarchism which, according to most anarchists, is dubiously anarchist. most scholars and anarchists, historical and contemporary, have accepted that there were both socialist and individualist branches of anarchism. Blockader

I'm pretty well aware of what the conflict is about. I've been a partisan in it, in various places, for a long time. A presentist historical account, that gives space to anarcho-capitalism, can merge the present-definition concerns with the historical tradition concerns. In fact, nearly all of the historical figures that Hogeye would like to see included were claimed for the tradition by Tucker at one time or another, so they are already part of the conversation, despite some partisan denials. Libertatia 16:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Protected...again

I protected the page before half the people involved violated the 3RR. --Woohookitty^(meow) 12:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Good call. Isn't this article a circus? --AaronS 20:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Send in the clowns! *Dan T.* 22:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Sad to say it but it's pretty typical for a controversial article. --Woohookitty^(meow) 07:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Here are the anarchist clowns! Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 18:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

What's the point? PlayersPlace 23:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Neutral Disambiguation Page - Poll

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

Anarchism may mean:

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

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

I propose that we use the "Neutral Disambiguation Page" above as the main anarchism article, and perhaps even semi-permanently protect it. It has been tweaked from an earlier version by inserting the word "pure", as some people were worried that Marxism would qualify. Note that this is not about the individualist-collectivist split - it is about a broad-tent vs. anti-capitalist-only definitional split.

Pros:

By giving each faction its own article, it should prevent the recurring factional edit wars.
There are in fact two definitions, totally incompatable, favored by editors. Both have reasonable rationales.
It lets readers choose which meaning they are interested in; they can always read both.

Cons:

It condones the other faction's false definition.
My faction has more people and/or is more persistent, so we can win the edit war.
It may confuse or mislead readers.

Q: Do you support using the Neutral Disambiguation Page?

Yes Hogeye 00:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Emphatic no. I also think that your talk of "factions" is damaging, and gives away your zealotry quite well. I really wish that you would find a more productive source of entertainment than the Wikipedia Game. Furthermore, the "broad-tent vs. anti-capitalist-only" dichotomy that you present is as false as the individualist versus collectivist dichotomy. If you suggest that anarchism is only anti-statism, and someone else responds by claiming "No, it's anti-authoritarianism, which includes anti-statism," then it's your definition, not his or hers, that is narrow. I've given up assuming good faith with you, and find your antics boring. --AaronS 00:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Petition rejected The disambiguation page would not be neutral. Surely "Anarchism (anti-statism)" would just be anti-statism? - FrancisTyers · 00:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I do not understand your objections to the proposed solution. - MSTCrow 05:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

False dichotomy. That which is not capitalist need not be socialist. - FrancisTyers · 12:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. We already have an article on anti-statism. A more neutral approach would be to focus on anarchism as used by most self-identified anarchists on this page, and put an other uses message on the top of the page saying "For the term anarchism as it is defined by anarcho-capitalists, see anti-statism." Not that I'm sure about that approach, either. Owen 21:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Anti-statism is much broader than anarchism. Anarchism is pure anti-statism. Read the article. Hogeye 21:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Neutral approach would be to focus on anarchism as defined by most scholars. This should be encyclopedia based on sources, and not on opinion of the people from the street. -- Vision Thing -- 09:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes MSTCrow 05:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
No. Donnacha 08:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
No. The proposed "disambiguation" remains ambiguous, and the proposal seems to be a POV fork. It seems likely only to multiply disputed articles. Libertatia 14:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Hell No. For the same reasons stated by Libertatia, AaronS, and FrancisTyers above. Alot seems to have happened here during my weekend break from wikipedia and none of it seems to be very positive. At least maggie/thewolfstar is blocked again. Blockader 15:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. If I understood your intention correctly, Anarchism (anti-statism) would include most of content from Anarchism (anti-capitalism) and that is redundant. Needed differentiation can be made within one article. I would rather have articles on Anarchism (philosophy) and Anarchism (movement). -- Vision Thing -- 16:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Except the movement and the philosophy are intimately linked. No encyclopedia I've seen has made it into two articles. Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 18:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  - I know. However, no other encyclopedia has edit wars and POV tags and I see a separation as a possible solution. Also, there is no real obstacle for doing this, because separation between philosophy and movement already exists in the article. -- Vision Thing -- 08:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

No False dichotomy and a pov fork. Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 18:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Hell No Ancaps warrant inclusion in the broader discourse of "Anarchism", but creation of an "anti-state"/"socialist" dichotomy is bullshit. Anarchism can be both opposed to Socialism and "all forms of authority." Anarchism is fundamentally anti-power, anti-hierarchy and anti-oppression. Split is utterly idiotic and a complete redefinition. WTF is up with Anarchism being JUST "anti-state" and "anti-capitalism"?!--William Gillis 20:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
No for reasons stated above. Owen 21:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
No. There has been a two-party faction fight going on here for years, but a disambiguation page is a cop-out. The underlying conceptual or factual conflict should be articulated somehow, it should be bindingly arbitrated, and the losing side should deal with it like grown-ups or get blocked like any other disrupters. (Of course my opinions about this seem to be at right angles to the dominant discourse here.) EbonyTotem 02:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Definitely Not That is unnecessary confusion. There is no such thing as anarchism that is not against capitalism. Anarchism is just not anti-state. It is also anti private property. Revolution Guy 23:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Discussion of Poll

AaronS and FrancisTyers refer to definition A as "only anti-statism" and "just anti-statism" respectively. Naturally, any given anarchist will have additional beliefs; def A should not be construed to mean anti-statism is all an anarchist believes. What it does say is this: Pure anti-statism is a necessary and sufficient condition for being an anarchist.

Francis makes a good point that anti-capitalist is not the same as socialist. E.g. Mutualists are anti-capitalist but not socialist (in modern terminology.) I would have no objection to changing definition B's title from Anarchism (socialist) to Anarchism (anti-capitalist). Does that take care of your objection, Francis?

Libertatia considers the NDP to be a POV fork. But it is a fact that most dictionaries give definition A, and that most 19th century luminaries (even the socialist ones) define anarchism as being opposition to the State. Either one of these facts by itself would justify disambiguation. (I assume you aren't contesting definition B.)

Libertatia opines that having two articles would "multiply disputed articles." I don't see this at all. I for one would pretty much ignore the other article were we to disambiguate. I suspect that most people here would do the same. Most editors do it in good faith, and are interested in improving articles they are interested in, not vandalizing other people's articles. Hogeye 16:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Even if we can get some agreement among current participants to ignore the other articles, the NDP doesn't seem like a robust, long-term solution to questions like were individualist anarchists in the 19th century socialists? or did the individualists oppose capitalism or some partial or corrupted market form? New editors are likely to contest the whole structure. Including ambiguous and contested terms in the "disambiguation" doesn't really seem like much of an advance. Libertatia 16:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

No it doesn't take care of my concern, it would have to be "Anarchism (capitalist)", "Anarchism (anti-capitalist)". But then we should have those are redirects, Anarchism (capitalist) to Anarcho-capitalism, and Anarchism (anti-capitalist) to Anarchism. We can have the disambiguation page at Anarchism (disambiguation). - FrancisTyers · 16:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I would totally support that arrangement Francis :) Blockader 16:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Then you would also have to have "Anarchism (anti-communist)" and so on.Anarcho-capitalism 17:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Intangible 17:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

My smiley face indicates humor. Blockader

Right. I see the clowns have been sent in again. Intangible 17:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

"Anarchism covers a wide range of beliefs, from extreme individualist to extreme collectivism and from extreme capitalism to extreme communism, that it could be argued that there cannot be much, if anything, that unites all the strands." Adams, Ian, Political Ideology Today, Manchester University Press (2002), p. 133Anarcho-capitalism 17:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

If anyone doubts that anarcho-capitalism is a type of anarchism, see my Userpage for a plethora of sources. And there's more coming.Anarcho-capitalism 17:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Anarcho-Capitalism, they reject that definition for a totally incompatable one. You can find experts and dictionaries and articles supporting both definitions. Both definitions have reasonable rationales. Bottom line - there will never be consensus on the definition of anarchism. That's why we need the Neutral Disambiguation Page. The only alternative is continual edit wars. I urge you to vote Yes in the poll.

VisionThing: "If I understood your intention correctly, Anarchism (anti-statism) would include most of content from Anarchism (anti-capitalism) and that is redundant."

Right. (Francis doesn't seem to get this - apparently thinking in terms of a partition of subjects.) Anarchism (anti-statist) is the more inclusive of the two definitions. In theory, all subjects covered in Anarchism (anti-capitalist) would also be covered in Anarchism (anti-statist). Anarchism (anti-capitalist) would cover only pure anti-statist philosophies that are also anti-capitalist. Subjects in def B are a subset of subjects in def A.

This redundancy has the advantage of preventing the definitional edit warring, and incidentally also allowing for less hedging and exception-making, e.g. the Anarchism (anti-capitalist) article might say "(all) anarchists oppose wage-labor" without qualifying or edit-warring, give their own take and definition of "globalization," and so on.

Francis' suggestion of a partition - Anarchism (capitalist) and Anarchism (anti-capitalist) - seems frivolous. It doesn't solve or even address the definitional problem. In that spirit, I'd say that Anarchism (anti-capitalist) would need to be directed to Libertarian Socialism (not Anarchism) and Anarchism (capitalist) to Anarcho-capitalism, leaving no place for anarchism in general or forms not fitting those pigeonholes. VisionThing's suggestion of dividing into Anarchism (philosophy) and Anarchism (movement) has the same flaw - it doesn't solve or even address the definitional problem, i.e. whether pro-capitalist and capitalist-neutral philosophies and movements be included or marginalized. Hogeye 20:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I can't see why these anarchists should be allowed to use their own page as a battleground for their own internal squabbling. We are the true anarchists, you aren't stuff I mean.

The Anarcho-capitalists, despite the fact their society, implemented would be hell-on-earth, are still anarchists. They oppose the existance of the state, that makes them anarchists in my book. Sure they might disagree with other anarchos about the exact nature of their dream society, but that hardely excludes them from the group. Sure there are terrible flaws in anarcho-capitalism, but the same can be said of all anarchist theories. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slayer of Cliffracers (talk • contribs)

Interestingly enough, this is only Cliffracer's second edit. Hmm, I'm not saying anything....I'm just saying.Ungovernable Force ^{Got something to say?} 02:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately that constitutes a POV fork.-- Vision Thing -- 08:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The following are comments on Gillis' vote. I've moved it from previous section. Sorry, my fault - I should have commented here in the first place. Hogeye 21:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Yet another person interprets it as a dicotomy/partition rather than as more inclusive and less inclusive. I'm not sure how to make it any clearer than Def A: (pure anti-statism) and Def B: (pure anti-statism) AND (anti-capitalism). Logically A includes B. Hogeye 21:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Since most anarchist philosophies and movements, that is all except anarcho-capitalism, are both anti-state AND anti-capitalist, how does it make sense to have one article that includes all information on anarchism and then a seperate article that includes all information on anarchism except with no mention of anarco-capitalism. Both social and indiv anarchism are anti-capitalist and to argue otherwise is to display a gross misunderstanding of history and political theory. so what your proposing would be served equally as well by having one article that covers all of anarchism (being antistate and anticap) excluding anarcho-capitalism, and then have a seperate page that covers ancap. Wait that is what we have except that currently (and appropriately imo) the anarchism article discusses does ancap. Blockader 21:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

You may peruse the 100s of messages already written about why the etymological def, the dictionary def, and the def given by most luminaries (even socialist ones) is better than the circular anarchism is whatever has been traditionally considered anarchism def. Three reasons it makes sense to have two articles are given in the "Pros" part of the Poll section above:

By giving each faction its own article, it should prevent the recurring factional edit wars.
There are in fact two definitions, totally incompatable, favored by editors. Both have reasonable rationales.
It lets readers choose which meaning they are interested in; they can always read both.

There may be other differences besides "no mention of anarcho-capitalism." E.g. No mention of Thoreau, possibly Stirner, Molinari, Auberon Herbert, Gandhi, possibly Tolstoy, no mention of movements that don't address economics but are against the State, e.g. certain variants of environmentalism or primitivism, ethnic or race oriented anti-state movements, "national anarchism," and so on. Being anti-state is much broader than being both anti-state and anti-capitalist. Hogeye 21:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey, it's Hogeye! Real life interferes with Wiki for a week and I come back to see that I had been blocked and that Hogeye is back. I must say that I find myself at odds with his suggestion, though: this reminds me a lot of the old "Schools of Anarchism Tree" and it suffers from the same flaw - even weighting, therefore undue weighting. If Brittanica feels fine discussing only libertarian socialism under the "anarchism" moniker, that's an indication of the historical weight thereof as compared to anarcho-capitalism. But here at Wiki we aim to be more informative than Brittanica, so (as you can see above) I say that we give AnCap the dubious honour of a mention in this mess. With reservations. What I do like about the suggestion is how it would reduce edit-wars. My suggestion to accomplish the same is to give AnCap it's place, a brief discription and send the interested reader off in that direction. --GoodIntentions^talk 03:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's Good Intentions' proposed guideline again. EbonyTotem 04:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Guideline to Capitalism and An-Cap

Idea

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)

Poll

Q: Do you support the Guideline to Capitalism and An-Cap?

Uh, I'm not sure. But as long as we're taking polls, here it is. EbonyTotem 04:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
No. Formulations like: "It is because these things are facts and any other representation is a misrepresentation and a distortion of POV." are not something I could support. -- Vision Thing -- 09:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand your objection. --GoodIntentions^talk 05:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

No. This is definitional pov. Rule by Secrecy 10:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: Rule by Secrecy is a brand new account, started today. Need I say more. Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 04:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
No. The guidelines above are extremely POV and a transparent attempt to marginalize anarcho-capitalism. Hogeye 14:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

By giving it an explicit mention alongside other schools? Go away and stop bothering me. --GoodIntentions^talk 05:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes. This is essentially how the article is organized currently and I think it is fair, though it obviously won't solve edit warring concerns. I also support Libertatia's proposal somewhere above. Blockader 14:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
No First of all it's written in such a condescending way that I can't lend my support to it. Secondly, I don't like that it says it is being "generous" by allowing anarcho-capitalism. Nobody is "allowing" anarcho-capitalism in the article. Those who would rather not have it in the article couln't keep it out of the article if they wanted to, because every professional scholar of political science or history who studies a anarchist thought says that it is anarchism. This idea that some try to put forth here that the anti-anarcho-capitalists are compromising somehow is completely phony. In reality, their backs are against the wall.Anarcho-capitalism 16:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

This was written when the discussion on an-cap's place had a somewhat different tone to what we have at the moment. My proposal was the first of the current round of endless, infuriating debate to offer, from a socialist standpoint, ancap a place as a school. And I disagree with your formulation of the scholarship, and am not particularily impressed by your tone. Such righteous indignation isn't a healthy way to react to a good faith attempt at compromise. Of course, the most comment dismissal of this proposal has been to attack my good faith, which is somewhat infuriating. --GoodIntentions^talk 05:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

No. Intangible 17:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
No Although I think the third bullet might be a good idea. - MSTCrow 19:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes A good compromise that gives more than enough to the anarcho-capitalist camp. Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 04:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes As this means AnCap is in the anarchism article, which should be enough as everything more about this theory should go into the anarcho-capitalism article. --Fjulle 10:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes NPOV: Undue Weight. Donnacha 11:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes NPOV: Undue Weight. Ancap is a fraction within a fraction that is a very small subset (at best). // Liftarn 11:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, although the language might be a bit condescending. Supersheep 17:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes. When I last looked (ah, real life, why do you disturb me?) the article was quite in line with these guidelines. --GoodIntentions^talk 05:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment - Condescending? Explain. --GoodIntentions^talk 05:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Discussion of Guidelines

If you cut the condescending commentary, points one and three are okay. Point two is clearly POV. It could be replaced with something reasonable. Here is an alternative set of guidelines:

Anarcho-capitalism being given its place in "Schools of Anarchist Thought," on par with that of the American individualist anarchists.
All generic statements of what anarchists believe be properly qualified when they only hold for some (e.g. anti-capitalist) anarchists.
Antiquated terminology be noted wherever it occurs, with an explanation of the dated meaning. (E.g. 19th century references to "socialism," "capitalism," "usary," "possession," etc.)
Both "communism" and "capitalism" be addressed in "Issues in anarchism."

Hogeye 15:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I like it. But I don't know what "on par with the American individualist anarchists" means because they "are" American individualist anarchists.Anarcho-capitalism 16:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Even figures like Rothbard acknowledge a difference between the American individualist anarchist tradition, which was anti-capitalist, and anarcho-capitalism. This is one of those instances where the conventional labels are very useful shorthand. Libertatia 17:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

There is more than one American individualist anarchist tradition. Yes the tradition Rothbard started was different than the 19th century tradition but it is still an individualist anarchist tradition.Anarcho-capitalism 17:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The point is that the label "American individualist anarchist tradition" is generally acknowledged, and is acknowledged by Rothbard, who chose to call his tradition something else, to refer to the anti-capitalist tradition. The shorthand is clear, useful, generally recognized, and need not involve any marginalization of anarcho-capitalism, as the distinction has the Rothbardian stamp of approval. In any event, the distinction currently exists in the article, so it's not at all difficult to understand what Hogeye means. Libertatia 18:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I enjoy the suggestion, "All generic statements of what anarchists believe be properly qualified when they only hold for some (e.g. anti-capitalist) anarchists." Why should the the statements be qualified for anti-capitalists when nearly all anarchists except "anarcho-capitalists," who are really just (US party) libertarians, are anti-capitalists. doesn't it make more sense to qualify the statements for this small minority of supposed anarchists who are pro-capitalist than for the vast majority who are not. your reasoning hurts my innards. 69.55.170.38

Well, maybe because some people are interested in making an accurate article. There is little, if anything, that all anarchists believe. That's the way this article should treat anarchism and avoid making generalizations. To do otherwise is just sloppy writing.Anarcho-capitalism 17:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Correcting a factual error: "38" writes, "anarcho-capitalists, who are really just (US party) libertarians..." In fact, the vast majority of anarcho-capitalists abhor the Libertarian Party. Ancaps, like other anarchists, are generally against engaging in electoral politics. Hogeye 18:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

You're probably right, but I can see some anarcho-capitalists engaging in politics, in order to reduce the size and scope of the state as much as you can. I don't think being in a political party means you want the state to exist. Proudhon is an example of anarchist who was involved in politics.Anarcho-capitalism 18:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Ditto Murray Bookchin, though only on a local level. Donnacha 20:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

For those interested, some essays by Carl Watner:

Voluntaryism in the Libertarian Tradition

Voluntaryism in the European Anarchist Tradition

George H. Smith's essay The Ethics of Voting

and of course Wendy McElroy's classic Why I Would Not Vote Against Hitler.

Hogeye 21:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I just realized that Chomsky is used as a source for anarcho-capitalism not being anarchism. Does that mean we can use Rothbard as a source for anarcho-communism not being anarchism? By the way, did anyone see Hugo Chavez speech today at the UN? He held up a Chomsky book and recommended it to everyone. You'll never see a statist fascist like him politician praising a Rothbard book.Anarcho-capitalism 17:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Your definition of fascist is very interesting - Chavez has massive public support, has invested millions of oil money into the country, education, healthcare, unlike the capitalists who took it all out of the country and left widespread poverty, and wrote the most human rights-based constitution in the region. I'm no big Chavez fan, by any means, but any form of authentic democratic socialism is generally far better than the capitalist alternative. Any form of capitalism is elitist, opposed to the fundamental ideas behind anarchism. Donnacha 20:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

So Chavez is "investing" money. *laugh* So where is Chavez getting the money to invest? He's stealing it! He's stealing the means of production from the private sector and in those sectors that are still private he's stealing profits from the private sector. Then he's taking that wealth and "investing" in things in order to bribe people for votes in order to further his fascist ambitions. It's classic FDR. In a true anarchist society, everything is private sector and there is no state to steal with wealth. And what is invested in is determined by the free choice of those with the wealth to invest. And what Chavez's inspiration? Chomsky and his philosophy of "libertarian socialism." That just goes to show you how un-anarchist collectivist "anarchism" is. The state is the ultimate symbol of collectivism.Anarcho-capitalism 20:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

You ancaps are hilarious, you know that? You really have zero idea how the world really works, brainwashed to the brim by American capitalist theory. Vision Thing referenced Ireland above as a great example of a successful modern economy. You know why Ireland became a Tiger economy? I do, as I lived through it - it was primarily down to the huge state investment in education through the period when Ireland had an economy similar to many African countries. Add to that the structural funds from the European Union and you had the heady mix that created the fastest growing European economy of the late 90s - at ridiculous levels. This is what Chavez is replicating - education, education, education. Plus, you're misusing the term fascist - which relates to totalitarian military-industrial states. By definition, if Chavez is crushing the private sector, Venezuela cannot be fascist. Add to that the fact that Venezuela is a democratic state (moreso than most Western countries based on the numbers who vote) also repudiates your description. Finally, your support for the corrupt, elitist pre-Chavez economy in Venezuela - where poverty was absolutely widespread - would be repulsive to every real anarchist, including the true American individualists. The truest enemy of anarchism is the unassailable private corporation, the state is nothing more than its puppet. Donnacha 22:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalists do not support the pre-Chavez regime in Venezuela. No anarchist would support that, nor support Chavez' regime, by definition of anarchism. If you want to know the libertarian view of Latin America, here are two excellent books that I have read and can recommend:

"The Mystery of Capital," by Hernando de Soto, and "Liberty for Latin America: How to Undo Five Hundred Years of State Oppression" by Alvaro Vargas Llosa. In the latter Llosa writes about the "five principles of oppression": corporatism, State mercantilism, privilege, bottom-up wealth redistribution, and political law. Billy Bob sez check these books out! Hogeye 00:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I recommend a far greater one - YA BASTA!: Ten Years Of The Zapatista Uprising - Writings Of Subcomandante Insurgente Marcos - analysis from the revolution at the heart of modern anarchism. In the real world, if you oppose what Chavez is doing to the economy, you, by definition, support the corrupt oligarchy that preceded him. You don't have to support him to see that he's a definite improvement for the majority of people in Venezuela. Anarchism doesn't need a state to bring about true freedom and equality, but any state that goes that way is a step in the right direction. Support the Zapatistas, support the MST, support the MNER - that's anarchy, but, despite their flaws, Chavez and Morales appear, for the moment at least, to be doing the right thing and giving their countries' resources back to the people. If they become like Lula or Castro, then they deserve greater opposition.Donnacha 00:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so you fall for the socialist myth. Wait in a few years, there will much more poverty. Socialism doesn't work. The means of production have to be in private hands and the people need to be allowed to make a secure profit from their business ventures.Anarcho-capitalism 16:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Socialism's never been tried properly, but poverty is far less in social democratic countries than it is in capitalist ones. A lot fewer people die of treatable illnesses in countries with National Health Services free at the point of usage than do in places like the US. Donnacha 17:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. There is a direct correlation between capitalism and lack of poverty. The less capitalism, the more poverty. People don't like to invest in countries where their profits are subject to confiscation by the state in the name of social welfare. Governments don't create wealth, they steal it from businesses. So if less business are willing to open up shop, there is less for the government to steal and the people suffer. You have to create an environment where investors know they can keep their profits. Only then can a country have an abundance of goods and services. Capitalism is anarchy, with everyone deciding for themselves what to invest in and what to produce. Socialism is authority. That's why it doesn't work.Anarcho-capitalism 17:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, of course. That's why I put the Rothbard "True anarchism will be capitalism, and true capitalism will be anarchism" front and center in the "nocommie" version of the article. Since the NDP attempt at compromise went over like a lead balloon, I guess we'll be seeing a lot of that version in future definitional tit-for-tat edit-warring. Hogeye 18:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Definition disputes in other Wiki articles

I've been trying to find analogies in Wikipedia to our definitional dispute. One similar article is Christianity. There are those who define Xtianity as the belief that Jesus is the son of god; there are also those who believe that Xtianity also necessitates a belief in the "holy trinity." The majority of Xtians take the latter view. Yet the Xtianity article has apparently taken the broader, more inclusive definition for a long time now, without continual edit wars. This should be cause for optimism among we who support the broader definition of anarchism. Very early in the history of the Xtianity article there were those (who like the anti-capitalist partisans here) appealed to tradition - going back to 4th century no less - for trinitarianism. Yet the broad tent version won out in the long run. (So keep it up and a rational article may be had yet!) Hogeye 00:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Why is anarchism locked down? Rule by Secrecy 01:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Some here sound more like statists than anarchists. Rule by Secrecy 01:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, and you sound like a wolf...star. Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 04:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Hogeye, I don't really understand what you hoped to achieve with the NDP. What do you think is being excluded from the article by the "anti-capitalist partisans"? It seems to me it makes more sense to discuss specific cases than to make vague (and philosophically difficult) arguments about the appropriate relationship between definitions and encyclopedia articles. VoluntarySlave 02:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

VoluntarySlave: "I don't really understand what you hoped to achieve with the NDP."

I hoped to end the permanent edit wars.

VoluntarySlave: "What do you think is being excluded from the article by the anti-capitalist partisans?"

Everything from the first anarchist essay to Molinari and Gandhi to categorization of anarchist schools to ... just go back over the edit wars and talk history and make your own list. Then there are the blatantly false generic statements about what anarchists think. Do you really think that we will ever get consensus for the four suggested guidelines at the beginning of the Discussion of Guidelines section? Honestly, do you really think edit wars will ever end here without either such a consensus or an NDP?

The definitional issue is really quite simple: do we want a restrictive definition or a broad definition? Even the damn Xtians, as fanatic a bunch as you'll find anywhere, settled on a broad tent definition. The Catholics did not 'define away' the Protestants, the trinitarians didn't define non-trinitarians out of Xtianity, even though they had a vast majority and a good tradition argument. But here, the old-timey anarcho-socialists insist on defining modern schools out of anarchism, and I don't see that changing anytime soon. Hence the NDP. Hogeye 03:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Having read some of the war raging here, and the unbending attitude of some of the editors, I tend to agree with Hogeye. At this rate this war will never end. Rule by Secrecy 04:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

VoluntarySlave, your comment above is intelligent and well-observed. Hogeye, how is the current article version leaving out ancaps? it includes them right under the US Individualist section. No one here (i think) intends to remove it. it actually has a larger and more detailed section than the one on an-syndicalists and an-communists who make up a large potion of anarchists. rothbard is discussed more than kropotkin (whos section was removed?), bakunin, etc. what is it that you desire? half the article devoted to your particular belief? that sounds rather partisan to me. i'm not trying to insert a large section on anarchism-without-adjectives. donnacha is not attempting to greatly expand the ansynd section and so on. Blockader 15:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Blockader: "Hogeye, how is the current article version leaving out ancaps?"

Strawman; I have never claimed that it leaves out anarcho-capitalism - only that it marginalizes them, and often gives biased description when it does mention them. E.g. In the anarcho-capitalism section, instead of straighforwardly explaining their position, the article both begins and ends with a disclaimer, and is full of anti-capitalist bromides repeated from other school's sections. E.g. Instead of Anarcho-capitalism espouses the subjective theory of value rather than the labor theory of value, the section has Anarcho-capitalism ... rejects their labor theory of value which regards profit to be exploitative and caused by state intervention. Anarcho-capitalists instead espouse the subjective theory of value, so they do not believe that the proper price of anything depends on how much labor was exerted. Note that there is more exposition of other schools' propaganda than what ancaps think. And to top it off, labor theory of value has a link but subjective theory of value doesn't! The next sentence starts "They also disagree..." and gives more socialist propaganda. The section is clearly given a negative spin.

I've gave several examples of exclusion in the last post. Another example is the deletion of the ancap view of globalization - the following section, present in an earlier version, was removed:

Prominent anarcho-capitalists, such as Murray Rothbard and Wendy McElroy, have been outspoken critics of the WTO, World Bank and "free trade" zones (such as NAFTA); however they support worldwide expansion of the division of labor and trade, which they see as beneficial so long as governments do not intervene.^[2]

I could go back through the last 20 edit wars and find 20 more reasons, but the fact is there are irreconcilable differences in our definitions of anarchism. You and I know that the anarcho-socialist true believers will continue to bias the article. And new true believers come along all the time. I see the NDP as the only chance to have stable articles. Hogeye 16:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Strawman; I have never claimed that it leaves out anarcho-capitalism - only that it marginalizes them - It is a marginal viewpoint! It's tiny, it has no street presence, no organisations, hardly any advocates. Marginalising ancaps is NPOV, anything else is POV. Donnacha 16:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. Anarcho-capitalism is the most popular anarchism in the U.S.Anarcho-capitalism 16:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Now thats ridiculous. We have groups and collectives and organizations all over the country. where are yours? and don't give me some classical liberalism examples because they are not the same thing. the libertarian party is classlib and ancap is certianly not the lib party is it. i have met hundreds of various social and indiv anarchists (granted mostly in the southeast) and never encountered an ancap except online. do y'all not go outdoors? anyway, this is not an article about the us it concerns the entire world, where social anarchism dwarfs. the CGT alone in spain has some 50,000 members. Blockader 17:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

"Despite this diversity, we can categorize all anarchists as essentially left-wing libertarians who champion the growth of the individual within a community (Anarcho-Communists, Christian Anarchists, and most Anarcho-Pacifists) and right-wing libertarians (Anarcho-Capitalists, and ultraindividualists) who are most egoistical and stress the individualism of the unregulated marketplace. Since the social ethic of American is not communal but is based on a private world of personal fulfillment and satisfaction (the self-made man, not social man) it is not suprising that what I call right-wing libertarianism was the predominant element of the new, explicit anarchism." DeLeon, David. The American as Anarchist: Reflections on Indigenous RadicalismAnarcho-capitalism 17:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

What is DeLeon referring to when he says "the new, explicit anarchism"? It's not clear from that quotation that because the predominant view of "the new, explicit anarchism" was pro-capitalist, the predominant view of US anarchists (either now, or throughout the history of US anarchism), were pro-capitalist. That may indeed be what DeLeon is saying, but the quote as is doesn't support it. VoluntarySlave 20:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, the only section I want to discuss adding is a piece on attempts to synthesis communist/collectivist thought with individualist, from Goldman up to Bob Wilson's non-euclidean politics concept. Donnacha 16:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The reason the ideas of an-caps are being exluded is because they give undue weight to anarcho-capitalism. This is an article on anarchism, and the vast majority of anarchists are not anarcho-capitalists and are strongly opposed to those views. Talk about it on the an-cap page, not here. That's the whole point of Good Intentions' proposal. Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 04:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Neutral guideline

Anarcho-capitalism being given its place in "Schools of Anarchist Thought", on par with that of the (19th century) American individualist anarchists.

Dispute of anarcho-capitalism's place within anarchism is mentioned in the content of the section, but not in Issues section. (That means no dispute tag on section title).

Both "communism" and "capitalism" be addressed in "Issues in anarchism".

Dispute of place of anarcho-communism within anarchist movement will be noted in anarcho-communist section, but not in Issues section. (That means no dispute tag on section title).

Antiquated terminology will be noted as such, if appropriate sources can be provided.

Poll

Support. I hope that we can at least agree on about this. -- Vision Thing -- 16:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Support. Hogeye 16:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

No NPOV: Undue Weight. Donnacha 16:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

SupportAnarcho-capitalism 17:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Nay. Undue weight. Blockader 17:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Petition rejected. undue weight. - FrancisTyers · 18:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

No Id say the schools section should be cronological, which means anarcho-capilism be a part of individual anarchism in the united states, not on par with it --Fjulle 11:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

No, but very close to agreeing. I intensely distrust the "antiquated terminology" schpiel because I believe it is POV and I distrust the motivation behind it. Since anarchocommunism is by far the most subscribed to form of anarchism any mention of dispute surrounding it's "anarchisticness" be mentioned in passing. Other than that I'm in agreement --GoodIntentions^talk 05:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

I made a clarification to avoid terminolgical nitpicking ("19th century") and added some symmetry, which I'm sure was VisionThing's intent. Hogeye 16:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to see some proof for the Undue Weight contention. I will examine any alleged proof to see if it begs the question wrt the definition of anarchism. If you take "anarchism" to mean "The theory or doctrine that all forms of government are oppressive and undesirable and should be abolished" then, both historically and today, most anarchists do not call themselves "anarchist." (Similar examples: Many/most homosexuals do not self-label themselves as homosexual, being in the closet; most atheists do not self-label as "atheist," preferring the mellower terms "agnostic" or "freethinker.") I suspect that the "undue weight" claim is based on a self-serving definition of anarchism as whatever self-labeled anarchists say it is.

It is doubtful that most anarchists oppose(d) capitalism qua private ownership of the means of production. Historically, I suspect that "Social Statics" was read - and supported - by more people than all self-labeled anarchist tracts combined! In the late 19th century, I suspect that more English-speaking people considered themselves Voluntaryist or Xtian non-resisters than communist anarchists or anarcho-syndicalists. Today, I suspect there are more principled pure anti-statists who read LewRockwell.com than read IndyMedia, and more posters on anti-state.com and strike-the-root.com forums than infoshop.org and whatever else they have.

Of course, these are suspicions and conjectures. The burden of proof is on those who make the claim that anarcho-capitalism is given undue weight to show that one section out of seven schools it undue. (One section out of 28 or so total sections.) Hogeye 17:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

So much nonsense, it's unbelievable. Firstly, there is no parallel between homosexuality and anarchism. The former is defined by behaviour, not self-declaration. Anarchists who do not call themselves anarchists are not anarchists. It's not up to you to define them differently - most correctly call themselves libertarians. You're like the Mormons with their post-mortem conversions. As for your rejection of agnostics and freethinkers - most people call themselves something, or don't call themselves something, for their own reasons. Unless you're psychic, forget about it. I'm an agnostic, not an atheist - atheism is as dogmatic as religion in my view, I acknowledge that I have no idea whether there's a greater force that influences our lives. Gandhi didn't prefer the term "swaraj", he used the term "swaraj" instead of defining himself as an anarchist like Kropotkin or Tolstoy with whom he was intimately acquainted. He spoke fluent English, he chose not to use the term because he didn't regard himself as an anarchist (specifically as he didn't oppose the Indian class system). The likes of Godwin or Thoreau are a different proposition as they predated the use of the term. The concept of "self-described" anarchists is a nonsense, no-one has a right to describe those who choose not to use the term by a term they've rejected. Donnacha 19:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Words are labels for concepts. If someone believes that governments are an unnecessary evil and should be abolished, they are anarchist. If someone doesn't believe in god, they are atheist. It doesn't matter what they call themselves.

Point of history: Gandhi wrote "Hind Swaraj" in response to "V.D. Savarkar (1883-1966), a fanatical anarchist and spokesperson for Indian terrorists." It seems pretty obvious he didn't use the term "anarchism" because he associated it with violence.[6] Hogeye 19:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand the dispute. It looks like a dispute is being manufactured. Anarcho-capitalism is already in the article and it's already in the individualist anarchism section. Why the arguing? It doesn't like anyone has been trying to take it out.Anarcho-capitalism 17:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

exactly what i have said a dozen times. hogeye is notorious for this, which is why he is almost always blocked from editing wikipedia. Blockader 18:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think he should be blocked. I think he sincerely thinks people are trying to take anarcho-capitalism out of the article. I understand he was blocked for awhile and has come back. Maybe things have changed since he was here last and he doesn't know?Anarcho-capitalism 18:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I saw one person a "Revolution Guy" but he appears to have come and gone, and he was yanking out the whole Individualist anarchism section, not just anarcho-captialism. But I don't see anyone else here arguing to remove anarcho-capitalism.Anarcho-capitalism 18:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

@ those who oppose on basis of undue weight. What would you add or subtract from guideline? -- Vision Thing -- 18:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Kudos to VisionThing for reading comprehension! To you others: This was about Donnacha's (and other's) claim about undue weight. I didn't even remotely suggest that someone was trying to take the anarcho-capitalism section out. Hogeye 18:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

yes, revolution guy was way off base, so are others here. Blockader 18:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok well the first point confused me, because I don't think it's being argued to take it out of the article or out of the individualist anarchism section. On your other points I agree. Anarcho-communism should also have a few sentences from individualists disputing it's anarchist status. It seems that would be necessary to comply with the POV policy.Anarcho-capitalism 18:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Neutral Intro - testing the proposed guidelines

Anarchism is the name of a political philosophy or a group of doctrines and attitudes that are centered on rejection of government, or the state, as harmful and unnecessary and supportDonnacha 00:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC) its elimination.^[1]The term "anarchism" is derived from the Greek αναρχία ("without archons" or "without rulers"). Thus "anarchism," in its most general meaning, is the belief that all forms of rulership are undesirable and should be abolished. The rise of anarchism as a philosophical movement began in the late 18th century, with Edmund Burke's Vindication of Natural Society and William Godwin's Enquiry Concerning Political Justice.^[3]

On its own anarchism does not provide a world view beyond the idea that imposed authority is oppressive, abusive and unnecessary. There are a variety of types of anarchism which all emphasize their points of difference.^[4] Economic arrangements are one of the main areas of disagreement for anarchists. Historically, no one knows whether most anarchists were capitalist, mutualist, or socialist, however most self-described anarchists have considered themselves to be anti-capitalist. Pro-capitalist opponents of the state have generally not called themselves "anarchists" due to the term's perceived association with socialism and violence.^[5]

This intro satisfies the neutral guidelines. Would it result in edit warring? Hogeye 16:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

"On its own anarchism does not provide a world view beyond the idea that imposed authority is oppressive, abusive and unnecessary." This is incorrect. See the quote above here somewhere. Intangible 16:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I have a problem with "On its own anarchism does not provide a world view beyond the idea that imposed authority is oppressive, abusive and unnecessary." There are types of anarchism that do support imposed authority, such as the terrorist forms.Anarcho-capitalism 17:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The terrorist forms support the use of violence certainly, but not authority. No doubt, they consider their violence as retaliatory force against authority. Hogeye 18:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

And how do we know that "most self-described anarchists consider themselves anti-capitalist"?Anarcho-capitalism 17:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Good question, though I suspect it is true. The key words are "self-described." But you are right that this should not be included unless some citation is given. It is almost certainly false if "self-described" is omitted. There are probably more adherents of swaraj (Gandhi's word for anarchism) in rural India today that all western anarchists combined. Perhaps all western forms of anarchism have "undue weight," and the bulk of the article should be about swaraj!

Probably the sentence in question should be qualified temporally, i.e. amended to: "Prior to the 21st century, most self-described anarchists considered themselves to be anti-capitalist." This would still need to be cited. Hogeye 18:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Get writing Anarchism in India, Hogeye! - FrancisTyers · 18:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm more interested in IA. Just got the book "Native American Anarchism" first published in 1932. Very interesting reading. Hogeye 18:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Just double-check anything important. There are plenty of errors in Schuster's book. Libertatia 22:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you could qualify it with "except in the U.S." because I have a source that says anarcho-capitalism is the most common type in the U.S.Anarcho-capitalism 18:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I have many problems with that intro and yes I suspect it would lead to edit warring ,which is probaly exactly what you want considering your history. The current intro is crap too but isn't improved by being more POV. Further, this is not an article about the us, it concerns the entire world. the CGT in spain alone has 50,000 members. most anarchists in the us or elsewhere, are socialist. y'alls POV is based in some nonreality, but its your right to exist there and attempt to influence this article to present your beliefs as being the most prominent. don't expect to get away with it though. Blockader 18:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Sources disagree with you about the U.S. It only makes sense. Most people in the U.S. prefer capitalism to socialism, so there are going to be more anarcho-captialists than anarcho-socialists.Anarcho-capitalism 18:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Show me any proper studies that show this. Firstly, most studies show that the average American distrusts and dislikes corporations, particularly the political power of corporations. Secondly, American antipathy for Socialism is generally based on an erroneous view of socialism based exclusively on the USSR, not Spooner or Tucker or even necessarily Emma Goldman. Anarchism in the US is visible for all to see - Z-Media, black blocs, large parts of Food Not Bombs, Earth First! and the likes, etc, etc, etc. Without a doubt, Murray Bookchin, Hakim Bey and Robert Anton Wilson have created thousands, if not tens of thousands, more anarchists than Rothbard. Donnacha 19:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Donnacha: "The average American distrusts and dislikes corporations."

So do anarcho-capitalists and virtually all free-marketers. Does this make us socialist? (Actually, it does by the 19th century definition.)

Donnacha: "American antipathy for Socialism is generally based on an erroneous view of socialism based exclusively on the USSR."

Very true. Anarchism is "off the map" for most Americans. Most take "socialism" to mean statist socialism; most take "capitalism" to mean statist capitalism. Sadly, anarchists of both stripes often reinforce this, i.e. anarcho-socialists who claim that capitalism is inherently statist, and anarcho-capitalists who claim socialism is inherently statist.

Re Hakim Bey and Robert Anton Wilson - The former I consider intermittantly brilliant, but not a political anarchist. He's an ontological anarchist. He did have some good stuff about Germanic city-states and pirate societies. The only Robt. A. Wilson site I've seen (blackcrayon.com) seemed very supportive of anarcho-capitalism. Like Kevin Carson's writings, it seems to be closet anarcho-capitalism - anarcho-capitalist ideas couched in leftie jargon. Hogeye 20:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, now, if "anarcho"-capitalists oppose corporations, then clearly the idea is more than simply "anti-statist", isn't it? Do you also oppose the money market and usury? What, and here's the rub, about massive landownership and wage slavery (if not slavery) in Brazil? As for capitalism being inherently statist, it's not necessarily, however, as I've pointed out over and over again, bourgeois capitalists created the modern representative state. It's their puppet, particularly in the US - a country that has invaded and destroyed numerous countries since 1954 for daring to oppose the corporate dominance.

Hakim Bey is patchy, but his influence has been huge. The TAZ is at the core of Reclaim the Streets and all its descendents in the "anti-globalisation" movement. As for Bob Wilson, he's anti-dogmatic, but tends towards the mutualist/individualist tendency of anarchism. His most recent idea, as I pointed out below, is Non-Euclidean Politics: Beyond Left and Right to synthesis a variety of elements. Having discussed politics with him (I did his course in NEP), it's clear he and I focus more on the principle of free association and voluntariness, which must underpin any form of anarchism. He, and I, see any anarchist society being based on numerous parallel systems. However, and here's the reason why "anarcho"-capitalism is disputed, due to its lack of opposition and unwillingness to subscribe to the necessity to dismantle the structures of capitalism as it currently exists. If you dismantle the state without dismantling corporations and the extreme inequalities of wealth, you will end up with feudalism and slavery. Donnacha 20:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

"Here's the reason why "anarcho"-capitalism is disputed, due to its lack of opposition and unwillingness to subscribe to the necessity to dismantle the structures of capitalism as it currently exists." I don't see that anarcho-capitalism opposes dismantling structures of currently existing capitalism, so this criticism seems, to some extent, unwarrented. Ancaps generally support redistribution of land and mines (e.g. in parts of Latin America) according to homestead principles. I say "to some extent" because I can understand where this criticism comes from - like Tucker, ancaps tend to think that once the State is gone, the structures will pretty much collapse on their own. E.g. In "Conceived in Liberty" Rothbard points out how royal grants to companies tended to devolve to private smaller holdings quickly, while quasi-feudal grants to cronies tended to remain for a long time. Another example: Ancaps expect Microsoft to die "naturally" once software copyrights are gone - no need to plunder Seattle headquarters. Hogeye 23:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Apparently, you missed the mutualist witchhunts on mises.org. Last I heard, mutualists were "thieves" in free-market clothing. Seriously, Carson is writing consciously in the Tucker tradition. Issues like occupancy and use criteria for land are going to present pretty serious obstacles for many anarchocapitalists. Libertatia 22:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's the pertinent issue of Libertarian Journal. There is no doubt that anarcho-capitalists disagree with mutualist about the property status of land. In another article from that issue, Rothbard gushes with praise for Spooner and Tucker, writing, "Their achievement was truly remarkable, and we have not yet risen to the level of their insights." He goes on, "Politically, these differences [between ancap and mutualism] are minor, and therefore the system that I advocate is very close to theirs; but economically, the differences are substantial..." While some would exaggerate the differences, they can be minimized, too; other than the land question, the main economic difference is that mutualists predict that, in a stateless society, profits will tend to zero, while anarcho-capitalists predict that they won't. Let's abolish the State and find out! (Perhaps they're both right, since they use different yard-sticks.) Even the land question would be rather inconsequential in a stateless society. Property, when it comes down to it, is what the neighbors think. In a stateless society, no doubt there would be localities with mutualist rules, localities with "sticky" property rules, and yet others with geoist rules. Again, wouldn't it be nice to see which works best! Without a State, the conflict between property arrangements pretty much goes away.

Donnacha writes, "OK, now, if "anarcho"-capitalists oppose corporations, then clearly the idea is more than simply "anti-statist", isn't it?" Donna, you seem to be missing the point. The definition of anarchism says that the core characteristic of anarchism is anti-statism. It does not say that anarchists can't believe in additional things. In logical terms: (someone is an anarchist) iff (he is a pure anti-statist). Obviously, he may also be a vegetarian, or a Xtian, or a nudist, or oppose corporations, too, and indeed hold any value consistent with pure anti-statism.

Donnacha also asks, "What, and here's the rub, about massive landownership and wage slavery (if not slavery) in Brazil?" Anarcho-capitalists like me agree with Kevin Carson (and Murray Rothbard) 100%, that past aggression has caused such phenomena. Much of the miscommunication between ancaps and classical anarchists is semantic - when we ancaps say "capitalism" we mean an ideal system of voluntary interaction, whereas classical anarchists usually mean "actually existing capitalism." What you call "capitalism," we call "a mixed economy," "economic fascism," or "(statist) socialism" as the case may be. Hogeye 22:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, you're not helping your claims by getting my name wrong (and, in doing so, the gender) from one sentence to the next. The last three letters aren't decoration. Secondly, your argument is spurious. All versions of anarchism have a view on the state (or, more correctly, coercive authority including the state) and an economic viewpoint related to that view. You're trying to argue that the latter isn't a definining element of anarchism, yet, at the same time, acknowledge that "anarcho"-capitalism does have an economic viewpoint. Then you make the spurious claim that it's separate from the issue. As for your examples, anarchist vegetarians are very likely to be Green anarchists, Xtian anarchists are, by definition, Christian anarchists, while nudist anarchists (who do actually exist) are very likely to be, at least, individualist anarchists, if not adherents to Emma Goldman-style synthesis. Donnacha 00:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I assumed you were Donna Cha. I used to know a Ms. Cha - it's a common last name in some parts. You write, "All versions of anarchism have a view on the state (or, more correctly, coercive authority including the state) and an economic viewpoint related to that view." The point is that the commonality among all forms of anarchism is the pure anti-statism, not the economics. Besides, the claim that all forms of anarchism have an economic viewpoint is wrong - various forms of Xtian anarchism, and swaraj, the Hindu anarchism, do not have a particular economic viewpoint. Some forms of anarchism have an economic view but no religious view; some have a religious view but no economic view. Hogeye 02:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Tucker and Spooner were not socialists. Tucker called himself a "socialist" but it doesn't the same thing that it refer to today. Tucker supported private ownership of the means of production and a free market. Today, we call that capitalism.Anarcho-capitalism 19:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

So, not only do we have psychics deciding that people who choose not to call themselves anarchists anarchists, but now we have you deciding that Tucker didn't mean what he said. Firstly, socialists aren't all communists. Many support private property and free markets, with various protections and methods of redistribution. Tucker and Spooner did oppose extreme varients in wealth and wage slavery. To quote the article here on Benjamin Tucker - "He believed that free trade would help keep prices low and therefore would assist laborers in receiving their "natural wage." I don't agree with his analysis, but it's still socialism and absolutely opposed to the simple-minded "oppose the state only" ideas of "anarcho"-capitalism. Donnacha 19:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

How is that different from anarcho-capitalism? Anarcho-capitalists also think that a free market would allow people to recieve a higher income. The difference is Tucker had a labor theory of value so he thought there was such thing as a "natural wage" that equals the amount of labor put into something. But in practical terms, it's the same thing as anarcho-capitalism. If you stop the state from creating monopolies and taxing, everybody is going to get a higher wage. I bet if they decided to call anarcho-captialism "anarcho-market-socialism" you would be defending it, because it seems like it's just the fact that Tucker called hismelf a "socialist" that is causing you to give him any creedence.Anarcho-capitalism 20:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

What Tucker recognized as the conditions of property are, in general, different from what contemporary anarcho-caps recognize. "Occupancy and use" for land, and opposition to intellectual property are two potential sticking points. The "socialist" tag also relates to organizational connections between the individualists and the IWA. The historical facts point to a situation where the language of socialism was largely dropped (after Marx's machinations in the IWA and the conflicts following Haymarket), but the beliefs of the individualists did not change much at all. Libertatia 22:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

If you adhere to Tucker's view and opposition to "the money monopoly, the land monopoly, tariffs, and patents" - fundamental elements of capitalism, then you're clearly not a capitalist. If, on the other hand, you do not oppose them, you're not the same as him and not an anarchist. Donnacha 20:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

All anarcho-capitalists are opposed to the money monopoly and tariffs. Many are opposed to patents. The only place where anarcho-capitalists differ from Tucker is on land. Tucker thought you should have to keep using land to own it. But then Lysander Spooner agrees with anarcho-capitalists on land. He thinks you can stop using it and still own it. Lysander Spooner would implement the same system as anarcho-capitalists. Spooner is even sometimes considered to be an anarcho-capitalist. "The earliest statement of anarcho-capitalism was made by Lysander Spooner" - Extremism in American, Lyman Tower Sargent. There is no single individualist anarchist philosophy.Anarcho-capitalism 20:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I'm the guy who offered the peace-making Neutral Disambiguation Page - obviously I don't want edit-warring. I offered the intro mainly to show that the proposed guidelines are inadequate to prevent edit wars. IMO they are superficial, and don't address the deeper definitional issue.

I'm convinced that you (Blockader) can adequately cite that in Spain most anarchists are anarcho-syndicalists. As for your claims about the US or the world, you offer no proof. Perhaps you could be more specific about which statements in the intro you consider "crap." Hogeye 19:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I think Americans can speak for ourselves. We don't need Europeans to tell us how we feel about anything. That's what I think about your studies. And more importantly, America was never meant to be socialist. Just the way it is. Rule by Secrecy 19:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, maggie/thewolfstar/lingeron/shannon/whiskeyrebellion/permenantlybanneduser. your jingoism sure makes you sound intelligent. i think most pre-Columbian American Indians might disagree with you about how America was "meant to be" as they existed in primarily "socialist" communities/societies. -puppetslayer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.55.170.88 (talk • contribs)

OK, puppetslayer, ignorance personified, egomaniac, one who doesn't sign his comments, you're right about the Indians disagreeing with me about how Amercia was meant to be. But they'd be wrong as how it was meant to be is how it is. I don't have to like it to see that this is how it is. Secondly, they wouldn't agree with you, either. Thirdly, their system was here long before socialism existed. So don't try to take credit for how tribal societies lived. Typically arrogant rhetoric from a socialist. The United States as a country that has been this way for a while now, uh, 2 and 1/2 centuries, was meant to be libertarian. Next step is a completely anarchic libertarianism. Murray Rothbard made a mistake calling it anarcho-capitalism. I don't even like the sound of that myself because of what the state capitalists have done, which is perpetuate one horror after another. A laissez-faire economy without a state would be not even close to a state sanctioned capitalism. Business owners are not oppressive by nature. That's erroneous thinking. Period. Forgot to sign before. Rule by Secrecy 22:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

My 2 cents: "America was never meant to be X" is pure jingoism. Meant by whom? By what authority? Good poetry perhaps, RBS, but lousy philosophy. As for you, Puppetslayer, RBS is totally correct that Amerindians (and hunter-gatherers in general) were not "socialist" - that's a myth. It is true that the pre-agricultural peoples did not hold land as private property, but that was because land was not a scarce resource when people had the same population density as bears. Most tribes did hold tools, weapons, housing materials, etc. as private property, as these things were scarce. As Benjamin Tucker teaches us, the telos of property is scarcity. As peoples became farmers, cultivated land was scarce, thus it became property. One paper I found interesting in this regard: A study of the Yurok Indians of northern California showed that they got along peacibly with neighboring tribes, and even allowed people from other tribes to own property in their jurisdiction. Cf: Enforcement of Private Property Rights in Primitive Societies: Law without Government. Hogeye 03:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment

Any and all reasonable discussion ended upon the return of Hogeye. Old questions that have already been answered are now being rehashed, as if they are new; statements which originally had good sources are now being questioned, as if they are and always have been unsourced; a multitude of sock puppets have arrived, been banned, and probably still now edit; Hogeye has removed warnings from his discussion page and the sock pupeteer template from his user page; all compromise has been rejected in favor of a "tit-for-tat" edit war strategy. Hogeye is bad news for this article, and for Wikipedia. He acts like a sophist that does selective research to confirm preconceived conclusions that suit his preferred ideology, and rejects anything that contradicts it. He works with the circular notion that "since what I claim is the truth, then what you claim cannot be true, because I disagree with it, and what I claim is the truth." This is why Hogeye publishes his own work on his own small web site, and attempts to alter Wikipedia by admittedly engaging in edit wars based upon a misunderstanding of game theory (as if game theory has anything to do with valid logic and scholarly pursuit) and by inserting his own original research; anywhere else, his personal theories would be rejected.

There will be no progress on this article, so long as Hogeye continues to edit while behaving in this manner. --AaronS 21:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

you speak the truth. a las barricadas, Blockader 21:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh no. Those last comments weren't a bit attacking. No attempt to get rid of an opposing point of view is being made here, at all. There are just as many on this page that have agreed with Hogeye and they're not all sockpuppets. Sorry. And you who are doing this nasty underhanded shit are not anarchists. No one in their right mind would believe you're anarchists. You're more like little dictators in the 3rd grade or Stalinist spies. You don't even really want anarchy at all. You worship and support the U.N. and the E.U. You call for bans on the sale of weapons to local communities. What you're really doing here is trying to remove the last hope for freedom by passing socialism off for anarchism. Rule by Secrecy 03:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm blocking this obvious Thewolfstar sock right now. Bishonen | talk 04:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC).

Too bad somebody doesn't come along and block you. It might be the start of a decent Wikipedia. The preceding unsigned comment was added by the wolfster.

As a self-styled game theorist, Hogeye is attempting to exploit a basic shortcoming of consensus processes: They offer the most power to the most disruptive and disagreeable participants. A better example of an editor openly and shamelessly gaming the system to make a point is difficult to imagine, and his block log speaks for itself.

My attention was first directed to this article years ago (or so it seems) when the several tags at the top of the page announced that it was locked due to vandalism, and disputed, and that there were two competing versions of the article, and perhaps other things as well. For readers unfamiliar with Wikipedia this was found comedy, proof that anarchists were too committed to breaking all the rules to accomplish anything except sabotaging each other.

Little has changed, and now we see Hogeye returning as the Sauron of the anarchism page, with thewolfstar perennially skulking around as Gollum, seemingly impervious to exclusion. 67.168.216.176 12:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Any and all right-thinking discussion ended upon the return of Hogeye. Old questions that have already been answered by the righteous are now being questioned as if they are not already written by the hand of God; statements the Clergy has made are now being questioned. "Mrs. Hutchinson, you are called here as one of those that have troubled the peace of the commonwealth and the churches here; you are known to be a woman that hath had a great share in the promoting and divulging of those opinions that are causes of this trouble, and . . . you have spoken divers things as we have been informed very prejudicial to the honour of the churches and ministers thereof..."

Sorry. Aaron's diatribe sounded so much like Governor Wintrop's condemnation of Anne Hutchinson in 1637 and Judge Mayer's sentencing of Berkman and Goldman in 1919, I'm getting a little confused. (I've been reading about these in "Native American Anarchism.") If Aaron has any example of me removing citations or something, let him cite and link it - wild accusations and hand-waving don't hack it here. If I have incited others to edit boldly and question dogma, then I am gratified. Let me say that I appreciate the inspiration and motivation Wiki editors have bestowed upon me to create some original works, particularly my spectacularly successful and popular Anarcho-capitalist FAQ. I am lucky to be able to turn aggravation into gold! Hogeye 03:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

You really need to get yourself blocked. Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 04:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Save for their status, I think that people attacking Hogeye like this would almost certainly find themselves in trouble. Hogeye has the most knowledge I've seen of anyone on the subject that has posted here, and it is not helpful to pester what few experts still remain on Wikipedia. Being disruptive and counter-productive in the above manner does nothing to resolve the issues regarding the article and only end up with trolling flamewars. It's time to return to the article. - MSTCrow 04:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

He does have a lot of knowledge, but if he weren't so disruptive things might be different. And although he has knowledge (in the form of facts), his analysis seems pretty off compared to most neutral sources out there (like encyclopedias). Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 05:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Hogeye is not an expert. He is someone who reads things enough so that he can confirm whatever preconceived conclusions he already has. Experts understand all facets of the subject of their expertise, and consider all arguments thoughtfully. --AaronS 14:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Undue weight for anarcho-capitalism?

Several editors have opined that the proposed guidelines would give undue weight to anarcho-capitalism. I'm curious what these editors would consider due weight. It's easy to count the words in an article, so we have a rough gauge of "weight." Here's a question for Ungovernable Force, Donnacha, Blockader, FrancisTyers, and anyone else who is concerned about undue weight for anarcho-capitalism and cares to answer: What is the maximum percent of words in the article that you think anarcho-capitalism is due? Hogeye 05:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Making a word percent limit is ridiculous. Basically, having any mentions of it beyond the section for anarcho-capitalism and possibly (and strong stress on the "possibly" part) one sentence in the intro is undue weight IMO. Most other encyclopedias don't mention it or give it one sentence. We are way more generous than that. Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 05:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Who, exactly, put you in the position of being generous? It wouldn't be you would it? Andromeda466 09:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure about that? I'm finding a lot of encyclopedias that mention anarcho-capitalism. I even just found an "anarco-capitalismo" article in the Italian Encarta, and anarco-captalismo is also mentioned in the Anarchismo article there as l'anarchismo individualista. Encyclopedia Britannica doesn't mention anarcho-capitalism in the Anarchism article, but the author of that article is George Woodcock, an anarcho-communist so no wonder!Anarcho-capitalism 16:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I hope that you do realize that publications like the Encyclopaedia Britannica have a thorough editorial review process... --AaronS 16:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm looking at English sources since I can't read Italian. American Encarta doesn't mention it, UK gives it a sentence (in a several page article, which also say anarchism is "basically anticapitalist") and is not clear as to whether it's a form or not. Encyclopedia Brittanica does mention it though--in the libertarinism article! Although you are right, there is no mention in the anarchism article. A little telling, don't you think? Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 04:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

How thorough can it be if they left out anarcho-capitalism? "There are several recognized varieties of anarchism, among them: individualistic anarchisms, anarcho-capitalisms, anarcho-communisms, mutualisms, anarcho-syndicalisms, libertarian socialisms, social anarchisms and now eco-anarchisms. These varieties are not particularly well characterized. They are by no means mutually exclusive. So far even a satisfactory classification is lacking. Usually something of a ragbag is offered. Textbooks single out a few varieties for scrutiny, invariably leaving out others that are as important." Sylvan, Richard. Anarchism. A Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy, editors Goodin, Robert E. and Pettit, Philip. Blackwell Publishing, 1995, p.231Anarcho-capitalism 16:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

That's just circular logic. --AaronS 20:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Journalism 101: How to spot bias in a list -- Who's mentioned first? This is blatantly from the ancap POV, leading with individualist to create the link in peoples' minds. The Encyclopaedia Britannica is a mainstream, respected publication. I know which I'd trust most. Donnacha 17:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Guess what? Richard Sylvan is a social anarchist. And Blackwell Publishing is a respected mainstream publishing company.Anarcho-capitalism 17:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Although Blackwell is respected, Sylvan is not a "social anarchist." --AaronS 20:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

That source you just gave doesn't say he's not a social anarchist. It says he's an anarchist. It just doesn't say what type. He's advocating social anarchism in that article and is saying individualist anarchist is not preferable. I'd say that obviously makes him a social anarchist.Anarcho-capitalism 20:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Here is the concluding paragraph from the article: "What are also now conspicuously exhibited are extensive movements, making considerable use of direct action techniques, substantial parts of which have heavy (but often under-appreciated) anarchist commitments: notable environmental and peace movements, which are highly compatible with social anarchism. A main contemporary chance for social anarchism lies in mobilizing these movements, activating their latent anarchism. That is the great hope for the future."Anarcho-capitalism 20:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I hope that your misreading of this source is not representative of your ability to accurately interpret sources. The article says: "[Sylvan] intellectually inspired me although we differed politically. [He] was an anarchist and did not share my pro-socialist sentiments." Are we reading the same article? --129.170.116.194 20:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC) (Aaron, logged out)

You can be a social anarchist without necessarily being pro-socialist. Saying an anarchist isn't pro-socialist isn't to say they aren't anti-capitalist, either. I don't know a lot about Sylvan, but green anarchists tend to shy away from the term socialism even while professing some of the strongest objections against capitalism. Not that I'm trying to make a point either way, but I think it's important to tread carefully. Owen 20:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Obviously that's referring to state socialism. The writer there is not an anarchist.Anarcho-capitalism 23:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The important thing is that he's not an individualist anarchist. That's obvious. He thinks individalist anarchism suffers from market failure and he advocates his brand of social anarchism instead. There is no way to claim that he's biased in favor of anarcho-capitalism.Anarcho-capitalism 23:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I guess he's just not so petty as to worry about who is listed first.Anarcho-capitalism 17:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't kidding when I said it was Journalism 101, the order of mentions in a list is one of the key elements of bias in writing. A news article that starts - "Management and unions" has a completely different slant to one that starts "Unions and management". If the piece isn't biased, it's sloppy writing, the only neutral way to write that list would be alphabetically. Donnacha 00:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

And look, Wikipedia has articles on both. Richard Sylvan and Blackwell Publishing Anarcho-capitalism 17:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Here is an additional quote from that same article: "Those with stronger individualist component will tend to rely not merely upon market or allied exchange arrangements, but upon capitalist organization...These types of anarchism...propose several, often ingenious uses of private and market means to substitue for social and state functions (Friedman 1973; Rothbard, 1977). But they provide no satisfactory resolution of ubiquitous market failure, which becomes even more widespread and severe without the state..."Anarcho-capitalism 17:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Still have claims of bias? If there's bias, it's a bais against anarcho-capitalism.Anarcho-capitalism 17:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Why doesn't Hogeye go first? That is, presuming he's not being disruptive to prove a point. If he actually thinks this is a reasonable question, then what's the minimum percentage he himself will accept? 67.168.216.176 12:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not making any claims regarding weight, due or undue. Ungovernable Force gave an answer. I appreciate that. Apparently he would allow generic claims in the rest of the article which ignore the ancap view (a position with which I cannot concur), but at least I know where he stands. Actually, the current article is pretty good about specifying which anarchist school believes what. Offhand, the main omission I notice of an ancap view is the deletion from globalization I noted earlier. Hogeye 22:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Talk Page (Do Not Post to This Trolling Thread)

This discussion page strikes me as the best example of what anarchism is. Pfly 10:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Fortunately, in real life, unprotected by anonymity, some of the people here would be ostracized for their actions. --AaronS 14:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Neutral Intro - 2.0

Objections to the previous version of the intro:

1) Intangible and Anarcho-capitalism objected to the sentence, "On its own anarchism does not provide a world view beyond the idea that imposed authority is oppressive, abusive and unnecessary." Wiki guidelines suggest using a fact instead of an opinion. So we can replace the opinion with the fact: The American Heritage College Dictionary[7] gives the definition of "anarchism" as: "The theory or doctrine that all forms of government are oppressive and undesirable and should be abolished."

2) Anarcho-capitalism objected to the claim, "most self-described anarchists consider themselves anti-capitalist." He suggested adding "except in the US," saying he had a source supporting this. Hey, we need that citation now. [Got it.]

So we now have:

Anarchism is the name of a political philosophy or a group of doctrines and attitudes that are centered on rejection of government, or the state, as harmful and unnecessary and support its elimination.^[1]The term "anarchism" is derived from the Greek αναρχία ("without archons" or "without rulers"). Thus "anarchism," in its most general meaning, is the belief that all forms of rulership are undesirable and should be abolished. The rise of anarchism as a philosophical movement began in the late 18th century, with Edmund Burke's Vindication of Natural Society and William Godwin's Enquiry Concerning Political Justice.^[6]

There are a variety of types of anarchism, generally emphasizing their points of difference.^[7] Economic arrangements are one of the main areas of disagreement for anarchists. Historically, no one knows whether most anarchists were capitalist, mutualist, or socialist. In the past, pro-capitalist anarchists have generally not called themselves "anarchist" due to the term's perceived association with socialism and violence.^[8] Today, most self-described anarchists consider themselves anti-capitalist, except perhaps in the United States.^[9]

Hogeye 23:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Even if I accepted those sources as proving that "anarcho"-capitalism is more popular than the other forms (saying something is common is not comparitive), the Sargent one is out of date. 1999 saw the start of a massive revival in anarchist ideas worldwide, showing itself first with the Battle of Seattle and then subsequent "anti-globalisation" protests. The size of the World Social Fora (which include thousands of anarchists including huge numbers of Americans), when compared to The Gatherings for Humanity and against Neoliberalism[8] makes that clear. Donnacha 01:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I was going to make the opposite point, that anarcho-capitalism has increased in popularity tremendously in the past decade. I know anarcho-socialists like to claim the anti-globalization movement, but actually they are a miniscule part of it. Most anti-globalists are statists of various types. Another myth is that the Zapatistas are anarchist. The local Infoshop showed a film about the Zapatistas, which showed a spokeman giving a speech saying how they wanted a share of power in the Mexican government. Some anarchist! Anarcho-socialists seem to like to take statist anti-capitalist groups and portray them as anarchist. Hogeye 02:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

You went to an infoshop?! Damn. I agree though on some level. The Zapatistas are not anarchists, but they do have anarchist leanings (much like Gandhi, or any of the other non-anarchists you keep wanting to call anarchists). And the anti-globalization movement isn't anarchist either, but it has been highly shaped by anarchists (especially the media portrayal, which focuses largely on anarchists). We're hardly miniscule within the movement, and many organization models and ideas within the anti-globalization movement are anarchist-influenced, even if the people using them aren't anarchist. And even if we only make up a segment of the movement, that segment has generated a large boost in the number of anarchists out there, especially in America. N30 is what gave modern anarchism it's resurgence, and I highly doubt that any significant number of the new anarchists are pro-capitalist. Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 04:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't like the American Heritage definition. I like the definition that's in the article now. It is sourced by two encyclopedias. I like it because it also says "government or the state." Some anarchists differentiate between government and the state.Anarcho-capitalism 23:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[Okay; the AH def has been deleted.]

Source for anarcho-capitalism being the most popular in the US: ""Despite this diversity, we can categorize all anarchists as essentially left-wing libertarians who champion the growth of the individual within a community (Anarcho-Communists, Christian Anarchists, and most Anarcho-Pacifists) and right-wing libertarians (Anarcho-Capitalists, and ultraindividualists) who are most egoistical and stress the individualism of the unregulated marketplace. Since the social ethic of American is not communal but is based on a private world of personal fulfillment and satisfaction (the self-made man, not social man) it is not suprising that what I call right-wing libertarianism was the predominant element of the new, explicit anarchism." DeLeon, David. The American as Anarchist: Reflections on Indigenous Radicalism. John Hopkins University Press, 1978, p. 123 However, someone pointed out that that may only be true at the time of writing. That's back in 1978. I do have a source from 1995 though that says it's "common in the United States." "The most extreme response to the question of the locus of power was taken by the anarchists, who argued that power should reside either in the individual or in the small face-to-face community. The former is a fairly rare position in a anarchism in general but is common in the United States in the form known as anarcho-capitalism." Sargent, Lyman Tower. Extremism in American: A Reader, NYU Press, 1995, p. 11Anarcho-capitalism 23:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

But I have to note that this has to be conjecture. I don't think anyone really knows until they conduct a survey.Anarcho-capitalism 23:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that that source does not say that pro-capitalist anarchism is more common than anti-capitalist anarchism in the US, only that it is common in the US, while uncommon elsewhere.VoluntarySlave 00:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

This doesn't make sense: "Pro-capitalist anarchists have generally not called themselves "anarchist" due to the term's perceived association with socialism and violence." Pro-capitalist anarchists generally do call themselves anarchists. They call themselves anarcho-capitalists, individualist anarchists, and free market anarchists.Anarcho-capitalism 00:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you mean 19th century capitalist anarchists.Anarcho-capitalism 00:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Pro-capitalist anarchists generally called themselved "economistes", "voluntaryists", "classical liberals" and such, up until recently. But you're right; I should preface it with "historically." Hogeye 00:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

If they didn't use the term anarchist, then they're not anarchists. Stop with the Mormon-esque post-humous conversion. Anarchism is anti-capitalist, which is why pro-capitalists didn't call themselves anarchists. They were right and those who decided to create an oxymoronic term like "anarcho"-capitalists don't change anything. Donnacha 00:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not true that if you don't call yourself an anarchist, you're not an anarchist. William Godwin and Josiah Warren are examples of individuals who didn't call themselves anarchists. Anarchists didn't call themselves anarchists because the word was used as an insult prior to the late 19th century.Anarcho-capitalism 15:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

You are epistemologically confused. "Anarchism" means a certain thing. If someone satisfies the definition of "anarchist," then they are an anarchist, no matter what they call themselves. If an insane man insists that he is a dog, then that does not make him a dog. He is a man, regardless of his self-labelling. Hogeye 01:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

What if a man calls himself a woman (and dresses and acts in certain ways that have traditionally been associated with women)? While I don't agree with Donnacha that you have to call yourself an anarchist to be one, your reliance on formal definitions is no more tenable. The meaning of a word is not given by a dictionary definition, but by the history of its use (see Wittgenstein or Kripke, among many others). If you disagree, please cite some reliable source for your view that the meaning of a word is exhausted by the formal conditions given in a dictionary definition. VoluntarySlave 03:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see that you are denying anything I said. You correctly point out that "the meaning of a word is not given by a dictionary definition, but by the history of its use." I agree. But once history has "given" a meaning, at some specific point in time, there is a (momentary, perhaps, but) certain specific meaning associated with the word-tag - and that meaning is noted in a good contemporary dictionary. Donnacha seems to deny that a word is a tag for a specific concept. (To answer your riddle: biologically a man; by gender a woman.) Hogeye 03:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I trust an encyclopedia far more than a dictionary to define a social, philosophical and/or political movement. Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 04:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Anarchism is not a social, philosophical, or political movement. It is a word that encompasses many different social movement, philosophies, doctrines, and attitudes. The only thing they have in common is opposition to the state.Anarcho-capitalism 15:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The diversity you note is all the more reason to prefer an encyclopedic entry over a dictionary. Blockader 16:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the intro above makes the diversity clear: "a group of doctrines and attitudes...". Anarcho-capitalism has an impressive list of citations that anarcho-capitalism is anarchism; if some encyclopledias are too outdated or biased to recognize this, that's not our problem. Hogeye 16:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britannica

EB isn't outdated. It has a section on contemporary anarchism which covers the post-WWII years up to the early 21st century. And with regard to anarchist involvement in the anti-globalization movement, it even says "In 1999 anarchist-led demonstrations against the WTO in Seattle provoked wide media attention, as did later related protests against the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The unprecedented publicity given to the anarchists' explicitly revolutionary viewpoint inspired a proliferation of new anarchist groups, periodicals, and Internet sites." You claim these encyclopedias are too biased, but did you ever think you're the one who is too biased? If all the major encyclopedias fail to give any weighty coverage to an-cap, perhaps that means it doesn't deserve it. Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 21:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The Encyclopedia Britannica entry was written by George Woodcock, an anarcho-communist. He's biased.Anarcho-capitalism 21:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't so much matter who wrote it, but the fact that the editors of arguably the world's most respected Encyclopedia asked him to do it, thus agreeing that: a) anarchists are the best people to describe anarchism, and b) an anarcho-communist is a real anarchist. I got a copy of Paul Avrich's "An Oral History of Anarchism in America" recently. I haven't read it yet, but I checked the index and there's no mention of "anarcho"-capitalism. So I checked Rothbard, Murray - one footnote explaining the use of the word Rothbardites. :) Donnacha 22:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep reading. You'll get to it in Avrich's book. And he calls Rothbard an "individualist anarchist."Anarcho-capitalism 22:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

As Donnacha says, just because it was written by Woodcock doesn't mean it's not correct. The fact of the matter is, EB is a respected source and they seem to believe that he was the best person to write an article on anarchism. If the editors at EB think it's neutral and extensive enough, that should tell you something. Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 22:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

EB didn't know any better. Anarchism is an obscure subject and they trusted him. He let them down. At the very least he should mention anarcho-capitalism since it is popular in the U.S., whether he thinks it's legitimate anarchist or not.Anarcho-capitalism 22:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

LOL! EB had Kropotkin write the first piece on anarchism for them! If any encyclopedia has info about anarchism, it's Britannica. Donnacha 22:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

How do you explain them including in the libertarianism article then? They didn't leave it out, they just left it out of that article. Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 22:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Someone else wrote the Libertarianism article.Anarcho-capitalism 23:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any idea how encyclopedias are put together? They don't just ask someone to write an article and then stick it in unaltered. There are people employed to sub and check and senior editors to keep an overall view of the whole thing. It's nothing to do with who wrote the pieces, if "anarcho"-capitalism is in under libertarianism rather than anarchism, that's deliberate. Their anarchism expert didn't include it, while their libertarianism expert did - and their decisions were sanctioned by editorial. So, on the basis of EB, you're arguing about the wrong article here. Away off to libertarianism with you. Donnacha 23:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Several other encyclopedias include anarcho-capitalism in their Anarchism articles. Woodock simply wrote a biased article because he's a communist.Anarcho-capitalism 23:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Your debating is similar to "anarcho"-capitalism as an idea, just ignore the bits you don't agree with. You keep making the point about Woodcock and ignoring the point that Woodcock is far less important than the non-anarchist editors. Donnacha 23:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I find it pretty funny that you attacked my source that says anarcho-captialism is a form of anarchism, by claiming that it was biased in favor of individualism. But, it wasn't, because that writer is an anarchist opposed to individualist forms of anarchism including anarcho-capitalism. But, then you have a problem with me claiming that Woodcock leaves out anarcho-capitalism because he's biased against anarcho-capitalism, which he is because he's an anarcho-communist.Anarcho-capitalism 00:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I find it rather disappointing that, after a promising start, you've descended into the irrational debating style favoured by the other "anarcho"-capitalists here. You're completely distorting my arguments and ignoring fundamental pieces of what I've said. In the case of the piece you posted, I pointed out a fundamental journalistic issue, regardless of topic, about list ordering. I'm a journalist, I have to think about these thing. It's either a bias or very sloppy writing. In the case of the EB, of course Woodcock is biased against the oxymoron. However, you are extending that to an invalid criticism of the EB. They chose Woodcock, regarding him as an expert on anarchism and his piece wasn't edited to include "anarcho"-capitalism. Thus, the editors who are most likely not any form of anarchist, agree with his bias because it's not bias, but factual. The editors also agreed with the libertarianism expert who included it in that piece, because "anarcho"-capitalism is extreme libertarianism and not anarchism. Donnacha 00:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

The editors probably didn't know any better. Woodcock left out anarcho-capitalism because he most likely thinks it's not a type of anarchism, which is a likely position to be held by an anarcho-communist. Woodcock is biased against anarcho-capitalism because he is an anarcho-communist. Even if he thinks it's not a type of anarchism he should mentiond it because it holds itself as a type of anarchism and is popular in the English speaking world. Woodcock is simply not to be trusted. He let his bias get in the way of providing a more informative article.Anarcho-capitalism 01:29, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Isn't that a circular argument? As people are putting forward EB as a source for the claim that anarcho-capitalism is marginal, you can't cite the fact that the article doesn't include a-c as evidence of bias. If you can find separate evidence of bias in the article (maybe he excludes other non-communist anarchists, say), then you can dismiss the source. Note that Woodcock's book, Anarchism, includes a detailed and fairly sympathetic account of individualist anarchism, including American Individualism. VoluntarySlave 02:45, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

At any rate the Wikipedia article isn't as remiss. Anarcho-capitalism is discussed.Anarcho-capitalism 03:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Individualists: "Indivdualist-anarchism and anarcho-capitalism are valid forms of anarchism and considerably more prevalent than what is being represented in Encyclopedia Britannica"

Collectivists: "But Brittanica hardly mentions it -- it doesn't matter if it was written by collectivist and communist-anarchists because they're real anarchists and we're real anarchists. And because....because I said so. So there."

I'm really convinced now. AnarchistFactFinder 23:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that Encyclopedia Britannica is a point for the marginalize anarcho-capitalism camp. But on the other side is the more popular web zines and forums of anarcho-capitalism compared to other schools, and the 30 or so essays and scholarly articles cited on Anarcho-capitalism's page. (It's okay to concede a point when they make one, guys. Just keep it in perspective.)

It might be interesting to compare printed magazines and journals, but there are difficulties since it's hard to know what percent of readers of libertarian mags are anarchist as opposed to minarchist. And of course, the more radical the mag, the higher percentage of anarchists. A few off the top of my head: Reason (the most mainstream), Journal of Libertarian Studies, and Freeman. Hogeye 03:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree that they get a point since EB is mostly written by left-wingers. But if you want to call it a point, so be it. Did you know that people are watching this debate all over the internet? AnarchistFactFinder 04:10, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

So why aren't they getting involved? Or is this just your way of explaining away all the sockpuppets of thewolfstar coming to this page? Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 06:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Another point. Anarchism is libertarianism -- with the head chopped off. AnarchistFactFinder 04:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

...and opposing capitalism. Then again, libertarianism did that too until American capitalists stole the term (like they are trying to do with anarchism now). And can you prove that EB is written by leftists? Even if that's true, it doesn't really matter too much since they are considered a neutral source by wikipedia standards. Can you show my a major encyclopedia that includes anarcho-capitalism as a significant part of anarchism? I've yet to see one. Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 05:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Your statement that "American capitalists stole the term" is incorrect. The roots are from classical liberalism, not from capitalism. The industrialists were the capitalists back in the day -- and the classical liberals were opposed to the industrialization of America. So this is factually wrong. As far as the stealing of the term -- there is no stealing of the idea of anarchism from any type of anarchism or from any country. Ideas grow and they spread and that is the great thing about them. They are free. I personally can't prove that the writers of EB are leftist. The bias is clear in the reading of the articles. There are tons of books, magazines, and other publications, both on and off the web that see anarcho-capitalism as just as legitimate as any other form of anarchism. These publications are just as valid as EB or Encarta. AnarchistFactFinder 06:24, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

And there are plenty that don't mention it at all, barely mention it, or say it isn't. And that includes all the encyclopedias I've seen to date. I'm refering to terminoligy when I say you are stealing it. "Libertarianism" orginally refered to various forms of socialism, including anarchism, which also originally (and to most anarchists today) refered to a form of socialism as well. Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 06:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Magazines and journals

It might be interesting to compare printed magazines and journals, but there are difficulties since it's hard to know what percent of readers of libertarian mags are anarchist as opposed to minarchist. And of course, the more radical the mag, the higher percentage of anarchists. A few off the top of my head: Reason (the most mainstream), Journal of Libertarian Studies, and Freeman.

Do anarcho-socialists have any large circulation magazines and journals? Or do they just put out self-published low-quality photocopied junk? (That ought to get a response!) Hogeye 15:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

The most widely read anarchist publication in the world is run by anarchists on anarcho-syndicalist principles - Zmag. The world's biggest anarchist book publishers, with offices in the US and UK, is equally anarcho-syndicalist AK Press. The list a wide variety of anarchist (and other left-wing) magazines - US and UK. In other words, you soooo lose. Donnacha 16:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Whoa, there, bucko. What is the circulation of Z? I can get Reason at my local library, but not Z. I can get Reason and Journal of Libertarian Studies at my local Barnes & Nobel bookstore in the periodical section, but not Z. I would be surprised if the circulation of Z is more than a small fraction of the circulation of Reason. (But I don't know how to look up circulation numbers, or even if they are released by mag firms.)

As for publishers, for ancap there is The Mises Institute, Liberty Fund, Inc., Independent Instutute, and of course mainstream outfits. E.g. My copy of Rothbard's "Ethics of Liberty" was published by New York University Press, Robert Higgs

"Crisis and Leviathan" by Oxford University Press, David Friedman's "The Machinery of Freedom" by Open Court Publishing Company. It seems that a lot of ancap books don't need a specialized publisher. Hogeye 17:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Way to shift the goalposts. You claim "anarcho"-capitalism is anarchism, yet use libertarian magazines and publishers to show how popular it is?!? Why not just go the whole hog and claim the Economist. As for the OUP, give over. We're talking about publications by anarchists, not publications of anarchist materials by others (of which there are many). Finally, why doesn't it surprise me that you can't find Z in the library or the local corporate bookstore? It's hard to find the UK's New Statesman, which is far more mainstream left than Z, in corporate bookstores over here, despite the fact that its right-wing equivalent (with similar overall distribution figures), the Spectator, is usually to be found. Z, like most left-wing publications, depend largely on subscription sales (and, of course, the website - one of the most popular left-wing sites there is).Donnacha 17:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget Fifth Estate. Also, there's Green Anarchy, even if they are a bit off the wall. Earth First! Journal has anarchist leanings. And in addition to AK Press, there is the British-based Freedom Press that puts out The Raven. Profane Existence is an anarcho-punk magazine with a strong following. And let's not forget CrimethInc who are pretty damn popular these days. Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 17:00, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I know a few people from Earth First!, both that are part of the organization and people who support it, like myself. There is quite a diversity of opinion involved. One woman, a supporter, is a Christian vegan. One is not anarchist, by the way he acts, and seems to be more authoritarian. Same for another active supporter. I'm an anarchist who supports them, but I'm not a collectivist. As far as the Seattle globalization protests of '99, there were a huge number of people at that protest with all sorts of ideas about how the world should be econimically and they were represented from all sorts of groups. You can't take credit for all the protests and you can't take credit for all the work that is being done for humanity, the environment, etc. You certaninly can't take credit for what is being done for the fight to save our civil liberties. Actually, libertarians, both classical and anarcho-capitalist, do more in that field than any of you dudes, who seem more interested in stripping us of our civil rights, than fighting for them. AnarchistFactFinder 17:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Where is your logic behind that one (the part about stripping people of civil liberties)? And when did I try to take credit for all the protesters at Seattle (or all the work being done period)? Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 17:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't talking to you personally, Ungovernable Force. There's talk about that protest and other talk about aiding people in other places on this page. The left-wing, in general, everything from so-called progressives to left-anarchists, advocate arms control programs, for instance. Modern liberals don't like free speech any more than the conservatives do. AnarchistFactFinder 17:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Why, hello there, Maggie! Long time... well, actually, short time no see. You've been blocked. Bishonen | talk 19:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC).

We may not be able to get printed magazine circulation figures, but we can get web traffic data from Alexa. I entered some anarchist sites, ancap, ansoc, and a mutualist. Here is the result. (Lower number ranking means higher volume.)

• Domain Name Traffic Ranking

1 www.reason.com 17,590

2 www.mises.org 18,454

3 www.fee.org 173,836

4 www.lewrockwell.com 7,467

5 www.strike-the-root.com 102,765

6 www.anti-state.com 215,178

7 www.zmag.org 17,329

8 www.fifthestate.org n/a

9 www.crimethinc.com 438,296

10 www.infoshop.org 96,104

12 www.mutualist.org 2,865,589

From this we get: LewRockwell.com is by far the most popular e-zine - but of course caters to both anarcho-capitalists and minarcho-capitalists. Z-mag and Reason are pretty close in volume. Looking at details (run the Alexis query for this), infoshop gets about 5 million hits per day currently, while mises.org gets 60 million. Zmag is more popular, and Crimethink less popular, than I expected. Also unexpected to me: Strike-the-Root is more popular than Anti-State.com. Hogeye 18:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you mean minarchist, not minarcho. Minarchists reject anarchy, and I don't see how you can have a minimal amount of anarchy; to me it's an either/or proposition. - MSTCrow 18:24, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Minarchists want a minimal amount of government. The people who want a minimal government are ideologically close to those who want no government. If nothing else, we both want less government. Minarchists want zero government in all but a few areas. They are essentially anarchist "fellow-travellers." Hogeye 18:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. They're called libertarians. The final logical result of libertarianism is anarchism. AnarchistFactFinder 18:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

The right-wing attempts to boost your importance by appropriating anything and everything is unbelievable. Libertarians are so called because they're not anarchists. Anarchism is left-wing, get over it. Donnacha 20:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Left-wing anarchists are also called libertarians. Libertarianism is just another word for anarchism. ""The principle division in anarchism, also known as libertarianism or antiauthoritarianism, is between social anarchists, who believe in a nonstate form of socialism, and the individualist anarchists, who oppose socialism and favor capitalism or are opposed to any form of social organization whatsoever." Busky, Donald. Democratic Socialism: A Global Survey, Praeger/Greenwood (2000), p. 4 Libertarian socialists are libertarians too.Anarcho-capitalism 21:16, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Sooo many things wrong there. Firstly, the "division" is incorrect, as the main division is between individualists on one hand and collectivist/communists/syndicalists on the other. Both are left-wing, as the classic individualists were socialists. Any claim that individualist anarchism is opposed to socialism is pure "anarcho"-capitalist propaganda and blatantly untrue. The only people who use the term social anarchists are "anarcho"-capitalists, as the qualifier is redundant. Secondly, while the term libertarian was, originally, another term for anarchism, it's largely been let go to the non-anarchist right-wingers who don't necessarily opposed the state in its entirety and support capitalism. It describes "anarcho"-capitalism perfectly and thus begs the question why such right-wing libertarians would seek to take the term anarchism from its proper place on the left. Those who continue to the term libertarianism in relation to proper anarchism always add a qualifier - libertarian socialism (Chomsky) or left libertarianism (Bookchin).

In what way do the 19th century individualist anarchists not oppose socialism? They oppose the socialization of the means of production. The means of production can be private owned. That does not accord with any modern definition of socialism.Anarcho-capitalism 21:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

The only people who use the term social anarchists are "anarcho"-capitalists. Do you consider writers of "An Anarchist FAQ" anarcho-capitalists? They explicitly counter that term to the term "individualist anarchists". -- Vision Thing -- 21:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Liberty is another leading libertarian magazine. *Dan T.* 19:30, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

So what? Read the initial nonsense from Hogeye that has been unceremoniously disproved and dumped by himself. Z-Mag disproves his rubbish conjencture about the lack of quality anarchist publications and he's scrapping the barrel of argument to claim that libertarians are anarchists really and thus, their media counts. Donnacha 20:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I've said from the git-go that raw circulation numbers are dubious, since for pro-capitalist mags we don't know how many of the readers are minarchist and how many are anarchist. An analogous situation occurs for anarcho-syndicalist magazines like Z - we don't know how many readers are simply radical unionists rather than anarchists. And for EarthFirst, we don't know how many readers are archist environmentalists. All measures like Alexa ratings should be taken only as a very rough indication of significance or "due weight." Also, it should be kept in mind that significance is more than just a nose count. Hogeye 21:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Reread what you posted: "Do anarcho-socialists have any large circulation magazines and journals? Or do they just put out self-published low-quality photocopied junk?" Z-mag is high quality, printed on glossy paper, distributed globally (I subscribe from the UK) and the website has a very high readership. It doesn't matter who the readers are, that wasn't the point of your self-acknowledged trolling "(That ought to get a response!)".Donnacha 00:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you look at this page on Alexa, it shows the most visited sites within the "anarchism" category. Guess who's at the top? Infoshop. Then Z-net, then A-Infos, then Flag, and so on. Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 01:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Alexa's specialty is traffic ranking, not categorization. -- Vision Thing -- 12:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

This thread is off-topic and pointless. --AaronS 01:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Aaron's comments are sadly the most astute in this semi-intelligent sub-discussion. The absurd arguments posted here underscore the problems that Wikipedia has with fact-checking. It's a good thing that you guys are playing loose with reality on a Talk page and aren't adding your fantasies to actual pages. Wait a minute, I believe some of you ARE adding your fantasies to actual pages and thanks to your work the Anarchism entry is both inaccurate and locked.

Let's talk about some facts, as best as they can be determined about anarchist vs. American libertarian magazines. First of all, people are comparing apples and oranges here. It's pretty unfair to underfunded, anti-capitalist magazines to compare them to American libertarian magazines which are funded by millionaires and K St. libertarian organizations. Some of these magazines may be readable to us anarchists, including the work of my buddy Jesse Walker in Reason magazine, but you simply can't make comparisons here.

If I can be considered an expert on anything, anarchist magazine publishing is my speciality. I was an editor for Alternative Press Review for many years and I published Practical Anarchy. I recently did some quick research on actual circulation numbers for anarchist magazines and journals, which is included in my Overview of Contemporary Anarchism in the United States. The highest circulation anarchist periodical in the United States currently is Slingshot newspaper (15,000) which is published in Berkeley. Coming in second is Alternative Press Review with 7,500-8,000 copies. After APR the numbers get murky, because I don't know the cir numbers for Green Anarchy and several other titles. Crimethinc publishes very large quantities of their pamphlets, but these aren't really periodicals. They publish 3000 copies of Rolling Thunder magazine. Z Magazine isn't included here because it is not an anarchist magazine. Z Magazine is a left liberal magazine published by people who have clearly stated that they aren't anarchists of any stripe.

Alexa is another metric which measures website traffic. This has nothing to do with magazine circulation. Alexa is not the most accurate measure of website traffic, but it can give a good look at relative website traffic. Half of Infoshop's users use Firefox, which Alexa can't take into account and thus lowers our rating compared to other websites with an older IE-using demographic. Leaving this problem aside, Infoshop is the most popular anarchist website based in the United States. On some days the APR website gets more traffic, but most of the time Infoshop is tops in traffic. I would also suggest ignoring Alexa's categories, which are pretty useless. Chuck0 21:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Whoa there missy ;-) I agree with everything you said except about Z-Mag. Michael Albert is an anarcho-syndicalist and an anarchist theorist (having developed Parecon) - he gives talks worldwide on the subject (one of which I organised in London). Z Foundation is organised on anarcho-syndicalist principles - equal wages and non-hierarchical structures. The magazine isn't exclusively anarchist by any means, but it's far more radical than a simple "left liberal" mag like the Nation. Donnacha 21:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

You are incredibly mistaken about Michael Albert and Z Magazine. Albert is no anarchist and he's made that clear. Z Magazine has never billed itself as an anarchist magazine and can best be described as a radical liberal left magazine. The ZNet website has a few things about anarchism, but it is not and never has been an anarchist project. Paraecon is also not anarchist, despite Albert's borrowing of anarchist ideas to promote himself and Paraecon. I don't know of any American anarchists who consider Z Magazine to be anarchist, which you don't understand being based in London. If Michael Albert and Z Magazine were anarchist, that would be news to lots of American anarchists. Chuck0 22:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

For feck's sake! I've met the guy, I've had lunch with him and discussed anarcho-syndicalism and how the Z Foundation is organised on these principles. He's giving a talk next month at the London Anarchist Bookfair on "Anarchism and the Future". He wrote Anarchism?!. ParEcon is a system of worker-controlled, egalitarian non-hierarchical anti-capitalist system. Sounds like anarchism to me and others[9][10]. Donnacha 23:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

To be clear, I don't actually agree with ParEcon as a concept, but I do agree with what Albert is trying to accomplish with it - discussions about Vision [11]. Donnacha 23:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

You have to be kidding! The London Anarchist Bookfair is having Michael Albert talk on "Anarchism and the Future"? That is so fucked up that I have to assume that the organizers seriously have their heads up their collective asses! Of all the real American anarchists who write about anarchism, the bookfair picked a guy who isn't an anarchist to talk about the future of anarchism? That's priceless! Let me guess, who comes on after Albert to talk about anarchism? Alex Callinicos? George Monbiot?

The American anarchists are going to have a big laugh when they hear about this. This would be an insult to us if it wasn't so fucking funny. You had lunch with Albert and he fed you that line? Come on. Michael Albert will say anything to get people to like him. That's why he wrote that essay at Znet that you cite, because anarchism was becoming popular after Seattle. I just read the essay and nowhere in it does Albert say that he is an anarchist. If the Z Foundation is being run on anarchist principles, this would be news to the anarcho-syndicalists. See, Paraecon is an appropriation of anarchist economics without the baggage of anarchism's history.

I've been working on an anthology of North American anarchist thought over the last 40 years. Michael Albert has never even been considered for this project, simply because he isn't an anarchist. Chuck0 00:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

If I go to my local Borders here in the UK, I can find Freedom, Black Flag, Direct Action, Class War, Anarchist Studies and (the US) Anarchy. All well known anarchist magazines and papers. There are no "anarcho"-capitalist ones, although there a few right-wing "libertarian" ones (US based ones, of course). In France and Italy there are weekly anarchist papers. So comparing "libertarian" magazines with anarchist ones depends on which country you are in and, of course, irrelevant as the former are *not* exclusively "anarcho"-capitalist. As for publishing books, the fact that there are anarchist publishers shows it is a *movement* and is *not* dependent on capitalist publishers. That Friedman is published by a company simply shows how isolated "anarcho"-capitalism is. And, of course, I should point out that anarchists have always created their own publishing houses. Kropotkin founded Freedom Press, Goldman and Tucker published their own papers and books. So this debate is really pointless. [BlackFlag], 08:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Libertarianism and anarchism

It seems that few editors here think that libertarianism and anarchism are two movements that exclude each other, but that's not the case. According to Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Political Thought: "Individualist anarchism has recently been revived, and now forms part of the broader movement known as libertarianism." And theirs libertarianism entry states: "More accurately, there are two main braches of libertarianism and each has a radical answer to the query. One group, the anarchists,.... The other group, generally called 'minarchists',...". This line of thought is also supported by Levy in Encarta when he is talking about anarcho-individualism: "Since World War II this tradition has been reborn and modified in the United States as anarcho-capitalism or libertarianism." Encarta's entry on libertarianism says: "The doctrine was espoused by American anarchists in the 19th century. Libertarianism reappeared in U.S. political thinking in the 1970s, representing an assertion of individual liberty in the face of growing government involvement in all aspects of life." -- Vision Thing -- 21:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

That's the only line in the entire UK Encarta anarchism article about an-cap, and it's a several page article that also says anarchism is "basically anticapitalist". Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 01:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Wait, actually it's the US encarta that says "basically anticapitalist". UK does say "Anarchism arose out of the ideological ferment of the French Revolution and in reaction to both the European bureaucratic nation state and the advent of large-scale industrial capitalism." Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 01:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

That's not the point here. Point Donnacha and few others tried to make is that anarchism and libertarianism exclude each other. -- Vision Thing -- 12:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

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

Right, VisionThing. "Libertarian" is used in the US to refer to both minarchists and anarchists. It is also used as a relative term, like "authoritarian." Hogeye 21:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Libertarian, as an adjective or a noun (i.e. libertarian socialist vs. left libertarian) is not the same thing as libertarianism as a cohesive set of ideas. The former is most accurately used in place of anarchism on your ideomap (and there's no way Proudhon is in the middle between socialism and capitalism, he was a full on socialist, if not a communist). This does not change the fact that libertarianism as a political idea based on the concept of no or miminal goverment is not the same as anarchism, the political idea based on the concept of no coercive authority, including capitalism. Donnacha 22:17, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

How are you defining "capitalism"?Anarcho-capitalism 23:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

If you're defining it like mutualist Kevin Carson defines it: "It is state intervention that distinguishes capitalism from the free market" then you're not defining it as anarcho-capitalists define it, which is the lack of state intervention - a free market.Anarcho-capitalism 23:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm not defining it like that. I'm defining it as a hierarchical economic system based on private ownership of the means of production, motivated by profit and characterised by wage slavery. I'm an anarcho-syndicalist, how would you expect me to define it? Donnacha 23:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

How do you define wage slavery?Anarcho-capitalism 23:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Having a job?Anarcho-capitalism 23:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

A system where a person is forced by circumstance to work for another, thus creating a hierarchical relationship, to afford life's necessities (food, clothing, housing). It's generally softened by social welfare in most Western countries, but is the general state of most workers in any capitalist system where private ownership of the means of production is maintained. It's bizarre that someone who claims to be an anarchist, while rejecting most of the fundamental aspects of anarchism, doesn't even seem to know the fundamentals he's rejecting. Donnacha 23:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not a fundamental of anarchism to be opposed to private ownership of the means of production. Do you deny that Benjamin Tucker was an anarchist? It's not just anarcho-capitalists that support private ownership of the means of production. Do you know what makes life's necessities cheap? Competition. Benjamin Tucker wanted the state to stop protecting banks from competition, because you have to have a "charter" from the state to run a bank. Monopoly is what makes life's necessities expensive. The state creates monopoly. Monopolies don't arise in a free market. What "hierarchical" system are you referring to? Having an employer? Tucker supported the right ot people to work for themselves or work for someone else, whichever they wished. Again, do you deny Tucker was an anarchist?Anarcho-capitalism

This sounds like a theoretical debate, so should we be taking it somewhere else? Ill write my answer at Anarcho-capitalism's talk page. --Fjulle 18:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

And it's funny that someone like you, Donnacha, doesn't know that the fundamentals of anarchism include freedom from all coercion, and don't involve harassment of others and ratting them out to the authorities. How can you possibly consider yourself an anarchist while you continue to do these things? You don't even have the fundamentals of a decent human being. 220.68.74.149 01:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Wolfstar, go find someone else to annoy. Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 01:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Why is this retarded graph back? Chuck0 20:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Donnacha: "There's no way Proudhon is in the middle between socialism and capitalism, he was a full on socialist, if not a communist."

You're kidding, right? Proudhon was ardently anticommunist, and he believed in private control ("possession") of the means of production. Thus, he was not a socialist by the modern definition. Mutualism has some characteristics of socialism (e.g. labor theory of value) and some characteristics of capitalism (support of free markets, private ownership of means of production.) It is a hybrid of socialism and capitalism. Hogeye 01:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, Proudhon was anti-communist. Why don't we for once confront the crap that goes on around here..especially at this article? 220.68.74.149 01:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello wolfstar, get out of here. Proudhon wasn't a commie, but he was clearly a socialist, and all encyclopedias I've seen have labelled him as such. Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 01:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

"Proudhon described himself as an anarchist, not a socialist. In some respects, his political position resembles that of many radical, pro-market libertarians of the late twentieth century." (Hodgson, Geoff, Economics and Utopia)Anarcho-capitalism 06:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

What a joke. Proudhon repeatedly called himself a socialist and was considered one by other socialists (including Marx and Engels). Hodgson gets it wrong, probably because he is coming from a Marxist background. Let's quote Proudhon: "I am socialist" (Selected Writing of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, p. 195). Bakunin and Kropotkin considered him a socialist, as did Tucker (the father of the Anarchistic school of Socialism" -- Instead of a Book, p. 381) So will "Anarcho-capitalism" stop trying to re-write history? User:BlackFlag 09:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought Proudhon called himself a socialist, but I wasn't sure. I thought I'd throw that out there to see who responded Thanks for correcting Hodgson.Anarcho-capitalism 11:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

About Tucker calling himself a socialist, yes he did, but he's definitely not a socialist, at least not in according to today's definition of socialism. Never does he advocate that the means of production be socialized.Anarcho-capitalism 11:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Right. Proudhon (and Tucker) called themselves "socialist," but "socialist" had a different meaning back then. As Wiki's socialism article correctly points out, "In this period [late-19th century], the term "socialism" was first used in connection with European social critics who condemned capitalism and private property." Capitalism had a different meaning than today also - it meant the accumulation of capital in the hands of a few. In modern terminology, Proudhon and Tucker are mutualist, not socialist. They fail the definition of socialism since they did not support collective ownership of the means of production. They supported (what we would call) private ownership by individual users or groups of individual users. Mutualism is neither socialism nor capitalism; it is a "middle way" with some characteristics of each. Hogeye 14:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Good Jaysus, is there any term you can't redefine to suit your point of view? Socialism does not mean collective ownership of the means of production - collectivism - one form of socialism - does. Nor does it mean communal ownership - that's communism - a different form of socialism. Socialism is about redistribution and egalitarianism - issues such as land reform, free healthcare, social welfare support, etc. It's an umbrella term for a range of different positions and attitudes with the same general focus of creating greater economic equality. Social democracy is a moderate form of socialism as much as state socialist nationalisation. Proudhon's opposition to monopolisation is as much a socialist argument today as it was then - it applies equally to economic liberalism of the early industrial era as to the neoliberalism of the globalisation era. Ditto Tucker. Donnacha 14:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

That's not the definition given by dictionaries, nor the Wiki article. It seems that you are the one redefining it to suit your point of view. Hogeye 15:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The Wiki articles on Socialism and Communism are ridiculously focussed on Marxism as the be-all and end-all of socialism and communism. However, the introduction to the article is somewhat contradictory in that it includes market socialism while claiming that it needs state or collective ownership. For example, a state with private industry and a massively high tax rate is also socialist if that money is reinvested for social purposes. Donnacha 18:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Iam living in Denmark which is a state with private industry and a massively high tax rate where that money is reinvested for social purposes. This state, of Denmark, is not normally called a socialist state, rather a liberal democratic state, although its mainly been created and formed by the social-democrats (you know them folks with the red roses). Why not just write that Proudhon suited himself a socialist, while socialism meant this and that at his time, not this and thut as in our time. We either write only what he said, or else what he said coupled with what we know about the developement of socialism. It would be contra-factual to write that he wasnt a socialist because socialism means something else today, and it would be to withhold information not to mention he suited himself a socialist. --Fjulle 19:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Donnacha writes that the socialism article is "contradictory in that it includes market socialism while claiming that it needs state or collective ownership." But he is mistaken, since the Wiki article on market socialism does in fact require state or workers' ownership of the means of production. Yeah, that's a funny definition to me, too, Donnacha. OTOH "a state with private industry and a massively high tax rate is also socialist if that money is reinvested for social purposes" is not socialist IMO, it is fascist. The rulers always claim their spending is "for the public good" - that means nothing.

Fjulle writes, "It would be contra-factual to write that he wasn't a socialist because socialism means something else today, and it would be to withhold information not to mention he suited himself a socialist." I disagree with the first part, and agree with the second part (but only if you point out that he's using "socialist" in an antiquated sense.) "Socialist" has a certain meaning today - it requires collective ownership of the means of production. Proudhon fails to satisfy the definition, since he was against that kind of ownership. Hogeye 21:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

That would make Denmark a fascist state... How did a liberal democracy suddenly become a fascist state? Might be that if you put a "A state run by a tryout on absolute authority on earth and" before "a state with private industry and a massively high tax rate is also socialist if that money is reinvested for social purposes", then it might be called fascist. Something like the USSR, but if instead its democracy, well, then it depends on whose in control for the time being at least. --Fjulle 22:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

There are two major means/methods for statism. One means is for the state to nationalize the means of production. This is the socialist means. The other statist means is to control the means of production without legally owning it. This is the fascist means. It leaves legal ownership (or myth thereof) in private hands, but regulates what these "owners" can do. Most states use a complex combination of both methods. There is a name for this: a mixed economy. E.g. in the US television airwaves and the body for creating legal tender is nationalized (socialist means), while drugs and transportation are heavily regulated (fascist means). Taxation and its modern brother inflation are basically straight plunder - I wouldn't call that socialist or fascist means, but generically statist. Hogeye 16:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Beyond that what about "in an classical sense"? or "in an sense most widespread in the Industrial age". How does the socialist article use the words concerning this? --Fjulle 22:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Why dont you agree with the first part of my earlier post? If definition X on socialism is a fact today, and definition Y on socialism was a fact earlier (fx in Proudhons time and age) then it would be factual to define Proudhon a socialist after definition Y, and contra-factual to define him a socialist after definition X as that wasnt the definition he had in mind when he defined himself a socialist. It is contra-factual to define proudhon as anything in regard to definition X because we know proudhon used definition Y. --Fjulle 11:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Since we are writing the article now, and readers read it now, we should use the current meaning of socialism. By today's definition, Proudhon was not a socialist. If we write, "Proudhon was a socialist," we are lying. We can say, "Proudhon considered himself a socialist, however he meant this to mean he opposed decreed property." Hogeye 16:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that is your point of view, but its still contra-factual, and thus not portraing Prodhoun like with words he used for himself. Might it be that he doesnt meant himself to be opposed to decreed property because he called himself a socialist, but because he tought it the way which made the most sense, og shouldnt we try to make that sense be represented rather than let everyone of his views repressent the kind of view we have on him. --Fjulle 16:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

If Benjamin Tucker's philoosophy is socialism, then why wouldn't anarcho-capitalism be socialism? What is the difference that would make Tucker's philosophy socialism? Anarcho-capitalists are strongly opposed to monopoly.Anarcho-capitalism 17:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

And might add that it seems more important to write what Proudhon suited himself than a whole go through of socialist history with regard to the concept socialism. Theres probably enough material for a whole independent article (which might be why there is one) concerning the term socialism. All this means that we should observe what Proudhon said, and then let people themselves go to the socialism article if they want to understand why it seems that Proudhon doesnt mean the same about socialism as they do. --Fjulle 19:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Tucker is not in support of equal wealth distribution.Anarcho-capitalism 17:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

"Tucker also opposed title to land that was not in use, arguing that an individual would have to use land continually in order to retain exclusive right to it." While I don't agree with Tucker's view of the free market, this element of his philosophy is, basically, a form of redistribution and is consistent with Proudhon's distinction between property and possession. Donnacha 18:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalists also want land reform. Rothbard supports expropriation of land that was taken as the result of coercion. He advocates that land be returned to the "heirs and descendants of the former slaves." Anarcho-capitalist Karl Hess said "libertarianism wants to advance principles of property but that it in no way wishes to defend, willy nilly, all property which now is called private...Much of that property is stolen. Much is of dubious title. All of it is deeply intertwined with an immoral, coercive state system." If land redistribution is all it takes to be socialism, then anarcho-capitalism is socialism.Anarcho-capitalism 18:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

So youre only naming anarcho-capitalism diferent than socialism because it sounds more cool? Hehe, only kidding. Cant socialism be used both with and without a state, and isnt that what anarchism never can? If so, there's a slight contrast in between these two terms. --Fjulle 19:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, I'm not sure if this is supposed to be reductio ad absurdum. Certainly, in the real world, land redistribution is more than enough to get somebody denounced as a "socialist" and overthrown by the CIA. Dispassionate research may be necessary to determine whether there is really a "technically correct" use of the term or if it has broad usages outside one's own POV subculture. Claims that one use was technically correct at a certain time and a different one is technically correct now sound particularly suspicious. (And hey, User:Anarcho-capitalism, you know your signatures would be typeset better if you put a space before the ~~~~, right?) EbonyTotem 21:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course, this is exactly the argument the "anarcho"-capitalists (corrected) use to justify their use of anarchism - the anti-capitalist definition that has been maintained through history is invalid because they've redefined it by their usage of the term (ow, that makes my head hurt!). Of course, we've seen some desperate moves to justify themselves by attempting to appropriate numerous people of similar political viewpoints to themselves to anarchism, despite their deliberate decision not to call themselves anarchists. Donnacha 21:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Donnacha, you wrote, "the anti-capitalist definition that has been maintained through history," but this is inaccurate. Many/most of the historical luminaries, such as Proudhon, Kropotkin, Goldman, and Tucker, defined anarchism as anti-state, not anti-capitalist. Some here have tried to explain away this fact by saying that they left out the allegedly critical anti-capitalist criteria because it was too obvious. This seems remarkably unconvincing since they did bring it up once they got around to their particular opinions and programs. So you might well blame Proudhon, Kropotkin, Goldman, and Tucker for leaving the door wide open. To remind you:

Pierre Proudhon: "Anarchy, - the absence of a master, of a sovereign." (What is Property, 1840) "Anarchy, or the government of each man by himself - or as the English say, self-government..." (The Federal Principle, 1863)

Kropotkin: "Anarchism - the name given to a principle or theory of life and conduct under which society is conceived without government - harmony in such a society being obtained, not by submission to law, or by obedience to any authority, but by free agreements concluded between the various groups, territorial and professional, freely constituted for the sake of production and consumption, as also for the satisfaction of the infinite variety of needs and aspirations of a civilized being." (Britannica 1910)

Emma Goldman: "Anarchism: The philosophy of a new social order based on liberty unrestricted by man-made law; the theory that all forms of government rest on violence, and are therefore wrong and harmful, as well as unnecessary."

Benjamin Tucker: "Anarchism [is] the doctrine that all the affairs of men should be managed by individuals or voluntary associations, and that the State should be abolished." "Anarchism is for liberty, and neither for nor against anything else."

Hogeye 00:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

"It seems that few editors here think that libertarianism and anarchism are two movements that exclude each other, but that's not the case." In reality, most people around the world see libertarianism and anarchism as meaning the same thing. But they see libertarianism as corresponding to what some here call left libertarianism. The movement I call "American libertarianism" is a more recent political movement, having very little to do with anarchism or traditional libertarianism. I would also urge people here to be strongly skeptical of political reference books and their content about anarchism. I'm a reference librarian and I cringe at some of the inaccurate shit I read in political reference works. It's not surprising that the compilers of such works tend to get anarchism wrong, since our movement doesn't have a huge presence in public consciousness. As with any type of reference work or scholarly research, if you are going to write something about a subject, you need to go look at what is actually being published by people who have those views. In other words, the anarchist movement is an international movement with millions of members, a history, and a corpus of published works, but a few "anarcho-capitalist" wingnuts are allowed to normalize their absurd take on anarchism thanks to Wikipedia. That's all for today. I'm off to go work on a real book about real anarchism. Chuck0 21:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I suppose what you mean by "American libertarianism" means libertarianism in the western hemisphere? In e.g. Costa Rica the Movimiento Libertario is a pro-capitalism minarchist party, the counterpart to the US Libertarian Party. There are similar parties in Canada, New Zealand, Australia, and the Netherlands. Hogeye 21:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Even over this side of the pond, many anarchists have ceded the use of the term libertarian to the right-wing Americans, as they're most associated with the term these days. I regard "anarcho"-capitalism as an attempt to take over the term anarchism in the same way. Donnacha 23:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey, let's blame it on the (statist socialist) liberals! The pro-capitalism minarchists and anarchists were totally happy with the term "liberal" until the damn statist socialists took over the term. So like a game of musical chairs, the pro-capitalists had to grab the term libertarian (although they tried to shove back with "true liberal", "classical liberal", and "market liberal" for a while).

As noted above, "anarchism" has always meant pure anti-statism. IMO the moaning and groaning of the anarcho-socialists is an understandable reaction to the death of socialism in general, the normal conservative reluctance to accept the pro-capitalist future of anarchism. Just as Hayek tried to keep the "liberal" label by calling himself a true liberal, some anarcho-socialists insist on calling themselves true anarchists. We ancaps will try not to gloat. Hogeye 00:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure, pure "anti-statism." That explains why the anarchist books I've been reading for over 20 years all attack capitalist property rights, hierarchy, sexism and a host of other things. That explains why Kropotkin, like Rocker, Bakunin, Tucker, etc., called it a form of socialism. That is why Proudhon attacked the capitalist, opposed wage slavery and called his first book "What is Property?"! Sure, "pure anti-statism"! As if. Please do not re-write the history of anarchism. [BlackFlag], 08:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The argument that anarcho-capitalism doesn't have anything to do with traditional anarchism, therefore it's not anarchism is fallacious. You sound like you've been reading "An Anarchist FAQ." It's a circular argument that it makes.Anarcho-capitalism 01:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, if you consider anarchism as a social movement then the fact is that it aways associated itself with socialism. Kropotkin called it the "no government theory of socialism", for example. Tucker opposed capitalist exploitation (rent, interest and profit) and called his theory "anarchistic socialism". The introductory essays by the lines of kropotkin, Goldman, Berkman, Malatesta, etc all list state and capitalist private property as things anarchists are against (as such, it is dishonest of "anarcho-capitalism" to ignore those aspects of their ideas -- Kropotkin, for example, immediately goes on to note that anarchists are the extreme left of the socialist movement). Proudhon was, of course, against capitalist private property (hence the first anarchist book was "What is Property?", not "What is Government?"). "Anarcho"-capitalism goes against this tradition and influence. At best, they take some ideas of Tucker and company out of context (social and political) and merge them into a political and social context he would hardly have approved of (see his comments on capital concentration for a 1920s -- I think -- edition of "Anarchism and State Socialism").

Almost all the anarchists I have come across would agree with "An Anarchist FAQ" on this matter, and with Jeremy Jennings:

"It is hard not to conclude that these ideas [anarcho-capitalism] -- with roots deep in classical liberalism -- are described as anarchist only on the basis of a misunderstanding of what anarchism is." (Contemporary Political Ideologies, Roger Eatwell and Anthony Wright (eds.), p. 142)

Whatever "anarcho-capitalism" may think, I would say that most anarchists would not include that ideology into the anarchist movement. Peter Marshall is right when he notes this:

"few anarchists would accept 'anarcho-capitalists' into the anarchist camp since they do not share a concern for economic equality and social justice . . . Anarcho-capitalists, even if they do reject the State, might therefore best be called right-wing libertarians rather than anarchists." (demanding the impossible)

Given that anarchism has always been associated with socialism, it is utterly understandable why most anarchists reject the idea that "anarcho"-capitalism is a form of anarchism (indeed, "libertarian socialism/communism" was used as an equivalent term long before the "free market" right appropriated the term in the 1970s). Given this, wikipedia should reflect this. I quite agreed that some academics do accept "anarcho"-capitalism as a form of anarchism, but that is because (as Peter Sabatini put it) it "is judged to be anarchism largely because some anarcho-capitalists say they are 'anarchists' and because they criticise the State." (Social Anarchism, no. 23, p. 100) And, as such, most anarchists would consider these academics to be wrong (and rightly so).

As for "libertarianism" and anarchism, Alan Carter points out the obvious, namely that anarchist concern for equality as a necessary precondition for genuine freedom means "that is one very good reason for not confusing anarchists with liberals or economic 'libertarians' -- in other words, for not lumping together everyone who is in some way or another critical of the state. It is why calling the likes of Nozick 'anarchists' is highly misleading." ("Some notes on 'Anarchism'", Anarchist Studies, vol. 1, no. 2, p. 143). BlackFlag 08:50, 26 September 2006

Nice job, but don't expect the ancaps to acknowledge anything you ably argue or properly cite for that is not the way they operate. Blockader 15:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

AnarchismTree07.jpg

We need something new to argue about. Should we put this diagram into the article if it ever gets unprotected? Why or why not? What improvements do you suggest? Hogeye 00:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

This has already been deleted before, you shouldn't have recreated it. Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 05:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

It is a little nutty.Anarcho-capitalism 05:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Hogeye, we don't need something new to argue about, this is not a game designed to provide entertainment for you. that diagram was rejected out of hand long ago and it is in bad faith to try and reinsert it. It is obvious POV and not even remotely historically or factually grounded. Blockader 15:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Mutualism is a form of socialism. And there are distinct differences between American mutualists and European ones. And "anarcho"-capitalism is not a form of anarchism, Molinari refused the term anarchist and can hardly be included. Henry George was not an anarchist either, although some anarchists took some of his ideas. Oppenheimer called himself a "liberal socialist," if memory serves. Also, if you added time then the "capitalist wing" would be empty until the 1950s when Rothbard decided to ignore over 100 years of history and appropriate the word "anarchism" to describe his warmed up version of Molinari's private state capitalism. And no eco-anarchism? No Bookchin? Or Ward? BlackFlag 09:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Or Emma Goldman's synthesis of individualism and communism, or Hakim Bey or Robert Anton Wilson's new forms of individualism? Donnacha 14:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

So Molinari is not an anarchist because he refused the term and anarcho-capitalists are not anarchists and accept the term? There's something wrong with that kind of reasoning. And why should an anarchist take history into account? If someone wants to be an anarchist they can, without consulting history to make sure they conform. There is no necessity that an anarchist be a conformist.Anarcho-capitalism 15:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Nope, both Molinari and the "anarcho"-capitalists are not anarchists because they support capitalism. Molinari had the grace and commonsense to refuse to call himself an anarchist because he was aware it was a socialist theory and movement. If only "anarcho"-capitalists did the same. And why should anarchists take history into account? Simply because anarchist is a political movement and *means something.* We cannot stop people who are not anarchists calling themselves anarchists, that is sure. But calling something the "Democratic People's Republic" does not make a state democratic, republic or run by the people. [BlackFlag] 08:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

No one here is refuting anyone's ability or right to call themselves whatever they like, ancap. if we were than the issue we are debating would be the inclusion of ancap in this article. that is not the debate as noone here intends to remove it. rather, the debate is over how much influence your particular POV is going to have in the article and how it should best be presented in order for said article to be fair and well informed. Blockader 15:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

And why do you say Molinari supports a "private state"? Competing providers of defense does not constitute a state. Do you deny that Benjamin Tucker was an anarchist too beause he supported competing providers of defense who charge for their services?Anarcho-capitalism 15:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Mutualism favors private control of the means of production, hence by definition is not socialism. Proudhon's version is relatively more socialist, which is why he's put on the line. Anarcho-capitalism, by definitions given in the dictionary and given by Proudhon, Kropotkin, Tucker, and Goldman, are anarchists, despite the protests of certain biased sectarians. The guys not in boxes are are not anarchists - i.e. Marx, Henry George, Oppenheimer, Rand, etc. Some people on the chart used antiquated or non-standard terminology. Oppenheimer was a geoist, as anyone who read his book "The State" knows. Anarcho-capitalism has been around since Molinari, who was a contemporary of Proudhon. Molinari's buddy and mentor Bastiat debated Proudhon. Molinari opposed the state (obviously) and proposed protecting rights by private stateless means. The chart covers only the economic anarchisms; miscellaneous anarchisms like Xtian or ecology or hunter-gatherer oriented forms are not included. Any other questions or comments? Hogeye 16:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Wrong on so many counts. Proudhon's mutualism favours workers ownership of their workplaces and self-management and so is socialist. "Anarcho"-capitalism is *not* consistent with the definitions of anarchism put forward by Proudhon, Kropotkin, Goldman, etc. All indicate that anarchism is a form of socialism and that it opposed capitalist property. I would like to see an "anarcho"-capitalist agree with Kropotkin that anarchism was the "no government theory of socialism" or that anarchists are the extreme left wing of the socialist movement. Dictionary definitions? Sure, dictionaries are very politically sophisicated! And what of those who define anarchy as choas? As for "anarcho"-capitalism being "around since Molinari, who was a contemporary of Proudhon" that shots you in the foot, as Molinari explicitly rejected the term anarchist *because* of Proudhon and its obvious association with socialism. If only "anarcho"-capitalists today would have the grace to do the same! And for "Molinari's buddy and mentor Bastiat debated Proudhon," what is relevent how? Bastiat was not private stater and Proudhon was pretty clear he considered Bastiat and his school as counter-revolutionaries. As for Oppenheimer, according to the introduction to my copy of "The State", he called himself a "liberal socialist." Finally, the use of the word "sectarians" -- that assumes that anarchists and "anarcho"-capitalists aim for the same thing, which is not the case. And it would be noted that few anarchists consider "anarcho"-capitalism as form of anarchism. [BlackFlag], 08:33 26 September, 2006 (UTC)

For God's sake, no,no,no,no,no,no, make it go away. Not again. --GoodIntentions^talk 05:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

minor fix

There's a link that isn't correctly piped under Issues in Anarchism:Capitalism where Mutualism should be Mutualism, but I can't fix it because the page is protected. So yeah an admin should go change that. --Anaraug 04:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

^ ^a ^b ^c
- Anarchism. Encyclopædia Britannica. 2006. Encyclopædia Britannica Premium Service. 29 August 2006 <http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9117285>. Anarchism is "a cluster of doctrines and attitudes centred on the belief that government is both harmful and unnecessary."
- Anarchism. The Shorter Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2005. P. 14 "Anarchism is the view that a society without the state, or government, is both possible and desirable." Cite error: The named reference "definitions" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
^ "Making Economic Sense" by Murray N. Rothbard
^ Godwin drew on arguments originally contained in Edmund Burke's Vindication of Natural Society. It is unclear whether Vindication was intended by Burke to be serious or satire.
^ Kropotkine, Petr Alekseevich. Anarchism: A Collection of Revolutionary Writings, Courier Dover Publications, 2002, p.5
^ Some scholars refer to some 19th century supporters of capitalism as anarchists: "Say made an initial attack on all government monopolies which Molinari was later to develop into his theory of free-market anarchism." - David Hart, Gustave De Molinari And The Anti-Statist Liberal Tradition
^ Godwin drew on arguments originally contained in Edmund Burke's Vindication of Natural Society. It is unclear whether Vindication was intended by Burke to be serious or satire.
^ Kropotkine, Petr Alekseevich. Anarchism: A Collection of Revolutionary Writings, Courier Dover Publications, 2002, p.5
^ Some scholars refer to some 19th century supporters of capitalism as anarchists: "Say made an initial attack on all government monopolies which Molinari was later to develop into his theory of free-market anarchism." - David Hart, Gustave De Molinari And The Anti-Statist Liberal Tradition
^ "The most extreme response to the question of the locus of power was taken by the anarchists, who argued that power should reside either in the individual or in the small face-to-face community. The former is a fairly rare position in a anarchism in general but is common in the United States in the form known as anarcho-capitalism." Sargent, Lyman Tower. Extremism in American: A Reader, NYU Press, 1995, p. 11

[definitions-1] 
Anarchism. Encyclopædia Britannica. 2006. Encyclopædia Britannica Premium Service. 29 August 2006 <http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9117285>. Anarchism is "a cluster of doctrines and attitudes centred on the belief that government is both harmful and unnecessary."

Anarchism. The Shorter Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2005. P. 14 "Anarchism is the view that a society without the state, or government, is both possible and desirable." Cite error: The named reference "definitions" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).

[2] Anarchism. Encyclopædia Britannica. 2006. Encyclopædia Britannica Premium Service. 29 August 2006 <http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9117285>. Anarchism is "a cluster of doctrines and attitudes centred on the belief that government is both harmful and unnecessary."

[3] Anarchism. The Shorter Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2005. P. 14 "Anarchism is the view that a society without the state, or government, is both possible and desirable." Cite error: The named reference "definitions" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).

[2] "Making Economic Sense" by Murray N. Rothbard

[3] Godwin drew on arguments originally contained in Edmund Burke's Vindication of Natural Society. It is unclear whether Vindication was intended by Burke to be serious or satire.

[4] Kropotkine, Petr Alekseevich. Anarchism: A Collection of Revolutionary Writings, Courier Dover Publications, 2002, p.5

[5] Some scholars refer to some 19th century supporters of capitalism as anarchists: "Say made an initial attack on all government monopolies which Molinari was later to develop into his theory of free-market anarchism." - David Hart, Gustave De Molinari And The Anti-Statist Liberal Tradition

[6] Godwin drew on arguments originally contained in Edmund Burke's Vindication of Natural Society. It is unclear whether Vindication was intended by Burke to be serious or satire.

[7] Kropotkine, Petr Alekseevich. Anarchism: A Collection of Revolutionary Writings, Courier Dover Publications, 2002, p.5

[8] Some scholars refer to some 19th century supporters of capitalism as anarchists: "Say made an initial attack on all government monopolies which Molinari was later to develop into his theory of free-market anarchism." - David Hart, Gustave De Molinari And The Anti-Statist Liberal Tradition

[9] "The most extreme response to the question of the locus of power was taken by the anarchists, who argued that power should reside either in the individual or in the small face-to-face community. The former is a fairly rare position in a anarchism in general but is common in the United States in the form known as anarcho-capitalism." Sargent, Lyman Tower. Extremism in American: A Reader, NYU Press, 1995, p. 11

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]