Talk:Anarchism

A full list of talkpage archives can be found here:Talk:Anarchism/Archives

Posts from Sept. 3 to Sept. 13 are now at Talk:Anarchism/Archive42. EbonyTotem 04:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

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 startedDonnacha 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)

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.

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)

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)

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. — Preceding unsigned comment 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.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)

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:

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

Cons:

1. It condones the other faction's false definition.
2. My faction has more people and/or is more persistent, so we can win the edit war.
3. 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 - Someone band this troll, please. 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)

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:

1. By giving each faction its own article, it should prevent the recurring factional edit wars.
2. There are in fact two definitions, totally incompatable, favored by editors. Both have reasonable rationales.
3. 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

Further information: Talk:Anarchism/Archive41 § A proposed guideline to capitalism and an-cap in Anarchism article

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

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

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

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)
• No. This is definitional pov. Rule by Secrecy 10:39, 20 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)
• 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)
• 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)

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)

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)

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)