Talk:Anarchism/Archive 33

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

→

Archive 40

Read this first!

Useful policy/guideline references

• Maintain a neutral point of view
• No original research, please
• Material must be verifiable
• Citations should reference reputable sources
• Assume good faith
• Lastly, please be civil to each other --AaronS 16:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

What are primary, secondary, and tertiary sources?

• A primary source: "A primary source is any piece of information that is used for constructing history as an artifact of its times. These often include works created by someone who witnessed first-hand or was part of the historical events that are being described, but can also include physical objects like coins, journal entries, letters, or newspaper articles."
• A secondary source: "Secondary sources are texts based on primary sources, and involve generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation. In the study of history, secondary sources are those writings which were not penned contemporaneously with the events in question."
• A tertiary source: "Where a primary source presents material from a first-hand witness to a phenomenon, and a secondary source provides commentary, analysis and criticism of primary sources, a tertiary source is a selection and compilation of primary and secondary sources. While the distinction between primary source and secondary source is essential in historiography, the distinction between these sources of evidence and tertiary sources is more peripheral." --AaronS 16:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Proposed source standards

Because this is a contentious topic, I propose that no biased sources be used; I also propose that primary sources should be avoided, and that secondary sources should be preferred. This is because "[s]econdary sources often are subjected to peer review, are well documented, and are often produced through institutions where methodological accuracy is important to the future of the author's career and reputation. A primary source like a journal entry, at best, only reflects one person's take on events, which may or may not be truthful, accurate, or complete. Historians subject both primary and secondary sources to a high level of scrutiny." (see primary source). While primary sources are often used by experts and historians, none of us are experts and historians; and, if we are, then we should reference our own reputably published works. --AaronS 16:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Talk archives & Open Tasks

• Talk:Anarchism/Archives - List of archives.
• Template:AnarchismOpenTask - List of open tasks.

Unprotection

I've requested that the article (but not the template) be unprotected.[1] Hogeye 17:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, now that editing is up again, be sure to stay civil and avoid edit wars.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 23:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Avoid edit wars? A likely story. Straight away Hogeye and RJII have re-introduced all the elements that they know have caused most dispute: Hogeye's pet chart of influences; the division into 'individualist' and 'collectivist' schools; the controversial intro para on dictionary definitions; major section on anarcho-capitalism in the middle of the page; liberal anarchism etc.... however much we go over the same points, these two are unwilling to give an inch. There have been edit wars in the past on all these points, and there will be again. They wear down the latest enthusiastic anti-capitalist arrivals, but sure enough more will come along soon and it'll start up all over again. In short, no progress at all, and if the page needed protection before the need hasn't gone away. Perhaps a permanent NPOV dispute tag would be the honest approach, as this is a permanent NPOV dispute.Bengalski 11:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Click go the shears, comrades, click click click

As promised in Talk:Anarchism/Archive32 I'm pruning back the sections. The entire article is too long. Everyone wants their own tendency full featured and explored. This is not the purpose of a head page. Regardless of the composition and selection of sections, all sections must be much smaller. Expect other sections to receive similar treatment to what Individualism, Anarchism at Work and Anarchosyndicalism received. Fifelfoo 01:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Right on; I had the same idea, as you can see. I think you already had a shorter version of Individualist Anarchism. I looked for your shorter version in Archives but couldn't find it, so I'll leave that to you. ... Good, you've already done it. And anarcho-syndicalism, too! Hogeye 01:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Photos

What photos should be included? IMO we need photos for Proudhon and Rothbard. Both are more noteworthy than Hakim Bey. Hogeye 03:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind Warren being there instead of Tucker. Warren is historically important, as he started the whole native American movement. It depends on what kind of presentation you want to have. RJII 03:34, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Concurr on Bey. A Goldman / Berkman group shot would be good. A CNT-FAI group should would be excellent (one of the CNT-FAI trucks full of militia from 36/7 would be great). Less dead white men, more group shots. 19th century line drawings should be available too. Fifelfoo 04:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

If you want something recent, I took this photograph when I was in Barcelona a couple of years ago, or how about this photograph of CNT collectivised workers? - FrancisTyers 11:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Francis! Fifelfoo 11:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

individualist anarchism

The labor-value individualism is the most signficant, but that is not the only kind of individualist anarchism. I don't like that Stirner is not included in the individualist anarchism section. Proudhon probably belongs there as well. I'll play around with it. RJII 03:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Sectarianism

Social anarchism's opposition to anarcho-capitalism isn't sectarian. Opposition based on fundamental differences is not sectarian: they lack a shared basis for agreement. Fifelfoo 04:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Sectarianism in no way implies that there are no fundamental differences. Besides, there are fundamental similarities, too: opposition to the State. Hogeye 04:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

However they define "state" (and also "capitalism") very differently. // Liftarn

Anarchism

I'm happy to see the Anarchism article back open for business. Ya'll can always use me for reference. I'm an old version of the Anarchism article. :) Look at me: Anarchism 04:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Bullet list for Issues

I've pared down each issue to one paragraph. My intention is to make a bullet list like I did for Contemporary (now Other branches and offshoots), making the TOC smaller. Any objection to that? Hogeye 04:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Historical vs Schools structure

Either way is acceptable to me, but if we are going back to a Schools structure with anarcho-capitalism under individualist anarchism, then it's only logical to be consistent and put 2.3 The International thru 2.8 The fight against fascism under collectivist anarchism. Otherwise we should go back to having a Contemporary section. Hogeye 05:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

A Contemporary section seems crazy to me. The original types of anarchism are still contemporary --plenty of anarcho-commmunist groups around, for example. We would have to repeat the sections twice ..once above the line and once below. It can still have an historical narrative without such a section. RJII 05:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't see that the schools in History would need to be repeated, since they were already covered. I do see your logic. What if "Contemporary" were changed to "Newer Schools," "Recent Conceptions of Anarchism" or some such? I think you're opening up a whole can of worms by significantly changing the structure of the article, and wrecking the historical order, without consensus among the other editors. And that's from me, who as you know is anything but shy about making changes! I fear you're pretty much guaranteeing a new edit war. Think about it. Hogeye 05:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

When is there not an edit war in this article? No matter what one does there is an edit war. Anyway, what is the cutoff time period for a "newer school." And, would anarcho-capitalism be there? I wouldn't agree that that's a "newer school." I'm not sure of the point of such a dilineation. RJII 05:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Post WWII? I would say that, even though there were earlier isolated individuals like Molinari and Herbert, that the anarcho-capitalist school started with Rothbard's writings. Hogeye 06:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Fine if you have some kind of time frame in mind. But isn't that going to cause edit warring too? I thought most of the anti-AC people wanted anarcho-capitalism under the individualist anarchism section. RJII 06:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

But, I would say it's more historical the other way. Anarcho-capitalism developed in parallel with labor-value individualist anarchism. It's not like it all of a sudden spontaneously arose from nothing. RJII 06:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

As you know that's highly disputed. I have left AC in but moved it forward in time. And incorporated yr 'liberal anarchism' into ancapism section - these liberals are only claimed to be anarchist forebears by the ancaps, so putting them in as their own section in the 19th century is very POV. I personally am fine with taking out the historical/contemporary divide - we can then just have one timeline for the whole thing. But, as was discussed ad infinitum before, I'm certainly not the only editor who's very much against splitting it into individualism vs collectivism meta-schools.Bengalski 13:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, cool - you convinced me. Actually, the article is looking pretty good now. Hogeye 06:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Max Stirner - Egoist or Anarchist?

Frankly, I don't consider Stirner to be an anarchist, strictly speaking. He's kind of like Godwin - a very influential precursor. Two points:

• Stirner did not consider himself an anarchist. He considered himself an egoist.
• Stirner offered no anarchist theory. To him, the State was just one mental "spook" example out of many.

I suggest we put Stirner in the Precursor/Origins section. Hogeye 06:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

But there's plenty of sources that say he is an individualist anarchist. Also, how about the European Stirnerite individualist anarchists? That's individualist anarchism too --it's just not the American form of individualist anarchism. RJII 06:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I suspect we have an American individualist section due to the much more social nature of non-US individualisms. See Japan where Egoism and Syndicalism were considered compatible by leaders of the day (Bowen Raddeker, Hecate, 2005). Australian individualism was much more social than US individualism, it was effectively a form of social anarchism which focused its activist efforts on rationalism, humanism and militant atheism. My deeper suspicion is that these currently lie within US anarchism too, and we're seeing a retconning of US individualism into Rothbard's catagories: a solipsistic error.Fifelfoo 06:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Weighting

Although it's perhaps a symptom of growing up in a very environmental area (and a half hour from Zerzan), but green and primitivist anarchism seem extremely minimized in the new arrangement. I'd consider it worth at least as much space as anarcho-capitalism is getting, being one of the most active trends in anarchism today. Anarchism without adjectives seems severely underplayed as well, because as far as I can tell that's how most anarchists identify today. Many are even unaware of the existence of factions. Of course that relates more to anarchists than anarchist theory, but it's hardly something to overlook. Sarge Baldy 08:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Your experience is geographically limited. Look at the CGT (Spain) stats, their 70 year historical record as anarchists, versus their volume of coverage of their subject. As far as the an-caps go, the only way to seek redress is to demand satisfaction of them, examine their edit history and conclude if you have the ability to be awake often enough to out-edit them. Examine the article history for their habits. The entire article is about 50k (down from the 90s). The aim should be to achieve something in the 30s or 40s.Fifelfoo 10:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'd agree exact weighting is pretty impossible, and anarcho-syndicalism does seem to get a lot of weight as the article is. I think putting the green and primitivist sub-sections together (as they are pretty related) and giving them a moderate amount of space in the main body would not be unfair. Sarge Baldy 19:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree - Green/Eco anarchism, like anarcho-capitalism, is one of the newer forms of anarchism, which shouldn't be denigrated by the traditionalists. I think it should have a section, say, just before "Religious Anarchism" in this version of the article. It should cover Green-a, Eco-a, and Primitivist-a. I invite you to organize it that way. Hogeye 17:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I think the best spot is probably below "Anarchism and feminism" in the current version. And actually, I think the article is working out pretty well. Sarge Baldy 19:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

"Dictionary" note

This is a good example of an appeal to authority fallacy. Particularly when you consider there is no good reason to see a dictionary as a viable authority at defining a philosophy they undoubtably are not interested in. Citing definitions by early anarchists is equally problematic, particularly when you ignore constant remarks that anarchism is a form of socialism. The best source comes from secondary sources, including modern anarchists and political scientists who have made it a point to map these philosophies out. I'm willing to agree to disagree on the point, but the current notice is pushing a contested POV. Sarge Baldy 08:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

A dictionary is an extraordinarily good source for a definition. The reason is that the definitions they present are the result of a lot of research on how the term is used by educated people, including "modern anarchists and political scientists." So instead of us having to conduct a huge amount of research compiling hundreds of usages and finding a commonality (which would be something akin to "original research"), the researchers have already done this for us. The dictionary IS exactly the secondary source that you want for this kind of dispute. The dictionary definitions of anarchism present what the word is most often understood to mean among educated people --and that's exactly the kind of definition we should have to head the article. It's the most NPOV way to do it. (Look at the definitions of anarchism that head the anarchism article on other contemporary encyclopedias --they could have come straight out of any of the various dictionaries out there).RJII 15:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

proudhon

Begalski, do you have a source for this assertion: "it should be noted that in later works Proudhon modified his ideas on property" ? As far as I can tell, his positions on property did not change in any important way. Do you have a secondary source that says they did actually change? RJII 16:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

critics of anarchism

Hey I know you'll all be pleased that someone's finally made everything far less POV by including some opening remarks about what ctitics of anarchims say - particularly the Petit bourgeois one which Marxists like so much.Harrypotter 19:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it's pretty POV to rework half the introductory paragraph to work in criticism. Also, many of these points of criticism actually come from anarchists: the thesis of L. Susan Brown's best known work is that anarchist communism is essentially individualist and built out of liberalism; Saul Newman's best know work is almost strictly a critique of anarchism, showing it both as an extension of liberalism and also agreeing strongly with Stirner that revolution enevitably results in a new state (points which all have my complete agreement). Sarge Baldy 20:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not at all against discussing criticisms of anarchism in the article - actually I think it's only right, as no one can deny anarchism is much abused and criticised from many sides. I'm not sure the way this has been done is very informative however - if I was coming to this ignorant of the subject Harrypotter's comments would make little sense to me - 'petit bourgeois' - what does that mean? (need to at least mention this comes from marxism, and point to sources); 'socially maladjusted' just sounds like a slander - who said this, and why? See Sterner - where, what , why? And I would think actually the most common criticisms of anarchists is that they are smelly judeo/slavic bomb-throwing terrorists (19th-early 20th century) or macdonalds-window-smashing middle class yobs with silly haircuts (contemporary). Should we stick some of that in? If so, how do we make this a serious part of the introduction that actually informs and points to useful information and debate? And does it actually belong in the intro? Or perhaps just a brief pointer to discussion of criticisms further down the page? Should there maybe be a special section on criticism of anarchism, or should we just try to be more balanced in presentation of existing sections, if they're not at present?Bengalski 21:01, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Right. I think it needs to be sourced information (who is criticizing?) and probably placed in a special section rather than in the introduction. It's actually kind of embarassing not to have a "criticism" section on one of the most controversial political philosophies in existence. Sarge Baldy 21:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Briefly looking at pages on other major political ideologies (eg. socialism, liberalism, conservatism) that seems to be the most common wikipedia approach. (Not that this means it's necessarily the right one or that we should follow it.) I.e., the intro section presents some kind of summary of the self-professed 'philosophy' or ideals of the movement, and maybe some key history; there are dedicated sections on critique later on. Even the fascism article doesn't open with criticisms, though the intro discusses the common use of the term as a pejorative.Bengalski 21:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

That makes sense, since it's hard to criticize something before you've adequately explained it. I would think the best place is near the bottom, or possibly above "cultural phenomena". Sarge Baldy 21:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Well I've done just that - the criticisms need sourcing, though. Or I'm thinking maybe to avoid making the page massive again we could direct to a page just for details of criticisms and counters. Perhaps Harrypotter will help. AaronS I guess this is why you've put up the NPOV tags - good if you could put a note on the talk page when you do so. If you feel strongly that we shouldn't discuss the criticisms until they're sourced then I won't object if you take them down for now. But I don't think you can argue it is POV to mention that people criticise anarchism. They certainly do, and we need to deal with it not ignore it.Bengalski 18:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about the "tacit authoritarianism" point. Post-anarchists, at least, have critiqued rather than criticized anarchism, not as an attempt to reject it but so as to refine fundamental faults. I don't know about the Situationists. I'm also not sure how widespread the Marxist criticisms mentioned are. It might be nice to get into the historical criticisms posited by Marx, Lenin, et. al towards anarchism (such as that you need to give the weak power to reshape society before you can abandon government). Sarge Baldy 21:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Re-titled "anarchism at work" section

The section name has always bugged me. It looks like it's trying to be "clever" by making a pun on "at work" (which can mean "in the workplace" or "in practice"). It just seems unprofessional in an encyclopedia. MrVoluntarist 02:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I've always felt the same way, good edit. The Ungovernable Force 05:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Moving towards Featurable status

In order to reclaim featured article status there's a number of projects which we need to do

Notes and citations

A few reminders here. Remember that we're not searching out for minority view-points in order to cook the article. The Taoism stuff is only notable because of a) Its a non-western claim b) Its so damn early c) Its made by leftists and rightists. With mainline citations we need to make sure they come from

1. Primary sources: the authors themselves, or newspapers / diaries of the day etc.
2. Credible commentators: this means someone with a Research Doctorate or Masters in a social science or history. It could also be from a monograph published from an academic press (OUP) or a credible peer reviewed journal specialising in social science or history

Secondly, as regards notes, the {{ref|refname}} {{note|refname}} system is a bit clunky. We'll have to watch note ordering as new and old notes come and go. Fifelfoo 05:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I just want to add, I think it was a great idea to go through and put a marker where someone needs to put a citation. That should speed up the process, and everyone should put one of these markers in if they think something needs citation, but can't currently find one. MrVoluntarist 05:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to say that Fifelfoo is doing a pretty good job --he seems dedicated to NPOV. RJII 05:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Academic qualifications don't make credibility. The publication requirements are a better indicator.Bengalski 11:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Agree that the ordering is a bit clunky, my apologies. My preference would be to have them in the form of {{ref|<author><date>([a-z])}}, where author and date are obvious and a-z is for if there are two from the same author in the same year. Obviously this isn't always possible as some sources come without an author. There are also a number of dead links in the Reference section, I didn't remove them, but they are likely to need to be removed or replaced. You can tell them because they don't have a description, only a number. - FrancisTyers 17:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Anarcho-communism is not anarchism?!!!

Communism is about everyone being the same and equal in most forms. Anarchism is about individuality and non-conforming. Although some anarchists may be rebelling against the different social groups, they still dont actually want them to conform to one becuase if that happened, the anarchists wouldnt have a cause.

Sure, just footnoting the quotes would be fine, and maybe keeping the "pseudo-anarchism" quote because that's from the most noted individualist and it's an extremely short quote. RJII 06:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I actually thought Appleton's was better, as it summarised the anti-communist nature, didn't involve cheap arguing through repetition or attempts to fiat reality, and expressed the propertarian interests of the 19thc individualists. Unfortunately the front page isn't the appropriate venue for detailed criticism of tendencies. Non-propertarian opposition to anarcho-communism (anti-communal stuff) from non-US individualists isn't as cogent. Fifelfoo 06:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Ungovernable, it's an historically important fact that individualist anarchists opposed anarcho-communism, and believed private property was necessary for true liberty (as they still believe today). RJII 06:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

"TheUngovernableForce" is deleting sourced information. also, i'm not sure if someone "ungovernable" should be working on Wikipedia. Wikipedia has rules. One of them is NPOV.

I don't appreciate your patronizing edit summary. BTW, as I have pointed out numerous times, civility is also one of those rules, but you seem to be quite "ungovernable" in that respect. And I'm deleting sourced info b/c someone can find a source for anything, and as I said earlier, anarcho-communism is not the school of thought that is constantly having its anarchist credentials called into question. This seems like a distraction from the real issue we are trying to work out. Anyway, I won't do anything else with it until more people comment. The Ungovernable Force 06:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Obviously anarchists have criticised each others' ideas in different areas, and where this is particularly notable as here it should be mentioned. But RJII's claim is very strong - it's not saying just that the US individualists opposed the idea of communism within anarchism, but that they (all of them? a general consensus?) believed communist anarchism was not anarchism, and was even the enemy of anarchism. Is that right? Was there never any co-operation or overlap between any of the two groups?Bengalski 11:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that RJII may have an exclusionary definition of "19th century American individualist anarchist," such that any American anarchist in the 19th century who was individualist, but was for collective property forms, is excluded from the specific definition "19th century American individualist anarchist". However, RJII is right that there was a very specific anti-collective property trend in the individualism in the US in the 19th century. Maybe its time to include weasil words like "some" "many" or "a tendency within"

There aren't any American individualists who were for "collective property forms" --they wouldn't be called individualists if they did. What makes them individualist anarchists is they believe individualism in person and property. It was inconceivable to them that you could be truly free while not having private property --freedom and individual ownership of the product of labor are inseparable. RJII 14:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

RJII your point is well made with a general statement that some anarchists, eg. americans x y and z, thought communism was incompatible with anarchism, with maybe one representative quote - pick your favourite. Three quotes in the text is overkill. I think you can see if we're to stick in three quotes to support every point in the page the thing'll quadruple in size.Bengalski 21:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind just one quote, but I do mind the deletion of additional sources for the claim. As you can see, someone comes along and deletes the sources except one, and in doing so, deletes evidence that it was a position of several individualists. Then, the text gets changed to say that Benjamin Tucker thought it was fake anarchism. Then, if it's noted that this was the position of several of them, someone asks for sources. I put in sources and then someone comes along and says it's too many sources and only leaves one or two. This continues ad infinitum. People like Infinity need to stop deleting sources. RJII 21:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Surely Individualist anarchism is about individuality. Of course there are many people who would give their lives rather than conform to the status of an individual. See Luther Blissetts con-dividual].Harrypotter 19:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Books

I didn't think this was going to be necessary, but do we really need a huge list of books in this article? It is long enough already, I took care to produce a list from the major schools in the article and then moved the rest out to list of anarchist books. It seems someone has readded many and split them into specious "anarcho-socialist" (isn't this a neologism?) and "anarcho-capitalist" sections. I have reverted back to my version for the time being, I would welcome constructive discussion here. - FrancisTyers 17:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Hogeye added them. Your list is more concise, I think it's better, tho you could start a separate article with them all on. Infinity0 ^talk 17:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at list of anarchist books ;) - FrancisTyers 17:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Ahhhhhh... :D Infinity0 ^talk 17:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay. I changed the Rothbard book to a relevant one about anarcho-capitalism, rather than the economic treatise. Hogeye 18:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I like the idea of a very short list as well (mostly because it helps to ensure a safe weighting). But perhaps we should mention The Dispossessed or The Monkey Wrench Gang as a representation of anarchism in literature? Sarge Baldy 20:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be reasonable to add a couple of fictional books relating to Anarchism, it might also be worth mentioning a couple of the most popular books that are histories or overviews of the subject. I think Woodcock and Marshall are pretty popular, but you can probably find the most popular ones on Amazon or something. - FrancisTyers 20:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. I think it's important not to limit ourselves to the works of the philosophers and theorists themselves. Clearly there's other important books related to the topic that should be touched on. Sarge Baldy 03:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Infinity deleting sources

Infinity, you need to stop deleting sources. You're becoming increasingly destructive on Wikipedia. RJII 20:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

RJII, I sorted the fricking sources. Shut up and stop being difficult just because I listed your article for deletion. Infinity0 ^talk

That's another sign of your destructiveness. You've put up individualist anarchism and anarcho-capitalism for deletion for totally bogus reasons. It's another sign of you wanting to censor information. RJII 20:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Argumentum ad hominem is a logical fallacy. Infinity0 ^talk 20:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not ad hominem. It's not to prove that validity of any argument other than that you have a habit of censorship, and I'm requesting that you stop censoring things and deleting sources. RJII 21:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

NPOV is censorship? Get outta here. Infinity0 ^talk 21:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Deleting sources because you don't like what they say is POV. RJII 21:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Adding sources because you like what they say is equally (if not more) POV. Sarge Baldy 03:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm adding sources because they're being requested. Then Infinity comes along and deletes them along with the claims. I add back the claim without the sources and sources are requested. I add the sources then he deletes the claims and sources. It's absurd. Maybe he's upset that there are so many links about individualist anarchism and anarcho-capitalism, but that's the way it's going to be if those are the sections that are the subject of the most dispute. RJII 03:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

If that was the case, why did I leave at least one in in each section? Infinity0 ^talk 21:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Because you don't want too much information released. And, so that you could ask for sources for claims that you deleted the sources for, then delete the claims and sources when they're added to the article --as you've been doing. RJII 23:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Right, except I only asked for a source once, and I've only deleted sources which don't add new information. RJII, stop making up crap about me being a "censor". You're the one that has suppressed all mention of anarchism's left-wing links. Infinity0 ^talk 23:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Cooperation vs Competition

RJII added competition to the list of things anarchists want a society built upon. I know I am not alone in not considering competition to be a major part of my ideal future society, and to add competition without qualifications as to which anarchists support that is a bad idea, especially since it also said we wanted cooperation, which is contradictory and will confuse most people unfamiliar with anarachism (and some who are familiar). As such I removed both until we can work this out. The Ungovernable Force 03:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Individualist anarchists tend to be big on competition. For instance, Voltairine de Cleyre: "Miss Goldman is a communist; I am an individualist. She wishes to destroy the right of property, I wish to assert it. I make my war upon privilege and authority, whereby the right of property, the true right in that which is proper to the individual, is annihilated. She believes that co-operation would entirely supplant competition; I hold that competition in one form or another will always exist, and that it is highly desirable it should." Benjamin Tucker was also a firm proponent of competition. He believe competition was what could reduce profit to make prices accord with labor-value. RJII 03:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

So say that some individualists support it, because not all anarchists do (and I can cite that if you want) The Ungovernable Force 03:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC).

That's fine. I know that collectivist anarchists don't like competition. Apparently, the only thing all anarchists agree on is opposition to the State. RJII 03:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I was pretty sure that a variety of individualists agreed that cooperation was valuable, the mutual meeting of like-minded individuals for the purposes of mutual benefit etc. Similarly there is a strain within anarchism which says that competition is a good and natural impulse (for an example, Le Guin is big on friendly competition in Dispossessed). I'm not hep up about including "competition" in the list at all. Its not nearly as important as other issues. Like getting the article size down to 40kb, having copyright acceptable images for the major points, and having apposite and appropriate citation. Fifelfoo 04:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Personally I'd say competition and cooperation are equally valuable, and I think it could safely be said that in anarchist thought the whole spectrum exists from rampant competition to rampant competition and cooperation and rampant cooperation. How anyone expects to be able to have meaningful competition without cooperation or meaningful cooperation without competition I don't know :) - FrancisTyers 19:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

The relationship between cooperation and competition is pretty clear in anarchism. Liberal anarchists believe in competition, and all other anarchists don't. In fact, all other anarchists would see competition as ruining any possibility of a working anarchy. That's pretty much the main thesis of L. Susan Brown's book The Politics of Individualism. Sarge Baldy 22:25, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

What is liberal anarchism? Personally, I don't know what competition/cooperation have to do with anarchism at all. Both are a part of life in general. --AaronS 23:21, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Liberal anarchism is anarchism combined with liberalism, i.e. American individualist anarchism and anarcho-capitalism. That is to say, anarchism that believes in the freedom of individuals to use others to serve an ends, as opposed to anarchism that believes in the freedom of individuals from other individuals. I don't know why you consider it of no importance to anarchism. In fact, a large amount of anarchist theory is specifically about the cooperation and competition. For instance, the basic thesis of Kropotkin's Mutual Aid is that humans (and other species) are naturally cooperative, and must be to survive. Bakunin and Bookchin have argued similarly. L. Susan Brown disagrees, insisting human nature does not exist, but argues that a belief in competition contradicts any belief in individual freedom. Liberal anarchists, by contrast, see people as naturally competitive, etc. Liberal anarchists tend to be more accepting of capitalism because they aren't opposed to competition or using others to serve an ends, whereas other anarchists see this as a massive contradiction. Sarge Baldy 23:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

She's wrong. - FrancisTyers 23:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Anarchism in India

Is there any record of anarchist activity in India?Can anyone of the contributors enlighten me on this? sumal 11:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes. In fact, I've come across a book in my library on exactly this topic. It's Anarchist thought in India by Adi Hormusji Doctor. Sarge Baldy 22:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Anarchist "tree"

This clearly violate's Wikipedia's policy regarding original research, and is also disupted. I don't think I'm the only one who sees it simply an attempt to legitimize anarcho-capitalism's place within anarchism. Sarge Baldy 21:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalism's place within anarchism is already legitimized. All the chart does is show what influenced what. Everybody who has researched it knows that Tucker and Spooner influenced Rothbard. RJII 21:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

And you don't see yourself as POV? Clearly it is not a settled matter, as evidenced by it's clearly contentious relation to anarchism. Too often you exhibit symptoms of an MPOV, which is worrisome. Sarge Baldy 21:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not "settled" but it's legitimized. It's not settled that individualist anarchism is true anarchism. It's not settled that anarcho-communism is true anarchism. Whether it's settled or not is beside the point. If some notable historians and political scientists say something is anarchism, then it needs to be in the article. That's all it takes to "legitimize" something as anarchism. RJII 21:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

If you take any arrow pair in the article and say "X influenced Y", it is well-documented and well-sourced on Wikipedia. The article puts these Wikipedia-acceptable facts into graph form. That's it. If it was claiming which philosophy grew out of which other one, then you'd have a case. MrVoluntarist 00:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I shouldn't have to point out that you have yet to provide the names and quotations of any "notable" historians and political scientists, or any non-originally researched reliable sources to back up your claims. --AaronS 22:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Right, because you keep re-constraining the request to the point where you couldn't do the same for socialist forms of anarchism. MrVoluntarist 00:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Give sources to Aaron at your own risk. He finds some twisted way to dismiss every one. Or, if he does find one acceptable, he demands another to back it up, ad infinitum. It's fruitless and ridulcous. RJII 01:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

MrVoluntarist and RJII, I ask that you try to assume good faith. My requests have been reasonable. So far, RJII has only provided original research and two main sources -- where do you see 'infinity'? -- Ralph Raico and Carl Levy. Levy's source has already been shown to not back up many of the claims made, here. Raico's neutrality is questionable. So, are you going to produce everything, or are you just going to continue to attack me personally contrary to Wikipedia guidelines and policies? I would truly appreciate if the both of you tried to keep the discussion civil. Thanks! --AaronS 02:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I did assume good faith with you. It's just that I'm convinced now that you're not acting in good faith. You won't accept sources no matter how credible they are. It appears to me that you have no genuine interest in bringing information to light, but rather, the reverse. RJII 03:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you were initially immediately very hostile or uncivil towards me. Please provide here a list of sources that you think that I've ignored, "no matter how credible they are." Honestly, I would like to know. Thanks. --AaronS 04:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC) Furthermore, even if you do believe that I'm acting in bad faith (I would like some evidence of that), that does not give you the right to treat me uncivilly. If you have a problem with me, I would be happy to talk to you about it. --AaronS 04:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Please list sources disputing any of the links on the tree. So far, the only argument against the tree seems to be the old braindead POV anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism claim. Weak. Hogeye 14:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that when you make an unsourced positive claim, the burden of proof is on you, not anybody else. --AaronS 15:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

What exactly is the claim that you'd like sourced? Hogeye 15:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Note: Both of the images are up for deletion at Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion. - FrancisTyers 15:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Please respond to this directly relevant statement I made: If you take any arrow pair in the article and say "X influenced Y", it is well-documented and well-sourced on Wikipedia. The article puts these Wikipedia-acceptable facts into graph form. That's it. If it was claiming which philosophy grew out of which other one, then you'd have a case. MrVoluntarist 23:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

The (main) issue isn't whether Hogeye's right or wrong, or well sourced, on any particular connection eg. that Nietzsche influenced Rothbard. The issue is one of whether this link is relevant to anarchism, or more generally whether its relevance is strong enough that it fits with NPOV 'weighting'. If we were to put in every accurate chain of influence that applies to any notable anarchist thinker we would have a monkey puzzle tree of a million names. You would also have many non-anarchists as prominent nodes, Marx just one of them. To get something manageable we have to trim down to a few names, and it is the selection of these names and links that is controversial original research. Hogeye's choice is plainly POV. But in fact I think it is so inherently controversial that even without the ancapism issue we would probably never find consensus on a tree of ten or even a hundred names from the editors of this page. Things are just more complicated than that, and I don't see that such a tree serves any useful purpose.Bengalski 09:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I love how when people are shown to be wrong, they switch arguments and claiming that that was their argument all along. First it was "the tree is OR!". Now it's "the tree is irrelevant"! Let's pick a story and go with it. MrVoluntarist 16:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

The chart is clearly relevant to anarchism. You write, "To get something manageable we have to trim down to a few names, and it is the selection of these names and links that is controversial original research.," but that could be said of the whole article or any given section. Yet we all know who most of the big names are, and/or the representative opinions anyway. You're going to have to come up with a better excuse than the lame "original research" charge. Hogeye 15:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

The idea as I understand it is on the whole article or any given section we try to achieve a) 'NPOV'; b) hopefully some consensus. Your chart is very far from either.Bengalski 18:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

The problem I have with the chart is that we can't modify it. I basically agree with the content but there are some things I would change. If a flow-chart function were available in Wikipedia so we call all modify it that would be great. As it stands now, it has to be taken down and modified for each editor's input and Hogeye is apparently the only one with the authority to do that. I appreciate his efforts and I like the chart, but I can't see it working out in the long run for these reasons. But, I could be wrong. RJII 18:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Hogeye, the current tree is better. But I think you should:

• Move Rudolf Rocker so he's not directly below Kropotkin.

I don't understand where you'd like Rocker moved. Are you suggesting omitting his name? Are you suggesting that there is another derivation of anarcho-communism that derives from standard Kropotkinian ancomm? Hogeye 18:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

A-com exists apart from A-synd. Infinity0 ^talk 18:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

• Remove Ricardo as he didn't have any social political theories.

But Ricardo was Marx's main source for his exploitation theory. The exploitation theory, of course, is crucial to anarcho-commie ideology. Hogeye 18:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

No, he was the LTOV-exploitation theory. It's not a crucial aspect of it. Infinity0 ^talk 18:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

• Remove Nietzsche, he didn't contribute anything major to a-capitalism.

But Nietzsche influenced Rand, who influenced Rothbard. (And Nietzsche was warmed-over Stirnerism.) Hogeye 18:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Hegel influenced Marx but he shouldn't be there. Infinity0 ^talk 18:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Infinity0 ^talk 18:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, why not edit the file on wikipedia instead of uploading to a new name?? Infinity0 ^talk 18:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Image:AnarchismTree04.jpg has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion.

To re-iterate my comments on Hogeye's talk page, my primary complaints are; 1. the use of the word "Socialist Anarchism" in '03 and 2. the undue weight given to anarcho-capitalism. - FrancisTyers 18:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, Hogeye, I agree with FrancisTyers. Gustave de Molinari is a very minor thinker and shouldn't be in that huge box. Infinity0 ^talk 18:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

The current chart doesn't use the term "anarcho-socialism." I can't say much about weight - that is totally subjective. Judging by something objective, like google hits, anarcho-capitalism is more significant than e.g. anarcho-syndicalism. Certainly both should be included in the chart. Molinari was very influential, and should be included as an influence on Rothbard. Hogeye 18:54, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Google hits is a horrible indicator of notability. Or are you really trying to say that the O RLY owl [2] is more notable than say trade unionism in India [3]? - FrancisTyers 18:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

The chart makes it look like Stirner was a capitalist, doens't it? Also I might change "socialist" to "collectivist" to preempt complaints that some of the individualists called themselves socialists. I have an idea --how about putting everything on the right under one big heading --individualism? RJII 18:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

No, that's POV. Leftists think capitalism is very UN-individualist. Infinity0 ^talk 19:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Communism is in opposition to individualism --the complaint about capitalism is exactly that it is individualistic --individual property, self-interest, etc. RJII 19:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

No, the complaint about capitalism is that it exploits workers - many people making profit for a few - ie. NOT individual but elitist. Infinity0 ^talk 19:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

The reason they can make a profit is because property is individualized --in other words, private (individual) property exists. Communists don't want private property. They want collective property. What communist is going to claim capitalism is not individualist? Of course it's individualist. It's economic individualism to the extreme. RJII 19:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

No, RJII. Capitalism is individualist for the few owners, and oppressive for the non-owners. It's economic individualism to the extreme, for an extreme few. Infinity0 ^talk 16:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Let me just state for the record I'm against the very idea of tree. It was so nice we had a break from edit warring for a day or two.Bengalski 20:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I am, too. The very idea is specious, especially considering the biases of the editors, here. It's also overly simplistic. --AaronS 16:55, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

As am I. The idea of a tree makes things not only very black and white, but very rigid. No matter how a tree was designed, I would fight its inclusion here. Sarge Baldy 23:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Hogeye has been blocked for 24 hours for violating the 3RR by inserting the tree over three times within a 24 hour period. Not by me I might add. I don't use my administrator powers on articles I edit for content. I did however report the violation to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR. - FrancisTyers 20:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Well he doesn't seem to have paid much attention to the block - he's almost certainly 24.248.212.133.Bengalski 08:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

An administrator has blocked this anonymous user. - FrancisTyers 11:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

---

Image:AnarchismTree02.jpg has been deleted, Image:AnarchismTree03.jpg is still under consideration. Image:AnarchismTree04.jpg was speedily deleted, but User:Hogeye has re-uploaded it. - FrancisTyers 19:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Anarchism in India

Is there any record of anarchist activity in India?Can anyone of the contributors enlighten me on this? sumal 11:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

A google search bought up this list of books. I'm pretty sure Peter Marshall covers India in Demanding the Impossible, but I don't have it with me at the moment. - FrancisTyers 11:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, seems to have been an anarcho-primitivist gathering in India not long ago [4]. - N1h1l 17:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I think I read something about an anarcho-primitivist gathering in South Asia that occured about 30,000 year ago. I think they called themselves "neanderthals." RJII 06:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Hogeye and 3RR

Hogeye, it appears that you have violated Wikipedia policy in breaking the WP:3RR. I know that, in the past, you and RJII have stated that you have no problem with edit wars, and will happily create them; however, we try to avoid them as much as possible, and they certainly go against what Wikipedia is about. I am simply going to caution you this time, and ask that you please review the three revert rule policy. One more revert, and I'm going to request that an administrator review what is going on, here. I hate to be harsh, but you're being very disruptive, in my opinion. Thanks. --AaronS 15:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

That's a little ironic for an "anarchism" article --calling in the police (authority). RJII 15:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

You've made that claim many times before, but this isn't anarchy, it's Wikipedia. And you agreed to abide by certain rules when you decided to participate. --AaronS 15:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. It's not anarchy. There are no "true anarchists" who would bring in authority. You know, people say the same thing about nations, such as "You agree to abide by the rules if you live here. If you don't like it you can leave." Is that something a "true anarchist" would say? I doubt it. RJII 15:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually I have heard ancaps use that exact reasoning, but then it was something "If you don't like your boss you can get another job". // Liftarn

What does that have to do with anything? --AaronS 15:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Now you're lying about me again. When have I said that I'm happy to create edit wars? RJII 15:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

It's all in your RfC and RfA cases. I'm not lying one bit, and never have lied about you. Please stop accusing me of dishonesty, it's tasteless. --AaronS 15:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Cite it then. When have I ever said I'm happy to create edit war? Your sleazy dishonest tactics are reprehensible. RJII 15:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

My, my, what a mouth you have. It was in one of your former RfCs, I believe. It's kind of hard to find, but I'm sure that you know where it is. Could you provide me links to them? Thanks. Also, again, please be civil. It's incendiary to refer to fellow editors as "sleazy" and "dishonest". --AaronS 15:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm responding to your dishonesty. Lying about another editor is "incendiary" and "uncivil." You've started the fire, but you don't want to burn it do you? RJII 15:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Pardon me, but that's just cheesy. What was that RfC or RfA that was never resolved, sort of left hanging? It was that one, I believe. Do you have a link to it, or are you going to make me find it myself? If you choose the latter, I'm not going to be able to respond for a while, because I've got better things to do. But, I will eventually. --AaronS 15:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

There was an RFA against me based on a claim that I didn't source something I said in Talk (not something I posted in an article). It was absurd and full of lies, so of course the administrators closed the case. RJII 15:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Great, do you have the link? I don't remember the administrators closing the case. I'm assuming that you're not talking about the one that is currently open on you. --AaronS 15:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

No I don't have the link. Go find it yourself. RJII 15:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Was that the one with User:Slrubenstein? Infinity0 ^talk 17:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Will do. You'll just have to wait, then, unfortunately. --AaronS 16:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Let's do wait then. In the meantime don't initiate any assaults on me than you can't back up. Your continual attempts to start fights with me is "uncivil." And, the use of dishonesty in doing it is downright sleazy. I remind of the policy: be civil. RJII 16:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Come now, RJII, I have never tried to start conflict with you. You eagerly create and seek out conflict, it seems. By the way, it wasn't too hard to find, so you might be interested remembering these incidents: [5], "So what if there is going to be warring on what the common dictionary definitions represent? At least it narrows it down greatly. I see nothing wrong with fine tuning it through edit warring, or even eternal conflict" [6], "Exactly, edit warring is fun" [7], "Reverting Badly written POV again. You want an edit war, you have one" [8]. Now, I don't expect an apology from you for calling me a liar, but let's just let the evidence speak for itself. --AaronS 16:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

By the way, that RfA was not rejected by the administrators, and the case was only closed because it seemed as if the problem had been resolved. Apparently it hasn't: RJII v. Firebug. --AaronS 16:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. You lied. I did not say I enjoyed starting edit wars. I said that there is nothing wrong with eternal edit warring --it's preferable than stability (which assumes infallibility). And, sure, battling is enjoyable. But, I have never said that I enjoy starting edit wars or intentionally start edit wars. That's patently false. You owe me an apology (as if your apoligies are worth anything anymore). RJII 16:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll just let this thread speak for itself. --AaronS 16:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Let's do. It's a great example of hypocrisy. RJII 16:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

RfAr of a main editor of this article

There is currently a request for arbitration open for a main editor of this article, RJII. I encourage anybody who believes that RJII has violated Wikipedia policy to speak up; or, conversely, speak on his behalf if you believe that this RfA is unjust. I know that many editors of this article have had problems with RJII, and that a few support him, so I think that it is important that we all know about this.

• Here is the proposed decision (with votes): [9]
• Here is where you can add your own evidence (for or against): [10]

Just providing information. --AaronS 17:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Good luck. I doubt very few here are petty and vindictive enough to be interested. RJII 17:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

You must be pretty pissed off if you went through 3 versions of that bitter one-liner over the span of 20 minutes. That's why we have Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. Take a look at it.--AaronS 23:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm a perfectionist with my wording. I always revise. Every sentence is tailored for maximum effect. RJII 23:32, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

If that were true, how could you possibly attach your name to statements like "You've started the fire, but you don't want to burn it do you?" I think that that line is stolen from this. ;) --AaronS 23:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

That should say "burn in it". And, it was a play on your statement about "incendiary" remarks. But, no, I never saw that movie. It figures that that's your idea of cinema. It tells me a lot about what I'm dealing with. Now, run along. I'm done dealing with you. RJII 03:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

The model anarchist you are aren't you? Trying to get someone banned from Wikipedia by goading him on with insults and lies so that he can attack you back so you can accuse him of being "uncivil," all for the purpose of censoring his edits. Great job, man. How about if we start an arbitration case against you? RJII 17:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I said that I was interested in anarchism, not that I was an anarchist. Go ahead and start a case on me, if that will make you happy. I don't think that you'll find much evidence of insults and lies on my part. Also, your reaction is strange, considering that I posted this to give your supporters an opportunity to respond, as well. --AaronS 17:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Come on. We all know why you advertised that. Don't insult our intelligence. You're hoping to help foment a mob attack on RJII to get him banned. Good luck! RJII 17:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Question: why do you often refer to yourself in the third person? Anyway, you can insinuate anything you want about me. It doesn't bother me, and, if you want to talk about intelligence, well, I think that most people can distinguish between bitter insinuations and clear and straightforward evidence. --AaronS 17:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Most people who come here are civil. I can't say the same for you. There are many who I have disagreements with here who I respect very much. They treat me civily and I reciprocate. Why can't you be more civilized? RJII 17:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't play that "you're the only problem" game with me. It seems that you just turn everybody's concerns about you into a conspiracy and then accuse them of the same things. That's false. If you can find any occasion where I have treated you uncivilly in the recent past (or in the not-so-recent past that I haven't apologized for), then, by all means, show me. Or do you just accuse others of lying and sleaze? --AaronS 18:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

You are the only problem in this article. Everyone else is pretty civil and honest (actually there is one other person that's not, but I'm not going to name names). As evidence of your uncivility and dishonesty one only need to consult the record of how many times you've apoligized. But, I'm telling you now that there have been one too many apologies. I'm not accepting them anymore. They're insincere. As soon as you apologize for one thing, you proceed with another attack. I don't trust you, and I don't respect you. RJII 18:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

You don't have to name names, we all know who you're talking about--me! I for one am honored to be considered uncivil and dishonest by you, because it shows I must be doing something right. You can keep up this poor innocent victim role all you want, but no one buys it. The Ungovernable Force 07:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I've never heard of an apology as being uncivil. That's a bizarre perspective, in my opinion. Now, do you actually have any evidence of bad faith on my part, or are you just blowing smoke? --AaronS 00:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC) Oh, and for the record, I think that I've only apologized to you three or four times. You have never apologized to me. Now, if you think that three or four times is a reprehensible track record, that's fine. I'm not going to let you turn this around on me, though. This isn't about me. It's about you. --AaronS 00:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

No, it's about you and your harrassment of me. You've apoligized three or four times yes. But, no more. It's not sincere because you continue to attack me. I'm not accepting any more apologies. I'm not going to apoligize to you for anything. I'll I'm doing is calling you out on what you're doing. Stop your attacks and you won't have to apologize anymore. RJII 02:18, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Holy shit dude, how many RfAr cases have you been through?? Infinity0 ^talk 17:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

One, and it was dropped because it was nonsense. This is the second. It will also be dropped. RJII 17:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that makes two RfArs and one RfC. --AaronS 17:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Both cases have been initiated because they want to censor RJII --to keep him from editing Wikipedia because the sourced information he's providing conflicts with their POV --the "uncivility" claims and other such nonsense are just a convenient tool to help accomplish that. By the way, the RFC is nothing but a forum for the accusers and nitpickers to make fools of themselves. RJII 17:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

You should realise though, that most of the "sourced" information you enter ARE POV themselves, since they come from people. You might not like it, but it is your responsibility too to bring in conflicting sources. NPOV isn't about gathering contributors together and mashing all their POVs into one hopefully NPOV article. Infinity0 ^talk 17:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not my responsibility to bring in conflicting sources. It's not my responsibility to edit Wikipedia, period. If you think there are conflicting sources to be found, then you find them, and add them to the articles. That's how Wikipedia works. RJII 18:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but when you edit Wikipedia, you're supposed to present a neutral point of view. You're writing an encyclopaedia article. You need conflicting sources, especially when requested. --AaronS 18:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

As I said, NPOV isn't about gathering contributors together and mashing all their POVs into one hopefully NPOV article. All users have a responsibility for NPOV. If you only enter in right-wing sources, and you know that there are no left-wing sources, you shouldn't just think "Oh well, it's not my responsibility, somebody else should do it" and be done with it, since you KNOW that the article is now POV. Also, what did you mean by It's not my responsibility to edit Wikipedia, period.??? Infinity0 ^talk 18:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

"It's not my responsibility to edit Wikipedia, period." In other words, I can pack up and fly back to New York if I wish. I don't have to be here. I don't have a responsibility to write anything in the articles whatsoever. I add sources that I find. If I haven't found sources that are conflicting, oh well. I can't add sources that I don't know exist. If you know of conflicting sources, then add them in. It's not my responsibility. RJII 18:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

You haven't "found" them... right. Yes, I know you don't have to edit this, but if you edit it, you have the responsibilty of NPOV, or at least try to be. Infinity0 ^talk 19:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I always do. There's nothing I respect more than the NPOV policy. RJII 19:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

The request for arbitration is frivolous. Ignore it. Hogeye 16:18, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Anarchist communism and Labor Theory of Value

I thought RJII would find this interesting, as he tends to give the opinion that most anarchists support a labor theory of value. This is a passage from Alexander Berkman, describing anarchist communism, in his work ABC of Anarchism:

"But why not give each according to the value of his work?" you ask.

Because there is no way by which value can be measured. That is the difference between value and price. Value is what a thing is worth, while price is what it can be sold or bought for in the market. What a thing is worth no one really can tell. Political economists generally claim that the value of a commodity is the amount of labour required to produce it, of "socially necessary labour," as Marx says. But evidently it is not a just standard of measurement. Suppose the carpenter worked three hours to make a kitchen chair, while the surgeon took only half an hour to perform an operation that saved your life. If the amount of labour used determines value, then the chair is worth more than your life. Obvious nonsense, of course. Even if you should count in the years of study and practice the surgeon needed to make him capable of performing the operation, how are you going to decide what "an hour of operating" is worth? The carpenter and mason also had to be trained before they could do their work properly, but you don't figure in those years of apprenticeship when you contract for some work with them. Besides, there is also to be considered the particular ability and aptitude that every worker, writer, artist or physician must exercise in his labours. That is a purely individual, personal factor. How are you going to estimate its value?

That is why value cannot be determined. The same thing may be worth a lot to one person while it is worth nothing or very little to another. It may be worth much or little even to the same person, at different times. A diamond, a painting, or a book may be worth a great deal to one man and very little to another. A loaf of bread will be worth a great deal to you when you are hungry, and much less when you are not. Therefore the real value of a thing cannot be ascertained; it is an unknown quantity.

But the price is easily found out. If there are five loaves of bread to be had and ten persons want to get a loaf each, the price of bread will rise. If there are ten loaves and only five buyers, then it will fall. Price depends on supply and demand.

The exchange of commodities by means of prices leads to profit making, to taking advantage and exploitation; in short, to some form of capitalism. If you do away with profits, you cannot have any price system, nor any system of wages or payment. That means that exchange must be according to value. But as value is uncertain or not ascertainable, exchange must consequently be free, without "equal" value, since such does not exist. In other words, labour and its products must be exchanged without price, without profit, freely, according to necessity. This logically leads to ownership in common and to joint use. Which is a sensible, just, and equitable system, and is known as Communism.

Sarge Baldy 01:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't say that most anarchists support the labor theory of value. I say the American individualist anarchists are into the labor theory of value. The communists want to abolish exchange value altogether. The labor theory of value is irrelevant for the communists since property, trade, and money is abolished. RJII 02:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, you made yourself a little confusing with comments such as "Simply because anarchists in the past have adhered to the labor theory of value doesn't mean you have to do so to be an anarchist." [11] Sarge Baldy 02:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, understood. RJII 03:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

RJ, it is more accurate to say that anarcho-socialists generally hold an exploitation theory. (As opposed to "labor theory of value.") While many base their exploitation theory on the LTV, some base it on e.g. an unequal bargaining position argument. Berkman's "argument" is confused. He admits that something "may be worth much or little even to the same person, at different times," but then he inconsistently assumes without reason that, somehow, profit is bad and should be avoided. After saying that there is no fixed value ("cannot be ascertained; it is an unknown quantity"), he, contradicting himself, claims that "exchange must be according to value." What a dumbshit! Hogeye 15:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Just because something is unpredictable doesn't mean nothing is affected by it. Exchange IS due to people's perceptions of value. Infinity0 ^talk 18:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms of anarchism

The essay Harrypotter's linked too is an interesting read, and raises issues that would be worth going into if we develop a more detailed page on criticisms. The stuff about Green Anarchist I knew, though all the details of changes of editorship and infighting etc. - which perhaps he should have gone into - send me to sleep. I've never bothered to read much by Black or Zerzan, so the anti-semitic quotes were new to me, though I'm not altogether surprised. But I don't see what evidence he's actually got against Rocker - in fact the author goes so far to say Rocker never perpetrated the racist bile of his mentor Bakunin. So it seems Rocker is just being slandered by association, because he shares other of Bakunin's ideas and (non-racist) language. Therefore I'm not sure there are grounds in this for mentioning Rocker specifically in the page as a suspect racist anarchist.

My general thought on all this - there are dodgy people and dodgy ideas floating around with them in any political movement/grouping/ideology whatever you call it. I would think you could find racists, or people who've gone over to fascism, from any political group under the sun. So fringe characters like Black or some who've been associated with Green Anarchist doesn't make me think there's something rotten at the core of anarchism. Proudhon and Bakunin as 'founding fathers' are more troubling, but the article very much fails to demonstrate the links from their racism to the way central anarchist ideas have developed thereafter, as the weakness of the bit on Rocker shows. The claim is - P and B had some nasty ideas, they were the daddies of anarchism, so anarchism's nasty. But that needs some argument, which this essay doesn't provide.Bengalski 20:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC) Reading that passage about Black more closely, and trying to find more on the web (unfortunately 'anarchism after leftism' doesn't seem to be online), it looks like Black's maybe being maligned as well. The quote could equally just be pointing out Bakunin's anti-semitism and ridiculing Bookchin for supporting him.Bengalski 09:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I like the criticism section. I appreciate Harrypotter's efforts. I foresee this becoming a very large section so that an offshoot article will need to be created. I'm interested in seeing anarchism subject to intense rational scrutiny. RJII 20:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm surprised there is no Criticisms of Anarchism yet :) - FrancisTyers 20:38, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I think your quote from Yarros should go there - if we start using the section on this page to go into how some thinkers think these criticisms only apply to one type of anarchism etc. it will quickly become very large. I mean it won't be hard to find people criticising individualist anarchism as utopian also and then someone will feel they have to stick those in against your quote etc. etc. And as for ancapism - google it and very the first page gives you articles arguing it's impossible.Bengalski 20:52, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Just providing the quote here to so it can be recorded in the archive, as I haven't seen it on any web pages out there and someone has already edited to an abbreviated form: "The anarchists, as anarchists, work directly, not for a perfect social state, but for a perfect political system. A perfect social state is a state totally free from sin or crime of folly; a perfect political system is merely a system in which justice is observed, in which nothing is punished but crime and nobody coerced but invaders." -Victor Yarros, Liberty VII 1/2/1892

You can always just Wikiquote things. Otherwise someone will just put up an unsourced cut version they found off the internet later. Sarge Baldy 21:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand your point here when you edited out the note about private defense: "this point seems loaded and circular, because you basically assume a liberal conception of human nature and then say it's effectively countered by liberal anarchism." What do you mean? RJII 21:34, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I mean that you basically assume a liberal worldview in which things will collapse without active controls, and then say liberal anarchism effectively counters this. Many other anarchists do not see crime as inherently "natural", but as a result of inequalities, which they do attempt to counter. Sarge Baldy 21:38, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'll look for a source on that then. RJII 21:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

One that comes immediately to mind is from Emma Goldman: "Crime is naught but misdirected energy. So long as every institution of today, economic, political, social, and moral, conspires to misdirect human energy into wrong channels; so long as most people are out of place doing the things they hate to do, living a life they loathe to live, crime will be inevitable, and all the laws on the statutes can only increase, but never do away with, crime." Sarge Baldy 21:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

That and also a) 'collectivist' anarchists might also have communal social controls, eg. most 'social' anarchists are happy with the idea of organising workers' militias to fight fascists or other aggressors; b) I think you'll find the majority of social/political thinkers also believe private defence forces to be unfeasible (have a look at those essays on the first page of googling anarcho-capitalism, or e.g., Hogeye's favourite book by Nozick).Bengalski 21:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, I was a bit surprised at first to hear about private defense, even in relation to anarcho-capitalism. I actually came to anarchism through libertarian capitalism and anarcho-capitalism, and even then I was staunchly opposed to police forces. I effectively saw stealing as a natural balancing force for capitalism and disproportionate wealth, and a welcome one. I didn't read any Rothbard or even any libertarians though, so I don't know how common those sort of ideas are among those groups. Sarge Baldy 21:52, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

The reply to the claim from anarchists that criminality is not human nature is, then why do governments exist? They exist because criminal-minded humans created them (according to an anarchist point of view). Crime and virtue are both natural to humans. The question is, how are you going to defend yourself from the criminals? RJII 21:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes that's the question. I'd give you my view but that'd be original research. Seriously, these are the kinds of issues we should be investigating - properly sourced, without original research of course - on Criticisms of Anarchism. But I will say I think your PDAs are vulnerable to just the same kind of criticism - what's to stop them using their power of organised violence to turn themselves back into governments? If you accept the usual liberal view of human nature, it'd certainly be in their rational interest to do so. Why wouldn't you have 'criminals' controlling the PDAs? I've seen you and Hogeye arguing competition between rival PDAs would stop any one emerging as a monopoly - but I haven't seen any good arguments, though praps we're talking the kind of oligopoly of rather nasty violence you usually get in most non-state-gang-controlled areas. So, as Plato might have said, who's going to defend us against the defence associations?Bengalski 22:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever argued that there is not a danger of one emerging as a coercive monopoly. I do think that is a possibility. But, that's exactly what the anarcho-capitalists oppose --the emerging of large-scale coercive monopoly --a State. It looks to me like you have two choices --have voluntarily funded competing defense providers and hope it doesn't happen, or don't have private defense of liberty and just let a State emerge uncontested and impose itself on everyone. Take your pick. Or, if you're willing to be a minarchist, you can set up a forcefully-funded limited government with a strong Constitution, and separation of powers to prevent absolute tyranny, as a "necessary evil" --commit a small evil to defend against a larger evil. But, even with this latter choice you're hoping that corruption doesn't set in expanding the scope of the government, and also you hope that a more powerful, and more evil, government doesn't invade. RJII 22:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

The other point I made - I don't think any 'social' anarchists would just 'let a state emerge uncontested'. Thus in Spain (I know it's a cliche but ...) anarchists organised militias against aggressors. As I see it a key belief was that such use of violence must not become professionalised - we don't want to give the opportunity to anyone to be in a position to have special access to the means of violence, as you would have with a professional PDA. Violence is then something that may be engaged in reluctantly and with force distributed as equally as possible amongst communities. Just as anarchist organisations recognise sometimes the need for bureaucratic positions, but try to rotate positions and build in recall sanctions etc. Some questions are then - 1) are these kinds of organisations strong enough to be effective - eg. the Marxist critique of anarchism in the Spanish civil war is the militias just weren't an effective fighting force; 2) does a 'structureless' tyranny develop anyway? I think these are both important criticisms, and I'm not sure can be refuted with theory alone.Bengalski 23:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

"[The Indians] had separated into so many little societies. This practice results from the circumstance of their having never submitted themselves to any laws, any coercive power, any shadow of government. Their only controls are their manners, and that moral sense of right and wrong, which, like the sense of tasting and feeling in every man, makes a part of his nature. An offence against these is punished by contempt, by exclusion from society, or, where the case is serious, as that of murder, by the individuals whom it concerns. Imperfect as this species of coercion may seem, crimes are very rare among them; insomuch that were it made a question, whether no law, as among the savage Americans, or too much law, as among the civilised Europeans, submits man to the greatest evil, one who has seen both conditions of existence would pronounce it to be the last; and that the sheep are happier of themselves, than under care of the wolves. It will be said, the great societies cannot exist without government. The savages, therefore, break them into small ones." -Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia. RJII 23:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. A modern take on the same idea - that decentralised non-state 'coercion' can work but only small groups - and with a touch of game theory too, is Michael Taylor 'Community, Anarchy, and Liberty' [[12]]. The classic anarchist example to the size problem is, as you know from Proudhon, federalism.Bengalski 23:23, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Rocker makes his position very clear in Nationalism and Culture, perhaps summarised by the last paragraph of the book, where he envisages an anarchist revolution amongst Europeans then being spread out amongst colonial peoples. Rocker was a very strong anti-fascist, learning yiddish and was very active amongst Jewish workers in Germany and London. Yet his book Nationalism and Culture, perhaps the most significant work he rwote (it's about 500 pages long) talks about the European orbit of culture, dwells on teh glories of ancient Greek culture, but glossing over the fact it was based on slavery. In many ways he takes forward Bakunin's "United States of Europe" (see Federalism, Socialism and Anti-Theologism 1867), sharing a viewpoint rooted in an unstated white supremacism, albeit cultural rather than biological. Just as biological racism has been discredited over the last fifty years, cultural aspects, particularly around questions of assimilation and eurocentrism have become more central to anti-racist critiques.

In this context,I also think we should locate the origins of anarchism in the development of European political thought which arose following the French Revolution, along with communism. The retrojection of anarchism before that is more a mythic approach to origins. I think the piece about Louis-Armand, Baron de Lahontan is important (just as the work of Lewis Morgan was to influence Marx and Engels), and indeed there is an argument that Thomas More's Utopia was modelled on Yucatan. No matter how inspirational some anarchists may have found pre-anarchist movements/philosophies, this does not make them anarchist. Outside Europe, the spread of anarchism (and marxism) poses all sorts of questions as regards being forms of modernism linked to notions of unilinear progress which has been critiqued (not always satisfactorily) by post modernism, and are sometimes considered as being harbinger of eurocentrism. (PS written before I read last post - edit conflict) Harrypotter 23:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Anarch and Anarchism

I have started a page on Anarch, and feel we need to make it clear that Max Stirner was not an anarchist, but I am going to bed now so that will have to wait. Harrypotter 00:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

You're not the only one. See Max Stirner - Egoist or Anarchist? above. If an anarchist is someone who asserts the state should be abolished, then Stirner was not an anarchist. He did influence a bunch of anarchists, though.

That problem is, there are plenty of sources that say he was an anarchist. RJII 03:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Right. I don't think we can explicitly deny him the term. Although I do think it's problematic that he himself did not use the term, and made a number of criticisms of anarchism, which interestingly enough have been echoed by the post-anarchists. Sarge Baldy 03:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, to what extent do we go privelege self-description see "The very word anarchism originated as a term of abuse first used during against the working class sans-culottes during the French Revolution". In many respects Ernst Jünger descrition of an Anarch captures the nuance between what Stirner was into and what a self-described anarchist is about. It would also be useful to rewrite the section on Max Stirner's Egoism including the difference between Anarch and Anarchist, and working in some stuff about Sovereignty of the individual, and some of the Aleister Crowley stuff such as "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law" and work it through with Chaos magic which could also be linked to a section on Anarchism and Freemasonry?Harrypotter 15:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Stirner and chaos magic?? My view on all this is this is a page about anarchism, and what we need to say about any particular thinker/actor concerns their contribution/influence on anarchists. That's why I'm no too bothered by Bakunin's anti-semitism for example - because I'm not convinced that it found its way into the development of later anarchist thought. Equally why I'm not so bothered if Proudhon became a liberal/statist/proprietarian/whatever (if he did) - the point for me is the part of his thought and life that influenced anarchism, the rest is relevant on the PJProudhon page but not here. So what's relevant about Sterner is: his notable influence on many anarchists, the fact he was considered by many anarchists to be an anarchist, and yes the fact that he himself wouldn't have gone along with it. Whether ACrowley mixed any slogans or ideas from Stirner (did he? it seems so long since I last conjured up any demons) into his wacky stew is beside the point. (Unless you've got some evidence for a grand masonic conspiracy linking anarchism with the golden dawn etc., and of course P2 - which would be interesting to see.)Bengalski 16:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, check out the Black thorn manifesto and CHAOS: THE BROADSHEETS OF ONTOLOGICAL ANARCHISM by Hakim Bey who once graced the anarchism page. This may not be a strand of anarchism that you profess, but I have certainly met several anarchists in London who groove on Crowley. As regards freemasonry, this is clearly very significant (I saw a full page article in a major contemporary Belgian anarchist paper calling on men and women to join the masons. Also check Masonry and the Labour Movement which includes a nice AIT Masonic graphic (Is it copyright?). If the article was contemporay anarchism I might agree with your suggestion that it should be limited to how various thinkers and actors have influenced modern anarchists. But as it is simply on anarchism, then we should be considering how anarchism as a historical phenomenon has influenced society in general, rather than people who have adopted a specific point of view. No doubt many other anarchists like you are happy to forget about problems with Bakunin and Proudhon, and such an outlook would be quiteappropraite in an anarchist encyclopedia. However, as we are aiming to create something which is NPOV, it is not a matter of simply trying to create something which balances the views of 57 varieties of anarchism, but enables interested reader to get a broader view of how anarchism developed as a historical phenomenon, warts and all.

One final comment on magic, Starhawk played an influential role in the anti-G8 convergence in Stirling last summer, also try "" which has stuff about Theodore Reuss see 'The Gnosis of Anarchy'. Harrypotter 20:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I once met some anarchists in London who believe the Church of England to be the ideal model of anarchist organisation. Note also the high presence of masons in the C of E.Bengalski 11:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. This article shouldn't be a hagiography of anarchism, but reveal it's ugly side as well --including the bloodthirsty behavior of the Spanish Anarchists who burned churches, killed priests, and other innocents, confiscated money, all in the name of an anarchist paradise. RJII 21:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

If the article mentions what the Anarchists did to the priests, it should mention what the priests (and Catholic Church) did to the people. Although to be honest this could be a separate article in itself :) - FrancisTyers 00:56, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

The article should have material about repression of anarchism such as the International Anti-Anarchist Conference in Rome 1898 Here anarchism was defined as "as any act that used violent means to destroy the organization of society." History of International Police Cooperation which should be mentioned in the definition as well, perhaps.Harrypotter 17:17, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Bookchin?

I just noticed Murray Bookchin is strangely absent from this page. Perhaps social ecology should be worked in? Sarge Baldy 03:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Definitely. Also should have something on parecon.Bengalski 08:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Anabaptists

MrVoluntarist misunderstood my suggested policy for citing sources for this page. He removed a quote by Bertrand Russell regarding the Anabaptists, with the following helpful and civil (see irony) explanation: "rm biased, non-secondary source as per User:AaronS's standard." The Russell quote regarding the Anabaptists is the perfect kind of source. It is from a neutral observer, and it is published in a well-known book by a major publishing company -- the kind of book that one might find on a university course materials list. Russell, as far as I know, does not have any motivation for likening Anabaptists to anti-statists or anarchists other than his own academic interest. Contrast this source to sources like the Ludwig von Mises Institute or Lew Rockwell, which are clearly much more biased and issue-oriented. --AaronS 00:56, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Russell was a socialist. You've rejected sources because the author promoted capitalism. You're rejected books published by reputable publishers. By your standard, he is not neutral. He is also not a secondary source, but a primary one. A secondary source would compile the opinions of people like Russell. MrVoluntarist 01:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

And I don't know why you're saying I was unhelpful or uncivil. I stated the specific reason why that was removed -- biased and not secondary. You can then refer to your own standard. That was helpful, succint, and non-insulting. Having your feelings hurt because your standard was used against you is not the same as incivility. MrVoluntarist 01:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

From the Wikipedia entry on Bertrand Russell: "Continuing a family tradition in political affairs, he was a prominent liberal as well as a socialist and anti-war activist for most of his long life. Millions looked up to Russell as a prophet of the creative and rational life; at the same time, his stances on many topics were extremely controversial." Controversial =/= mainstream, neutral source. MrVoluntarist 01:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

You said:

• "You've rejected sources because the author promoted capitalism." Oh, really? When?

Raico, the journal citations I gave you. MrVoluntarist 01:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Just two? Now, was it because Raico is a capitalist, or was it because the source was published by the partisan Ludwig von Mises Institute? As for the journal citations, I do remember them, but I don't remember the full citations. Could you supply them again? --AaronS 01:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

There were three journal citations, so that makes four. Since I don't mind delay tactics and convenient selective forgetfulness, here they are: Sutter, Daniel. (1995). "Asymmetric Power Relations and Cooperation in Anarchy." Southern Economic Journal Vol. 61, No. 3 (January): pp. 602–13. NEXT: Hirshleifer, Jack. (1995). "Anarchy and Its Breakdown." The Journal of Political Economy Vol. 103, No. 1 (February): pp. 26–52. NEXT: Mueller, Dennis C. (1988). "Anarchy, the Market, and the State." Southern Economic Journal Vol. 54, No. 4 (April): pp. 821–30. MrVoluntarist 02:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Delay tactics? Convenient selective forgetfulness? Tell me, do you memorize every citation you read? And must you always bring the discussion to the next level of silly exaggerations, accusations, insinuations, and pettiness?

I had cited those sources before you came in. I cited them for you (I think multiple times) when you came in. We discussed them. Even if you didn't memorize them, you should have noted that the issue was settled and hunted the archives if you wanted them specifically. MrVoluntarist 15:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, let's take another look at these. Oh, and for the record, it's three citations, not four.

Alright, if you count the Southern journal as one, then Raico plus two journals is three.MrVoluntarist 15:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

The Raico one is not good enough for the reasons listed above --

What reasons listed above? MrVoluntarist 15:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

and notice that I don't care that Raico is a capitalist. Most historians are.

Another claim you hope no one will call you on. MrVoluntarist 15:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

The Southern Economic Journal sources seem legitimate, as does the Journal of Political Economy one. I think that my main problem was that the articles never discussion anarcho-capitalism as being related to classical anarchism in any way; they just refer to it as "anarchy." Well, international relations scholars refer to Hobbes' state of nature as being anarchy, and compare it to the reality of international relations, which they believe exist in anarchy. Should we include those conceptions of anarchy in this article on anarchism, as well? I would so so, if said IR scholars were comparing international anarchy to anarchism, but they are not. And it doesn't seem that these scholars are comparing market anarchy to anarchism, either. Perhaps I haven't read the articles thoroughly enough (in fact, I am certain of this). If you have, and know that I'm wrong, I invite you to show so. I don't care -- I just want this article to be accurate. --AaronS 15:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course you haven't read the articles thoroughly enough. Your idea of "reading an article thoroughly" is claiming that critics of an idea really support it, and hoping others won't notice the titles of the articles that establish they are critics. I bring this up repeatedly because it reveals bad faith. The reason they are relevant is because they are critiques of anarho-capitalist systems and reference them as "anarchy". That demonstrates that anarcho-capitalism has been referred to as anarchism. MrVoluntarist 15:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• "You're rejected books published by reputable publishers." Oh, really? When?

Off the top of my head: they weren't books, but the academic journal citations I gave you. MrVoluntarist 01:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey, that's double-dipping! --AaronS 01:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah, so it's okay to make a second false claim, as long as the refutation of the first applies to the second. MrVoluntarist 02:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• "He is also not a secondary source, but a primary one." I think that you misunderstand your definitions, here. Russell would be a primary source, I believe, if we were talking about, say, Russell's theories on the philosophy of language. Better yet, what RJII does with sources is akin to me writing or heavily editing the philosophy of language article to skew it towards Russell's take on language by selectively quoting Quine and Frege and then focusing too much on Russell. Catch my drift?

No. a secondary source would be Russell quoting the Anabaptists, but he didn't. MrVoluntarist 01:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Russell is either a secondary source or a tertiary source. If he were a primary source, it would mean he was living with the Anabaptists, or that he was an Anabaptist, or something to that extent. --AaronS 01:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

A primary source is the one from which the claim originates. Russell is the origin of the claim given, hence primary. MrVoluntarist 02:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

And where do you get this definition of primary source? How is it qualified? Because I believe that it is highly mistaken. --AaronS 15:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Russell was the first to mention communism in the context of Anabaptists (or at least it was original for him if someone indepedently so decided). That makes him primary for the claim that "communism = Anabaptism". If the claim were just about what Anabaptists did, the actual records from them would be primary, and references thereto would be secondary. You rejected the Tucker quote about how anarchists can support profit, interest, and rent, for not being secondary. MrVoluntarist 15:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• "Having your feelings hurt because your standard was used against you is not the same as incivility." What you're using is a straw man, because what you did has nothing to do with my standard. What you did was pure snarkiness, from my perspective. Maybe I'm wrong.

What? Now you're just grabbing terms at random. What do strawmen have to do with this? Just because you thought it was "snarky" (?), doesn't make it uncivil. There were no insults. There was no condescension. I made a revision and posted the specific reasons why. There's no way you can call that incivility, sorry. MrVoluntarist 01:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Incivility is subjective. I find snarkiness to be uncivil. That's kind of the definition. As for the straw man bit, your characterization of my source standards was a straw man. --AaronS 01:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, if you're going to fall back on an arbitrary standard no one can predict since it relies on reading your mind, I concede that I violate that one. But as far as I can see, the only way the statement in dispute can be construed as "offensive" is if we take "any instance of one's words being used against him" as "offensive". As for strawman, come on Aaron, you went to a good college, don't make mistakes like this. A strawman is when you distort someone's position and attack it. I did not distort your position. Your position was that biased, non-secondary sources should not come in. Now maybe that's a misapplication of your standard, but it was your standard. It's just that saying so is not as sexy as saying "Strawman!", I guess. MrVoluntarist 02:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Let's be honest, MrVoluntarist, the point of your edit was to somehow prove that my standard is a bad one; but, you misapplied my standard in doing so. That's a straw man. --AaronS 15:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

No, it wasn't. My intent was to maintain consistency. If that causes you to believe the standard you promoted is a bad one, all the worse for your standard. The fact that you interpreted someone applying your standard as a mockery of it shows you're on shaky ground. And there was no strawman. Read your own (repeatedly invoked) link. I did not distort your position. You agree biased sources are out. You are agree non-secondary sources are out. If there are exceptions to those rules, and applied that standard in ignorance of them, that would be a strawman. There were none. MrVoluntarist 15:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• "Controversial =/= mainstream, neutral source" Oh, so shall we discount Russell's take on the philosophy of language, too? You're completely missing the point. If you want to write "Murray Rothbard argues that the Anabaptists were Martian anarcho-capitalists (The Anabaptists, Martian Anarchists, Oxford University Press)..." go ahead. But the point of contention in this article has always been the bias towards anarcho-capitalism. That's why my standard has always been the following: (a) sources should come from neutral observers (i.e. why would Russell want to make Anabaptists look like anti-authoritarians?); (b) sources should be published by university presses, major publishing companies, or should be part of the canon of a well-known author neutral with regard to the subject at hand (Russell, I dare say, is a bit more well-known than Kevin Carson, for instance); and so on... --AaronS 01:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Right, and you're making my exact point for me, which is what I said many times a few archives ago -- what motive do some (allegedly) right wing minarchist academics have to promote anarcho-capitalism as a form of anarchism? They have none. If you want to ignore them on anarchism/ancap issues because they're right-wing minarchists, you have to ignore Russell on anarchism because he's a socialist and "has a stake" in making it seem like communism has a longer history than it does. MrVoluntarist 01:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

What? But the Russell quote has nothing to do with communism! It has to do with the anti-authoritarianism of Anabaptists. Since when were common communists and socialists anti-authoritarian? And do you seriously think that laissez-faire capitalists have no interest in promoting laissez-faire capitalism? --AaronS 01:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

The Russell quote has nothing to do with communism??? I thought you had given up making obviously false claims and hoping people didn't notice. (Anyone remember the "those critics of anarcho-capitalism are just anarcho-capitalists!" ?) This is the quote: "repudiated all law, since they held that the good man will be guided at every moment by the Holy Spirit...[f]rom this premise they arrive at communism...." Why include the communism part? To imply that communism is necessarily anarchist? As for your last question, you're missing the point (again). The relevant claim is that of anarcho-capitalism being anarchism. Yes, minarchists want to promote laissez-faire. No, they certainly don't care about whether anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism. MrVoluntarist 02:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Which is why none of your sources are relevant. They don't answer the question at hand. As for the Russell quote, I was talking about capital C communism, the kind of thing a non-libertarian socialist would support. But if you feel strongly about it, we can remove the communism bit until someone else can substantiate it. --AaronS 15:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they do answer the question at hand. (At least fifth time I've explained this to you.) The question at hand is, do mainstream, scholarly publications treat anarcho-capitalism as a form of anarchism? They do. And as for Russell, you can't just clip the communism bit. That the passage was intended to promote an idea part of his controversial philosophy (that communism has a long history) means the whole source is tainted for purposes of categorizing the philosophy of Anabaptists. MrVoluntarist 15:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Does snarkiness constitute incivility? everyone asks me what 'snarky' means. it's a term i stole from my friend laura. all those canadian chicks are so snarky, but apparently some of yankee ones are too, so it fits. the urban dictionary defines it as an adjective meaning 'a witty mannerism, personality, or behavior that is a combination of sarcasm and cynicism. usually accepted as a complimentary term'. not a bad definition, but goes on to point out that general snarkiness is sometimes mistaken for a snotty or arrogant attitude. snarks are so misunderstood. sure, snarky can be bitchy. snarky can be moody. but underlying snarkiness is this feeling of being amused even in the midst of irritation. and i'd like to expand on the definition." snarkychick. My problem with the Russell quote is that it is retrojection, the anabaptists were not part of a social movement called anarchism, and as religious group they did not express themselves either philosophically or politically - in the sense that politics emerges with the rise of the bourgeoisie and les politiques as part of secularisation which took place in Europe. Check the Anabaptist page, and it refers to Kropotkin's remark as regards anarchism which is clearly POV as is Russell's. To my mind the anabaptists were neither anarchist nor communist, but certainly Christian. The desire of anarchists, communist or otghers for that matter to retroject their beliefs in an ahistorical way is a feature of political philosophies worthy of mention without suggesting that it has vailidity. Harrypotter 14:56, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Russell's 'History of Western Philosophy' is a very mainstream text - e.g., it standardly features on reading lists of introductory university philosophy courses. Harrypotter's point about 'retrojection' is important, but on the other hand it would be wrong to say that there weren't (small c) communist ideas and movements before the modern era, often associated with 'heretical' religious movements. I think all the sources on anabaptism say there were early anabaptist groups which advocated communal property - this certainly wasn't Russell's invention. How exactly this early 'communism' should be related to anarchist and/or communist traditions we know from the French revolution onwards is however a good question.Bengalski 17:30, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but by User:AaronS's standard, because Russell favored socialism, all of his statements are calculated to make socialism appear to have a longer history than it does. Ergo, for this claim he is not a reputable source. MrVoluntarist 18:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this a bit. If we place the origins of anarchism and communism in the French revolution, then we can explain how they both seek to justify their politics by citing historical precedents. Different strands of anarchism have different approaches to history - the primitivists tend to try and jump over it for example compared to the Marxist conception of Primitive communism (which is actually where they source their ideology). Perhaps we could have something like Historical Precursors and say that these are examples cited by anarchists because they have given them inspiration or as evidence of the practicality of their ideas. Then we could have a piece about origins in the French revolution. We also need a piece about repression of anarchism.Harrypotter 18:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Reiteration

Since it doesn't seem that MrVoluntarist is actually responding to my points and concerns, I'm going to outline them again:

• He says that I've rejected sources "because they are capitalist." I have never done such a thing. He claims that I rejected the Ralph Raico source because Raico is a capitalist; that's false. I reject it because it comes from the highly partisan Ludwig von Mises Institute, a favorite reference of anarcho-capitalists.

You're splitting hairs. LvMI is "partisan" in the sense that it supports capitalism. Ergo, you're opposing Raico's analysis because he supports capitalism. If LvMI were an orginazation that merely believed people should study history, you probably wouldn't consider that (partisan) agenda a reason to exclude them. Your objection is grounded in Raico's (irrelevant in this context) ideological views. Don't try to obscure this fact. MrVoluntarist 16:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

No, LvMI is not partisan in the sense that it supports capitalism. There are other organizations that support capitalism that I would not consider to be partisan. Major publishing companies are an example. LvMI is partisan in the sense that it is an ideologically-driven think-tank. Please don't accuse me of obscuring the facts -- can't you make one single comment without accusing someone of dishonesty? My objection is grounded in the fact that the LvMI is not a reliable or reputable source, especially not for an article surrounded by controversy such as this one. --AaronS 18:08, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that, contrary to Aaron's assumption, Raico's paper was not published by the Ludwig von Mises Institute. It was merely posted to their web site on April 20, 2005. It was actually published in 2004 by The Polytechnic School at the Research Center of Applied Epistemology in assocation with the French National Center for Scientific Research (CNRS) --or in French "Ecole Polytechnique at the Centre de Recherce en Epistemologie Appliquee, Unité associée au CNRS." It's noted at the bottom of the article, before the references. I'm looking forward to see what kind of bogus objection Aaron is going to come up with now. RJII

I would like for once for you to contribute anything to this discussion without resorting to incivility. Your attitude has continually been hostile, uncompromising, and incendiary. While your own words in the past show that you enjoy breeding conflict (despite the negative affect that such behavior has on the encyclopedia), I see no reason not to point out your anti-social failures. That said, I stand corrected. --AaronS 03:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I really think you should shape up. You're behavior on this encylopedia is reprehensible. You're rude to others and won't accept sources when presented. Then when you're flagged on that, you lash out with bogus claims of "incivility" or other such nonsense. Now, you're backed into a corner with nowhere to turn and you amazingly say "I stand corrected." Well congratulations for taking a first step in reasonability, even though you had to vitiate it with personal attacks. RJII 03:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Since you make mention of shaping up, I suppose that it is relevant to note that you do a terrible job of spinning disputes in your favor. I have never been anything but respectful towards you in the past, praising your efforts and dedication to those subjects which interest you, despite my disagreement with what many perceive to be your tendency to shape research in a way that reflects a particular point of view -- it seems that, as many others before me have noted, you tend to bend the truth towards an overall picture that is favorable towards libertarianism and provides for a distinctive libertarian pedigree. I also find it notable that, despite your false indignation, you have no evidence to speak of when you accuse me of disruptive behavior. Stating that your contributions to Wikipedia form a long litany of anti-social failures does border on incivility; however, I only say so after having failed to get you to communicate in a constructive and helpful manner on so many different occasions. What can I say? You seem to fail to communicate. And that failure seems to come from an anti-social attitude, where you see yourself as being "superior" to your "competitors" -- your words, not mine (see your RfC and RfArs). I am through, however, with giving you the benefit of the doubt. I will tolerate you as long as you respect the policy of this encyclopedia and as long as you are civil towards others. As soon as you waiver from that straight and narrow path, however, and as long as I am obliged to work with you, I will call you on it. For all of your hot air and steam, you have very little to back up your accusations against me. As for you, I have the complaints of dozens of users, your history of bans, your RfArs and RfC, and dozens upon dozens of diff links. Do not pretend for one instant that those people who are working on this encyclopedia are fooled for one instant by your half-hearted attempts to defame those who disagree with you. You target me, because I am as persistent as you. I do not become frustrated easily. And I will not be bullied by someone such as yourself. I find it interesting that you are "amazed" that I had the cojones to admit that I was wrong. I have no problem admitting fault when it is made apparent to me. Every mistake is an opportunity to learn and grow. Perhaps you might try to do the same -- I think that you'll find adulthood to be quite agreeable. --AaronS 04:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that's a long reply. Guess what? I'm not even going to bother taking the time to read it, because I'm sure, like your last message to me, it's worthless. So, ta-ta. RJII 04:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

• He says that I have rejected "books published by reputable publishers." I have never done such a thing. He claims that I rejected three academic journal articles simply because I didn't like them; that's false, too. He brought up the articles to prove that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism. The articles, however, do not compare anarcho-capitalism to anarchism, as far as I know. The refer to it as "anarchy," and make no mention of anarchism as it is commonly understppd, much in the same way that realist international relations scholars refer to international relations as being in a state of anarchy. I asked in good faith for MrVoluntarist to correct me if I am mistaken; after all, the burden of proof is on him, not me. Instead of doing so, he decided that it would be more fruitful for the discussion at hand to ridicule me and claim that I am acting in bad faith. They do not sufficiently answer the question "Is anarcho-capitalism a form of anarchism?" I am not saying that this question can't be answered, I'm simply arguing that, since MrVoluntarist seems so bent on somehow proving me to be a bad-faith hypocrite, the reason why I rejected them as sources is because they aren't relevant to that question at all. The word "anarchy" is used in many ways, many of which have nothing to do with "anarchism.

The article doesn't have to directly compare anarcho-capitalism and anarchism. The claim is about how the terms "anarchy" and "anarchism" are actually used by real scholars. The three journal articles are critiques of anarcho-capitalism. They feel no need to specifically distinguish it from anarchism. They are using anarch- to refer to an anarcho-capitalistic system. That is real evidence of the usage of a term. MrVoluntarist 16:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

It certainly is, but it is not evidence that anarcho-capitalism is derived from anarchism, the philosophy and political movement, or that anarcho-capitalism is a part of that philosophy or political movement, because it makes no mention of any greater philosophy or political movement. Please address my point regarding international relations theory and other uses of the term "anarchy" that do not seem to be appropriate for this article. --AaronS 18:08, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalism is not derived from anarchism. But, you would not be too far off saying anarchism was derived from capitalism. Philosophical anarchism first came about as a radicalization of liberalism --classical liberalism is an anti-statist pro-individual-property philosophy. RJII 18:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

but it is not evidence that anarcho-capitalism is derived from anarchism -- right, it also doesn't provide of proof of E=mc² or Fermat's Last Theorem. That's not the purpose for which I provided the sources. The sources were intended to establish how the word "anarchism" is actually used, and therefore what belongs in an article entitled "anarchism" (without qualification or disambiguation). MrVoluntarist 18:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

• He claims that a primary source is "the one from which the claim originates," whatever that means. Regardless, it's false. The article on tertiary source explains: "Where a primary source presents material from a first-hand witness to a phenomenon, and a secondary source provides commentary, analysis and criticism of primary sources, a tertiary source is a selection and compilation of primary and secondary sources." The article on primary source explains further: "These often include works created by someone who witnessed first-hand or was part of the historical events that are being described, but can also include physical objects like coins, journal entries, letters, or newspaper articles." Moreover, the article on secondary source explains yet further: "Secondary sources are texts based on primary sources, and involve generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation. In the study of history, secondary sources are those writings which were not penned contemporaneously with the events in question." Russell is not a primary source with regard to describing the Anabaptists. Anabaptists = 16th century. Russell = 20th century. Russell was not over 400 years old when he died.

I know when Russell and the Anabaptists lived, and you're not listening. A primary source for "Anabaptists did X, Y, and Z" or "Anabaptists claimed that..." would be the records left behind by them and direct witnesses. A primary source for "Anabaptism is a form of communism" could not occur earlier than the use of the term "communism" in this context. Recall the point you chose to forget: When RJII gave you an example of an undisputed anarchist (Tucker) claiming that a supporter of rent, interest, and profit (Auberon Herbert) was an anarchist, you dismissed this as a primary source. That source was parallel to the Russell quote. If Russell counts as a valid, unbiased secondary source for saying who was a communist, Tucker counts as a valid, unbiased secondary source for saying who was an anarchist, and therefore the article cannot say that anarchists necessarily oppose rent, interest, or profit. Pick your poison. MrVoluntarist 16:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

If I did that, then I was mistaken. As for your other points, let's just stick to the accepted definitions of primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. --AaronS 18:08, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I thought I had just established how my usage conforms with the accepted definitions. So do you now agree that a "true anarchist" can support rent, interest, and profit, and thefore capitalism? MrVoluntarist 18:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

So, that should clear things up. I also ask you, MrVoluntarist, to try to refrain from making exaggerations and accusations that cannot be supported by facts; it only serves to dilute the important discussion about the content of this article. This talk page would be more useful if it were filled less with attempts at character defamation and more with civil dialogue about what should be included in the article. Thanks. --AaronS 16:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I ask the same of you. Whatever attitude led you to claim that an obvious critic of anarcho-capitalism was an anarcho-capitalist needs to stop yesterday. And I'll note that when I made an extremely civil comment ("rm biased, non-secondary source as per User:AaronS's standard") you classified it as uncivil merely because you didn't like it when your standard words against you. I'll obey all realistic definitions of "civil". MrVoluntarist 16:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

If your only complaint is that I misread one of your sources, then you have very little to complain about. --AaronS 18:08, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

"Misread"? Aaron, come on. It's not like you inadvertently swapped out a word incorrectly. You said something plainly false (based on the title of the article). It wasn't a simple word inclusion/exclusion by accident either, since the rest of what you said was based on it. The problem is your audacity in thinking you can get away with such obviously false claims. MrVoluntarist 18:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The connection between Anabaptists and communism/anarchism is repeated in JM Roberts A History of Europe [13]. Unfortunately I can't remember the exact wording and I didn't buy it when I was flicking through today. - FrancisTyers 17:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

15 minute revert rule?

MrVoluntarist, you argue that there should be an explanation on the talk page less than 15 minutes after editing the page. I think that this is a sound policy. You should follow it, too, though. After all, you changed the page, then did not explain your change on the talk page; my revert came roughly 40 minutes later. Your revert came 16 minutes after mine. While I do admit that I greedily exceeded the 15 minute policy by 1 minute, I hope that you show as much generosity as I have in the future. --AaronS 01:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

My change didn't need a talk page component; I said everything that was necessary to explain the reasoning behind the change in the revert note. It wasn't very complicated. Now, I agree a fifteen minute rule is arbitrary, but I also feel it's too long to take to justify a change for which the revision note is insufficient. When you make a change, you should have thought out your justification before making it. You clearly did not do that. When I first came back to my computer, I saw you made a change that referenced the talk page. I checked it. I waited. It seemed like you had forgotten about the talk page, so I reverted. Please try to avoid sending Wikipedia editors on wild goose chases for explanations. MrVoluntarist 01:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey, not all of us have superfast computers and Internet connections. The textboxes necessary for editing on Wikipedia are extremely slow on my computer. Please try to have some patience. --AaronS 01:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd belive you except for your previous griping about your substandard wifi. You sans-culotte, you!MrVoluntarist 02:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, a USB wireless adapter is a luxury of the bourgeoisie alright. --AaronS 15:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Griping about the "wifi in this area not being good enough" is about as bourgeois as you can get, I'm afraid. MrVoluntarist 15:42, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

And as for why I reverted "after the fact", it's because you still hadn't justified your double standard before re-inserting the quote. MrVoluntarist 01:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Uh, actually, I did justify my change. And it's not a double-standard. Please, enough with the incendiary language. Do you want to bicker, or do you want to improve the article? --AaronS 01:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

We had not finished discussing me matter. Wikipedia is about consensus. MrVoluntarist 02:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Which is why you shouldn't delete the work of other editors without discussion... I find it ironic that you are so apt to accuse me of double-standards. --AaronS 15:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

You also shouldn't add sources that violate your own standards. Some people would interpret that as POV pushing. MrVoluntarist 15:42, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Removed pending citation

Some have accused collectivist anarchists of trying to create a 'monopoly upon all apolitical thought' and the attacks upon anarcho-capitalism are cited as proof of this campaign.

Needs a citation and smacks of weasel words. - FrancisTyers 19:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalist flag?

Where does the "anarcho-capitalist flag" come from? Who says that it is the flag of anarcho-capitalism? I am unaware of any battle of siezing of territory involving anarcho-capitalists; I am also unware of any anarcho-capitalist militias. Flags are typically associated with: When was it decided that this would be the flag of anarcho-capitalism? On Wikipedia? Flags are usually associated with nations, organizations, armies, battles, people, sports teams, etc. --AaronS 14:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I removed it, since there hasn't been a response, and since I can't find a source for it. It seems like original research or an invention of one or a few people. --AaronS 18:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I hadn't ever seen a version with the "Libertatis Æquilibritas" on it, but I've often seen the flag without it (see Anarcho-capitalist terminology and symbolism). As for flags, anarchists have long used them, although generally people only know the red/black of syndicalism/communism or green/black one of environmental anarchism, since after all, anarcho-capitalists don't engage in protest and have no need for a flag (probably just devising one to "fit in"). Sarge Baldy 20:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, here is the Anarkokapitalistisk Front --a northern Europoean "anarcho-capitalist/individualist anarchist" activist organization that uses the flag. RJII 20:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The ACF seems to be inactive and/or insignificant. The last scheduled event was in December of 2002, and it doesn't even seem to be an ACF event. The site also only has 2671 hits as of today (the native language section has 8377 hits and lists similar information). There are many broken links, suggesting that the site has not been updated in a while. All in all, the flag seems non-notable. --AaronS 20:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

No disagreement here. I was only for including it as an excuse to get Rothbard's ugly face out. Unfortunately, that mug is much more representative of a/c as a whole. Sarge Baldy 20:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

That is a particularly bad picture of Rothbard. --AaronS 21:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Whilst any excuse to get rid of the picture of Rothbard is appealing, - and certainly the anarcho-capitalist flag is very amusing, I am afraid I have to agree that it has no place in the article.Harrypotter 22:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Opening Paragraph

Having raised a the topic previously I have rearranged the opening paragraph. As the term started off as a term of abuse in the French revolution, I started off with this and then used the cop definition - which although a hundred years later does constitute a sourced definition. Then it goes into the self definition which I have reordered a bit. Then I have placed anarcho-capitalism alongside anarcho-nationalism as examples of disputed concepts of what is authoritarian and what is libertarian (should a left-right dimension be mentioned here?) Having removed the piece from criticisms to the front, I then went back and put in the bit about Engels arguing that Anarchists weren't violent enough! I think the national anarchism page needs to be reworked as it is too narrowly revolving around the likes of Troy Southgate, whereas it should include a broader range of anarcho-nationalists like Larry Gambone and the Zapatistas. But that will have to wait for now.Harrypotter 22:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I managed to peruse your changes, though I haven't had a chance to take a thorough look at them. Things look good so far. I'm sure that there will need to be further work done -- probably much more. The more that we discuss, the better. I also think that it is safe to say that anarcho-capitalism exists as a disputed concept. One question: if post-left anarchy, for example, is not a "school" of anarchist thought, but an offshoot, why is this? Is it because there are no main thinkers? But there are. Is it because there is no intellectual pedigree? But there is. Is it because there isn't a large "movement," per se? Perhaps. The point of this reasoning is this, and perhaps someone like RJII could answer: if post-left anarchism is not a "school" of thought, why is anarcho-capitalism?

As for your comments regarding a left-right dimension, I think that that is very tricky. Post-left anarchists, among others, will deny that their philosophy is "leftist." That old dichotomy just seems to breed confusion. I sometimes use the left-right spectrum, but it is really out of intellectual laziness. --AaronS 22:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I am unsure how useful the left-right spectrum is. Some of the post left anarchists are ultra-leftists, whilst others I would consider as being right wing (e.g. Bob Black and AJODA, but then as the New Right has mixing right and left as its praxis this hardly resolves the issue.Harrypotter 23:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it seems impossible to introduce the left-right dichotomy without a discussion of what is left and what is right? That discussion seems entirely inappropriate for this article. --AaronS 23:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Right - "left" and "right" are meaningless terms today. Anarchism is about liberty vs authority, not left and right. BTW, Rothbard considered anarcho-capitalism to be ultra-left, and socialism to be a confused centrist movement. Hogeye 00:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe the claim that the term "anarchist" started off as a term of abuse for sans-coulottes. I believe the claim in the article that Louis-Armand, Baron de Lahontan used the term in his Nouveaux voyages dans l'Amérique septentrionale, (1703) in reference to the stateless societies of American Indians. So I changed the intro back to its previous version. Hogeye 00:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I reverted your revert, Hogeye, because a total revert was not necessary. If you have a problem with the claim, change it. Do not revert all of Harrypotter's work. Also, your originally-researched anarchist tree does not belong in this article. You have already been banned for repeatedly inserting this. Please stop. --AaronS 00:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I like Harry's idea of opening with that - need to be completely sure it's right though. (I though Lahontan has used 'anarchy' in his essay, which could be argued is not the same as the first use of anarch-ism.) The anarcho-nationalism stuff I'm not so sure about. a) I just don't see anarcho-nationalism as nearly notable enough to be in the intro like this (I feel the same about anarcho-capitalism in fact). b) you are making it seem more notable I think by bundling a few things together that are quite distinct - I don't think there's much link between Troy Southgate and Zapatismo at all. Southgate can call himself what he wants, but most people would call a 3rd positionist neo-fascist spade what it is. Besides, this is an insignificant groupuscule if ever there was one. The Zapatistas on the other hand wouldn't call themselves anarchists or nationalists, or the latter at least not in anything like a third positionist sense.Bengalski 11:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Marx

Just as a note, that quote "from each according to his ability..." applies to anarchist communism, but it should be clarified somehow that Marx himself espoused a labor theory of value. Sarge Baldy 05:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

assassinations

As this keeps coming up, how about a list of people

assassinated by anarchists:

Umberto I of Italy killed by Gaetano Bresci; Archbishop Soldevila of Zaragoza, (probably) killed by 'Los Solidarios' (the affinity group of which Buenaventura Durruti was a member)

assassinated by definiite non-anarchists:

Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria killed by Gavrilo Princip, a Bosnian Serb nationalist; Alexander II of Russia, killed (on the seventh attempt) by members of Narodnaya Volya

assassinated by people controversially labelled anarchists:

William McKinley (killed by Leon Czolgosz, a registered Republican who admired Emma Goldman)Bengalski 11:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

tree

Hogeye, it looks like the tree is saying Stirner was a capitalist. I suggest that the whole right 2/3 of the chart be changed to "individualist," and the left 3rd, maybe, "social" or "communist/syndicalist" RJII 16:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Stirner did support private property, and had nothing against profit, so he was a captalist. Just do a "find" on "property" in his essay "The Individual and his Property" - also translated as "The Ego and His Own" - to see that this is so. It's interesting that propertarians tended to overlook Stirner's amoralism, while socialists tended to overlook his support of private property.

There are at least two logical ways to classify anarchisms: individualism vs. collectivism, and socialism vs. mutualism vs. capitalism. Either way makes sense. The first is neat and clear, since it's pretty easy to tell who supports private property and who doesn't. There has been some opposition to this classification, mainly based on semantics. Anarcho-socialists are economically collectivist (i.e. against private property), but can be individualist in methodology or in their justifications. This bugs the hell out of people who don't like to use the terms (individualism and collectivism) in the economic sense. The threefold division by economic system makes a lot of sense to me. We can generally tell which econ system the main theorists take, and it avoids confusing and acronistic language, e.g. of the mutualists who referred to themselves as socialist (using a definition of socialism no longer used.) I think the article should make clear that mutualism is neither socialism nor capitalism - it's a different animal. Hogeye 17:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

This anarchist FAQ at Infoshop says: "The main differences are between "individualist" and "social" anarchists" [14] I kind of like that because it obviates dealing with the semantic problem of the term "socialist." RJII 17:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but its waffling - a wimp-out. We know that they really mean "socialist" when they use their term "social anarchist." With regards to mutualists, I don't think anyone here who's studied anarchism seriously argues that individualist anarchists like Tucker were socialist by today's terminology.

Aaron, I'll take Nietzche out if someone can convince me that Ayn Rand was influenced directly by Stirner. Hogeye 18:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm thinking you could put "individualist" and "social" and then use something akin to Venn diagrams to dilineate the mutualists from the capitalists, etc. Also, a thing about using the term "social" is that what "true anarchist" is going to argue against the Infoshop FAQ? RJII 18:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Would anyone like me to upload the InDesign file, so others can play with the tree? Hogeye 18:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes please. I'm not very computer literate, but maybe I can figure it out. RJII 18:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Darn it; it won't let me upload an unrecognized file type to Images. Is there someplace else I can upload the InDesign file to? RJ, if you don't have InDesign, the file won't do you any good. Hogeye 18:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Nietsche was not capitalist. Stirnet was not capitalist. If that bottom banner is there, then there should be a top banner "non-exploitative/exploitative" to balance out POVs. Infinity0 ^talk 18:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

You should know better than that. "Exploitation" is a POV term. RJII 18:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

That's why I said "balance out" POVs. It's POV to assert that mutualism is individualist; it's a mixture of both. Hence the name. Infinity0 ^talk 18:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Mutualism is the economic system of the individualist anarchists. It's individualist --pro-private property. There's nothing collectivist about mutualism. RJII 18:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Infinity; you are obviously unaware of the definition of economic individualism. Please get a clue:

The doctrine of economic individualism holds that each individual should be allowed autonomy in making his own economic decisions as opposed to those decisions being made by the state, or the community, for him. Morever, it supports the liberty of individuals to own property as opposed to state or collective arrangements.

In short, mutualists, since they support private property, are economic individualists by definition. It's not that hard, Infinity: If they support private property (like Steiner and Tucker) they are economic individualists. If they don't support private property, they are economic collectivists. The only anarchist luminary where there's any question is Proudhon, who spoke opaquely out of both sides of his mouth. Hogeye 18:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

If economic individualism means mere support of private property, ie single ownership, then everyone except hardcore communists are economic individualists, and so the term becomes meaningless. The term "mutualist" suggests a degree of co-operation - collective. Infinity0 ^talk 18:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

You won't find a source anywhere denying that mutualism is individualist. Sure, mutualists believe in cooperation, but so do capitalists. But, mutualists also strongly support competition --that's the whole premise behind the mutualist system --that competition will make profit impossible. Competition is the force that mutualists want to harness. (Also, cooperation is not incompatible with individualism, at all). RJII 18:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

No; all anarcho-socialists are opposed to private property in capital goods (the means of production) - not just hardcore commies. Mutualists support private property in capital goods. Forget your hazy "suggestions" - look at the definitions! Hogeye 18:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, you just want something to split left-anarchism from ind-anarchism and right anarchism. You need to add "social unexploitative" and "socially exploitative" at the top, since individualists and left-anarchists believe capitalism to be exploitative. Infinity0 ^talk 19:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Desirability of the "tree"

Why are we still dealing this this tree? No offense to Hogeye, who has produced this really attractive chart, but it seems like there is no consensus to include an originally researched, reductionist diagram. Other than Hogeye and RJII, does anyone want to see a tree included and believe that it is not in violation of Wikipedia original research policy? - N1h1l 18:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

It may well be original research. But, there's no way to know without requesting sources for the information. Just because it's in picture form doesn't mean it's original research. RJII 18:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the tree is acceptable and should be included. Like I said before, every arrow on the tree is well-documented, and only claims influence not derivation. No arrow in the tree is the result of someone's original research. (Though it should avoid making Stirner or Nietzsche appear capitalist.) To those who say it "simplifies" or "reduces", please, open your eyes. Everything on Wikipedia is a simplification or reduction. Unless you quote every philosopher word for word, you have to compress it somehow. The tree is no different. MrVoluntarist 18:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I like the concept of a reductionist diagram. Meh. Infinity0 ^talk 18:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

So far, we have MrVoluntarist, RJII, and Hogeye supporting it, and AaronS, Infinity0 (AaronS clone?), Sarge Baldy, and Bengalski opposing it. The only coherant claim against the tree is questioning whether Max Stirner was a capitalist, rather than a mutualist or socialist. I think we can ignore frivolous claims like, e.g. the terms economic collectivism and economic individualism are POV. I think that the opposition to the chart springs not from any inaccuracy, but rather from the belief among some editors that anarcho-capitalism is given too much publicity in the article. Hogeye 18:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I think Infinity0, AaronS, and Kevehs are different people. Very similar in the flaws they have, but distinct personalities. Kevehs and Revkat are the same though. MrVoluntarist 19:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

That isn't remotely true. I would oppose any image, even if anarcho-capitalism wasn't mentioned at all. Any image is inherently simplistic and your particular images are also full of flat out bullshit. For instance, you call Stirner a capitalist, you call a non-anarchist an anarchist (if all it takes to be an anarchist is to want the state abolished, Marx was an anarchist too), you call Bakunin a socialist anarchist, when no such thing exists. It's als fucked up chronologically, and gives the impression that anarcho-capitalism has been around forever. "Economic collectivist" is another neologism, the idea of a "tree" suggests very simplistic influences. What help does it give anyone to say Bakunin->Kropotkin->Rocker? It also expresses a POV in reducing anarchism to a simple economic theory. Sarge Baldy 22:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

It's amazing how paranoid you can get. Yes man, I'm AaronS, and I have bothered to create a whole new persona to go on my User page. What drugs are you on??? Infinity0 ^talk 19:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Seriously. :-/ --AaronS 21:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC) Oh, wait, of course. It makes sense now. Hogeye is upset because I (and others) noticed that his 70.x IP address was a sockpuppet. --AaronS 21:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Nobody has a hidden agenda to "poison" the article. Anyone who knowingly writes propaganda into the article obviously isn't very faithful in the rightness of their POV. We are all trying to improve the article. Infinity0 ^talk 19:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Addressing some of Sarge Baldy's points:

1. Was Stirner a socialist, mutualist, capitalist, or none of the above? I would say "capitalist" or "none of the above." He seemed to be a propertarian ("All great, all beautiful things can never be common property.") He seemed to oppose both rights and "gift economies" ("Overcome yourself even in your neighbor: and a right that you can rob you should not accept as a gift.") If you define "capitalist" as someone who thinks private ownership in the means of production is permissable, then Stirner is a capitalist.

1. Was Gustav de Molinari an anarchist? Obviously, by the definition of "anarchism." Is the pope catholic? Molinari thought (at least in 1849) that the State was an unnecessary evil, ergo he was an anarchist.

1. Was Marx an anarchist? Hell, no. He wanted a transitional State.

1. Is there such a thing as a "socialist anarchist"? Obviously. Most anarchists are socialist. Bakunin, Kropotkin and Emma Goldman were all socialist and anarchist. How can you claim, Sarge, that they don't exist?

1. Is "economic collectivism" a neologism? No, it's two words. "Economic" is an adjective and "collectivism" is a noun. From Wikipedia: "Generally speaking, collectivism in the field of economics holds that things should be owned by the group and used for the benefit of all rather than being owned by individuals."[15]

1. Do the main schools of anarchism differ in economic theory? Definitely. Classifying forms as socialist, mutualist, and (in modern times) capitalist is standard and reasonable, as is noting the difference between collectivist and individualist schools.

Hogeye 00:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Stirner wasn't a socialist, mutualist, or capitalist, and probably would have eschewed them all. Saying X is Y by the definition of Y is original research. And anarchism does not have an agreed upon definition, no matter what you might think, and is not interpreted the same way by any two people. If anarchism meant anti-statism, then there would be no need for the latter article. If you can get these two articles merged by consensus, than you might have an argument. However, I can tell you right now that that isn't what would happen. The idea of retroactively claiming people were anarchists is clearly POV, and such interpretations are original research. The same is true for retroactively stating that people were capitalists. "Socialist anarchism" is a blanket term for almost all anarchists from the communists to the individualists. As such the label has no real meaning. I didn't ask whether the "schools" of anarchism differ in economic theory. However, a tree missing most of its branches is POV by ignoring all the others.

Also, this tree reinforces one of the worst POV problems with this article- it is almost entirely devoted to a few anarchist theorists, and ignores the masses of anarchists who actually worked and work to put it into effect. Sarge Baldy 01:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

It's probably impossible to tell what Stirner was using his writing as a source. Some people have compared his writings to a rorschach test. Stirner was an individualist, but that's not the same as capitalist. Gustave de Molinari doesn't look like an anarchist to me, nor have I seen him mentioned in any anarchistic litterature as far as I remember. And I agree with Sarge that the tree is POV ridden and since it's an image it's hard to fix. // Liftarn

Protected

This pages has been edit a full page of history's worth of edits. An edit war is starting up again. I have protected the article and also removed the disputed tree, which is disuputed. If consensus can be made it should go in. If credible books can be found that directly support the diagram, even if they don't have it in chart form, then it is not Origional Research. Please keep it civil. Until then, it is just OR, which is against policy here. It may have to be modified or might not.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 01:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

While it is sad that we can't work this out like reasonable adults, I'm grateful that you're keeping an eye on this. Thanks. --AaronS 01:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Justifying the tree

Since each of the claims implied by the tree are claimed to be original research, I thought I'd break it up so we can see what parts of it are justified by the literature and what parts are not. Feel free to insert whatever relevant source you would like under each section. Sorry, forgot to sign. MrVoluntarist 02:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Note: THIS is the tree under discussion: MrVoluntarist 02:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Alright, who got the image deleted? It's not in any article right now, and we need it here to discuss. Let's see if we can't grow up a bit. MrVoluntarist 01:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

It was deleted by User:Enochlau. I'll pretend you didn't suggest that someone here pressed to get it deleted. I wouldn't have put it up for discussion if I just wanted it deleted. I could have just done it myself under the precedent set by trees 02, 03, and 04. Sarge Baldy 01:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Um, someone certainly nominated it to be deleted, and someone here *cough cough* could have removed it from being considered for deletion, or at least recommended against it, so that we could discuss it rationally. MrVoluntarist 01:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't "considered for deletion", apparently FrancisTyers nominated it as a speedy delete yesterday. ALthough FrancisTyers is involved with this article, he is not (afaik) an anarchist, having only been involved in this page earlier through cabal mediation. He's also an administrator, and could have just deleted it. The point being that anyone could have removed the speedy delete tag, and you may as well be pointing your finger at yourself instead of anyone else. Sarge Baldy 01:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Right, except, not being an administrator, I'm not familiar with that specific intricacy regarding image speedy deletes. But that's okay. Because this won't happen again, right? MrVoluntarist 01:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I just replaced it. Hogeye 01:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Hogeye, for helping to facilitate rational discussion. MrVoluntarist 01:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Attention! If you have InDesign and want to play with the chart, download the InDesign file from this page. Hogeye

Some asshole deleted the tree again, but I replaced it. It must be some admin, since history was also deleted. Hogeye 15:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that no one delete the chart, since it's the what we're supposed to be disputing (why the article was locked up). We need to see it to argue over it. RJII 16:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Well that suggestion probably won't do much good here. It was deleted by User:Pathoschild. His edit summary notes that the reason he deleted it was because it was deleted before. I'll put a note in the image so it doesn't happen again. Sarge Baldy 16:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Bakunin was influenced by Marx

"In Paris Bakunin again met Herwegh, the latter’s wife, Emma Siegmund, and Karl Marx, who had arrived there in 1843. Marx at first collaborated with Arnold Ruge, but he and Engels soon went their own way and began to formulate their own ideology. Bakunin saw much of Proudhon, with whom he held night-long discussions, and was also on friendly terms with George Sand. The years in Paris were the most fruitful for Bakunin’s intellectual development – it was then that the basic outlines of the ideas underlying his revolutionary program began to take shape, though it was not until much later that he freed himself entirely of metaphysical idealism. Bakunin himself informs us, in a manuscript written in 1871, of his intellectual relations with Marx and Proudhon during this period." James Guillaume, Michael Bakunin: A Biographical Sketch

Bakunin was influenced by Proudhon

See above Bakunin/Marx James Guillaume, Michael Bakunin: A Biographical Sketch

See below Kropotkin/Proudhon.[16]

Kropotkin was influenced by Proudhon

"Proudhon was a complex and voluminous writer who remained obstinately independent, refusing to consider himself the founder of either a system or a party. Yet he was justly regarded by Bakunin, Peter Kropotkin, and other leaders of organized anarchism as their true ancestor, for he had adumbrated their philosophy. Mutualism, federalism, and direct action were the essential doctrines Proudhon taught."[17]

Kropotkin was influenced by Bakunin

"1872: In Neuchatel, Peter met Guillaume, one of Bakunin's closest associates. Peter received a positive impression of both Guillaume and the Jura Federation. Fascinated by the lack of organization in the federation, he wished to see it in action. To see the Jura workers themselves, Peter traveled to Sonvilier, where he met another Federation leader, Adhemar Schwitzguebel. He introduced Peter to the workers in the region, most of which were watchmakers. The isolated and self-sufficient nature of the workers impressed Peter. He saw a community of workers that succeeded when permitted to work according to their own interests. It is at this exact point in his life where he felt that he became an anarchist. He even considered staying in Switzerland as a permanent fixture in the Jura Federation."Chronology of Peter Kropotkin's Life This seems to be a synopsys of Anarchism, George Woodcock, chapter 7 "The Explorer".

Rocker was influenced by Kropotkin

"In contrast to Proudhon and Bakunin, Kropotkin advocated community ownership, not only of the means of production, but of the products of labour as well, as it was his opinion that in the present status of technique no exact measure of the value of individual labour is possible, but that, on the other hand, by a rational direction of our modern methods of labour it will be possible to assure comparative abundance to every human being. Communist Anarchism, which before him had already been urged by Joseph Dejacque, Élisée Reclus, Errico Malatesta, Carlo Cafiero, and others, and which is advocated by the great majority of Anarchists today, found in him one of its most brilliant exponents." - Rudolf Rocker, Anarcho-syndicalism(1938)

Tucker was influenced by Proudhon

"In Boston, Tucker became politically involved with the 1872 presidential campaign of Horace Greeley, and made the acquaintance of the veteran individualist anarchists Josiah Warren and William B. Greene through attending a convention of the New England Labor Reform League in Boston, a veritable hotbed of individualists. Greene, who served as the chairman, made an immediate and deeply favorable impression upon the young M.I.T. student.(10) The introduction to both Greene and Warren had been facilitated by the abolitionist and labor reformer Ezra Heywood. Tucker would later look back upon these initial encounters as the pivotal point in his career as a radical. At the convention, Tucker purchased Greene's book entitled Mutual Banking and Warren's True Civilization, along with some of Heywood's pamphlets.

An ongoing association with Heywood, the publisher of the Princeton labor reform periodical The Word, soon followed.(11) From his involvement in the labor reform movement, Tucker became convinced that economic reform must underlie all other steps toward freedom. From a later admiration of the radical abolitionist Spooner, Tucker's voice acquired a radical anti-political edge as well. To these influences were added the European flavor of Herbert Spencer, Pierre Joseph Proudhon, Max Stirner, and Michael Bakounine." - Wendy McElroy, Benjamin Tucker, "Liberty," and Individualist Anarchism[18]

Tucker was the first to translate into English Proudhon's What is Property?[19]

"Liberty [Tucker's periodical] is...a journal brought into existence almost as a direct consequences of the teachings of Proudhon..." (Benjamin Tucker, Liberty I) RJII 17:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Tucker was influenced by Warren

"To the memory of my old friend and master, Josiah Warren, whose teachings were my first source of light, I gratefully dedicate this volume..." -Benjamin Tucker, dedication in Instead of a Book RJII 03:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Tucker was influenced by Stirner

"Of far more interest and effect ideologically was the impact of the introduction of philosophical concepts of Max Stirner into the Tuckerite camp...Tucker became solidly attached to Stirnerism and was promptly deserted by most of his earlier literary aids." (James J. Martin, Men Against the State pp. 243) RJII 04:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

"He was the first to translate into English Proudhon's What is Property? and Max Stirner's The Ego and Its Own -- which Tucker claimed was his proudest accomplishment."[20]

Also, from the same source:

Tucker's periodical also served as the main conduit of Stirnerite Egoism, of which Tucker became a proponent. This lead to a split in American Individualism - between the growing number of Egoists and the old guard of Spoonerian "Natural Lawyers".

Nietzsche was influenced by Stirner

Friedrich Nietzsche, the second great "superseder" of Stirner, was born in the same year (even in the same month) in which Stirner's "Der Einzige" appeared. However, during Nietzsche's youth, the entire Left Hegelian school of thought was generally not taken seriously, instead termed the madness of some Vormaerz outcast lecturers and riotous journalists. Annoyed by the "senility" of his fellow students, the young Nietzsche in contrast, in a letter extolled exactly those same eighteen-forties as being a "time full of intellectual spirit" in which he himself would gladly have been active. Thus, the direct contact with a veteran of Left Hegelian times was also a turning point for the future philosopher. In October of 1865, Nietzsche had a long and intensive encounter with Eduard Mushacke, who in those days had belonged to the inner circle revolving around Bruno Bauer and had been friends with Stirner. The immediate result was a deep, intellectual crisis and a panicked "decision for philology and for Schopenhauer." - Bernd A. Laska, Max Stirner, a durable dissident[21]

Since around Jan 2006 a rough English translation of Laska's detailed historical study "Nietzsche's initial crisis" is available.

"It has been recently established that Nietzsche did read Stirner, although the signs of Stirner's influence were such that this had been previously presumed without historical evidence."[22]

Rand was influenced by Nietzsche

"She was introduced to Nietzsche by a cousin, who informed her that "he beat you to all your ideas," and reading Thus Spoke Zarathustra, she had found a kindred spirit. Nietzsche revered the heroic in man, he urged men to great purposes for their own happiness, he defended egoism, he condemned altruism, and he opposed the glorification of mediocrity. On the other hand, there was too much emphasis on feeling over reason, she thought, Neitzsche was too preoccupied with condemning the negative, and his praise of power made her uncomfortable...her sense of difference intensified. But, Nietzsche was still for her a poet and philosopher of individualism, and it is possible to trace in her earlier works up though Anthem (1938) occasional literary echoes of his writings, and some Nietzschean elements...Nietzsche articulated and expanded upon ideas she had already formulated and had been presenting to others...Nonetheless, the influence was real." (Allan Gotthelf, On Ayn Rand pp. 14, 18). RJII 03:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The Austrian school was influenced by Molinari

"The French-liberal school were indeed really forerunners of the Austrian school of economics.Salerno lecture - mp3 file

Bastiat emphasized the plan-coordination function of the free market, a major theme of the Austrian School, because his thinking was influenced by some of Adam Smith's writings and by the great French free-market economists Jean-Baptiste Say, Francois Quesnay, Destutt de Tracy, Charles Comte, Richard Cantillon (who was born in Ireland and emigrated to France), and Anne Robert Jacques Turgot. These French economists were among the precursors to the modern Austrian School, having first developed such concepts as the market as a dynamic, rivalrous process, the free-market evolution of money, subjective value theory, the laws of diminishing marginal utility and marginal returns, the marginal productivity theory of resource pricing, and the futility of price controls in particular and of the government's economic interventionism in general. - Thomas J. DiLorenzo, Frederic Bastiat (1801-1850): Between the French and Marginalist Revolutions[23]

Rothbard was influenced by the Austrian school

"The publisher in question was the Foundation for Economic Education; and visits to this group’s headquarters led Rothbard to a meeting with Ludwig von Mises. Rothbard was at once attracted to Mises’s laissez-faire economics, and when Mises’s masterwork Human Action appeared in 1949, it made a great impression on him. He was henceforward a praxeologist: here in Mises’s treatise was the consistent and rigorous defense of a free economy for which he had long been in search. He soon became an active member of Mises’s seminar at New York University. Meanwhile, he continued his graduate studies at Columbia, working toward his Ph.D. His mentor was the eminent economic historian Joseph Dorfman, and Rothbard received the degree in 1956, with a thesis on The Panic of 1819 that remains a standard work." - David Gordon, Murray N. Rothbard (1926-1995)[24]

Rothbard became dean of the Austrian School after Mises's death.[25]

Rothbard was influenced by Rand

At one of our gatherings, in the summer of 1954, over three years before the publication of Atlas Shrugged, [Murray] Rothbard brought up the name Ayn Rand, whom I had not previously heard of. He described her as an extremely interesting person and, when he observed the curiosity of our whole group, asked if we would be interested in meeting her. Everyone in the group was very much interested. He then proceeded to arrange a meeting for the second Saturday night in July, at her apartment in midtown Manhattan. ... At both meetings, most of the time was taken up with my arguing with Ayn Rand about whether values were subjective or objective, while Rothbard, as he himself later described it, looked on with amusement, watching me raise all the same questions and objections he had raised on some previous occasion, equally to no avail. - George Reisman, Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics[26]

Rothbard was influenced by Tucker

"In forty-five years of scholarship and activism, Rothbard produced over two dozen books and thousands of articles that made sense of the world from a radical individualist perspective. In doing so, it is no exaggeration to say that Rothbard created the modern libertarian movement.3 Specifically, he refined and fused together:

• natural law theory, using a basic Aristotelian or Randian approach;
• the radical civil libertarianism of 19th century individualist-anarchists, especially Lysander Spooner and Benjamin Tucker;
• the free market philosophy of Austrian economists, in particular Ludwig von Mises, into which he incorporated sweeping economic histories; and,
• the foreign policy of the American Old Right – that is, isolationism."

- Wendy McElroy, Murray N. Rothbard: Mr. Libertarian[27]

Rothbard was influenced by Spooner

"For Spooner was the last of the great natural rights theorists among anarchists, classical liberals, or moral theorists generally...Fortunately, we have the immortal Lysander Spooner, in his life and in his works, to guide us along the correct path." (Murray Rothbard, introduction to Lysander Spooner: Libertarian Pietist) RJII 05:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Goldman was influenced by Stirner

[28]

Tolstoy was influenced by Proudhon

[29]

Goldman was influenced by Neitzche

[30]

Marx was influenced by Proudhon

[31]

X was a proponent of economic individualism

Stirner

The thoughts had become corporeal on their own account, were ghosts, e. g. God, Emperor, Pope, Fatherland, etc. If I destroy their corporeity, then I take them back into mine, and say: "I alone am corporeal." And now I take the world as what it is to me, as mine, as my property; I refer all to myself. - Max Steiner, The Ego and Its Own.

Before this god -- State -- all egoism vanished, and before it all were equal; they were without any other distinction -- men, nothing but men. The Revolution took fire from the inflammable material of property. The government needed money. Now it must prove the proposition that it is absolute, and so master of all property, sole proprietor; it must take to itself its money, which was only in the possession of the subjects, not their property. Instead of this, it calls States-general, to have this money granted to it. The shrinking from strictly logical action destroyed the illusion of an absolute government; he who must have something "granted" to him cannot be regarded as absolute. The subjects recognized that they were real proprietors, and that it was their money that was demanded. Those who had hitherto been subjects attained the consciousness that they were proprietors. Bailly depicts this in a few words: "If you cannot dispose of my property without my assent, how much less can you of my person, of all that concerns my mental and social position? All this is my property, like the piece of land that I till; and I have a right, an interest, to make the laws myself." - Max Steiner, The Ego and Its Own.

Warren

"Society must be so converted as to preserve the SOVEREIGNTY OF EVERY INDIVIDUAL inviolate.... it must avoid all combinations and connections of persons and interests and all other arrangements which will not leave every individual at all times at liberty to dispose of his or her own person, and time, and property in any manner in which his or her feelings or judgment may dictate, WITHOUT INVOLVING THE PERSONS OR INTERESTS OF OTHERS" (Warren's emphasis) (Josiah Warren, Practical Details)

X was a Y

Molinari, Anarchist

The tree doesn't say Molinari was an anarchist (nor Nietzsche, nor Rand, nor Marx). Come to think of it, please don't add claims to this list that the tree doesn't make. Let's justify it as is (or fail to), then move on to expanding it. MrVoluntarist 02:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it does. That's why there's a box around his name. Hogeye has also claimed that Molinari was an anarchist. Sarge Baldy 02:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

How does there being a box around his name imply he's an anarchist? I don't see a legend that says "box = anarchist". Nor does it use "anarch-" to describe him. And it's irrelevant what else Hogeye claims. This section of the talk page is for documenting the claims of the chart in question, not every claim that Hogeye has ever made. MrVoluntarist 02:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Have you even looked at the chart? The individuals with boxes are those that Hogeye deemed anarchists, and those without are not. Hogeye intended him to be considered an anarchist, and has said so. Hell, even if you want to continue disagreeing with the person who created the tree, then it's clear that the tree singles out one non-anarchist and effectively pushes a POV towards him. Sarge Baldy 02:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The tree is in dispute. Hogeye's brain is not. Let's focus. MrVoluntarist 02:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. There are credible sources that say Monlinari is an anarchist. RJII 02:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you want to include that issue in discussion of the tree, here's the place to list your sources. Not that I disagree with you, I just wanted to be able to keep it in one place. MrVoluntarist 02:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

And undoubtably there are many credible sources that say he wasn't. Therefore, by claiming that he was we're expressing a POV. Sarge Baldy 02:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Sarge, that's where you're wrong. There is no source contesting that Molinari was an anarchist, or that he was an anarcho-capitalist. Wikipedia editors can't even give an original research reason why he wasn't ancap. MrVoluntarist 02:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, where's your source for that? We can always modify the chart to account for disputed anarchists. RJII 03:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

What a beautiful and amazingly helpful chart that would be! --AaronS 05:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, to be honest I don't know how many sources say that. It'd be like finding sources to show Marx wasn't an anarchist. People don't bother arguing things that are already commonly accepted. If a few sources do bother to argue something, it's because it isn't commonly accepted. That's why you'll read some people say that Marx was an anarchist [32] while no one bothers arguing that he wasn't [33]. That hardly concludes anything, except that people are more likely to make arguments against the status quo than defend the status quo against points that hardly receive popular attention. Sarge Baldy 04:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

"Molinari later added considerably to Say's early formulation of free-market anarchism by introducing the idea of paying for police services and protection by contracting individually with insurance companies. He was even to argue that national defense could be better supplied by competing companies on the free market and that small proprietary communities would gradually replace the leviathan state. It was with Molinari that the two different currents of anarchist thought converged: he combined the political anarchism of Burke and Godwin with the nascent economic anarchism of Adam Smith and Say to create a new form of anarchism that has been variously described as individualist anarchism, anarcho-capitalism, or free market anarchism." - David Hart, GUSTAVE DE MOLINARI AND THE ANTI-STATIST LIBERAL TRADITION[34]

Also: "Molinari first presented his ideas on the complete privatisation of all government functions, a form of liberal anarchism in other words, in Gustave de Molinari, "De la production de la sécurité," Journal des Économistes, 1849, vol. 22, pp. 277-290, and a little later in Les soirées de la rue Saint-Lazare: entretiens sur les lois économique et défense de la propriété (Paris: Guillaumin, 1849), "Onzième soirée," pp. 303-337, and in other works throughout his long life. Molinari's anarchist form of laissez-faire liberalism is discussed in David M Hart, "Gustave de Molinari and the Anti-statist Liberal Tradition: Part I," Journal of Libertarian Studies, Summer 1981, vol. V, no. 3, pp. 263-290.

Tree poll

User:Hogeye has on several occasions constructed a "tree" of anarchist thought. Three similar attempts have been deleted by consensus at IfD for violation of NPOV and original research policy (votes: 6-1, 5-1, 4-1; all opposition votes came from Hogeye). The purpose of this poll is to get some outside opinion on the concept of a tree in this article. Sarge Baldy 09:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Proponents:

• gave ample sources citing each connection on the chart [1]

Opponents:

• argue that this is simply stringing together sources, interpreting them in a way beneficial to one POV; sources could be strung together in any number of ways
• argue that the chart is a POV attempt using original research to justify anarcho-capitalism as a form of anarchism, even though extensive sourcing shows it is clearly not original research
• that in order to create the simplification needed for a 2-D diagram everything is reduced to interpreting anarchism in terms of economic theory (whether people supported property etc.), which is how ancap researchers may see anarchism but not how anyone else does.
• feel that the chart violates the undue weight clause of NPOV policy, with the largest piece of the tree dedicated to a very controversial faction.

From Talk:

Hogeye> "I think that the opposition to the chart springs not from any inaccuracy, but rather from the belief among some editors that anarcho-capitalism is given too much publicity in the article."

Sarge> "That isn't remotely true. I would oppose any image, even if anarcho-capitalism wasn't mentioned at all."

So much for that bald-faced lie. Hogeye 16:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• note that Wikipedia itself does not consider Gustave de Molinari an anarchist or Max Stirner a capitalist, nor feel that academia in general widely considers them as such.

See the citations you asked for and we gave you.

You can not seriously call Stirner a capitalist, not a man who was a member of the Left Hegellians, who attacked The Wealth of Nations on every point (and concidered it a personal failure when he was forced to translate because of his debts).

Another point - the direct link between Stirner and Nietzsche is not commonly accepted - similarities, a common spirit yes, but direct link, no (small discussion on the Nietzsche talk page). That slightly irrelevant since Rand broke with Nietzsche's writings long before she became a significant anarcho-capitalist (or right-libertarian, take your pick) figure. It would be more convincing to link directly from Stirner to whomever, though one would lose the convenient mention of better-known figures at the price of accuracy. --Marinus 15:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

• note that Benjamin Tucker was a socialist as well as a mutualist

Not by the modern definition of socialism, which necessitates favoring collective ownership. See the many citations esp in the Individualist anarchist article, in the section about comparisons of property systems.

There still is a distinction between socialism (parent class) and collectivism (sub class), despite more than 6 decades of anti-communist propoganda. Also, Tucker (unless my memory is mistaken) proposed a system of use-ownership (as long as you use something it's yours, the exact term escapes me at the moment) rather than private ownership, which is itself a socialist position. I'm concerned that that comparison of property systems doesn't show use-ownership, which is hugely important to mutualism. Despite Tucker's adherence to contract theory, he can't be said to have been a capitalist. He quite squarely was an anti-capitalist, even if he did not make this as central a component of his thought as the European anarchists were in the habit of doing. --Marinus 14:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

• note that term "socialist anarchism" applied to Mikhail Bakunin is meaningless and could be applied to most anarchists

Right; it can be applied to anarchists who are socialist. "Socialist" is not a "meaningless" adjective. The logic of this claim escapes me. Does someone not know the definition of "anarchism" and think that all anarchists are socialist? I dunno. Hogeye 16:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Up until Marx, socialism and anarchism was an interchangable term. Even the anarcho-capitalism article on Wiki makes the distinction between anarchism and anarcho-capitalism. We can safely say that at least in the majority opinion anarchism is anti-capitalist --Marinus 14:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

• see the concept of a tree as far too binding; unless true academic consensus consists on each point, they will continue to be argued- however, with a tree these points will be effectively set in stone

False; a tree can be contested as easily as text. Also, a chart can always have a legend or disclaimer.

• see the concept of a tree as a vast oversimplification

Or, you could say, these guys object to clarity.

It's not a clarification, it's an encoding: an encoding of a movement as a series of individuals, without reference to the movement itself (its events, tendencies, etc). It could only be a clarification if anarchism was non-societal, which is an absurd thing to think of a social movement. --Marinus 14:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

• note that the chart appears to distort things chronologically, with down not representing a progression of time

There is no chronological dimension on the chart at all, so this objection is bogus.

I understood that lack of a chronological dimension to be the objection. --Marinus 14:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

• note that it ignores the majority of anarchist theorists, focusing only on economic theorists

Most anarchist theorists had a lot to say about economics. Obviously a chart like this must only take a sample, but this chart covers most of the big ones. Who do you think needs to be added? Hogeye 16:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Malatesta, Goldman, Berkman? Bookchin, Ward, Chomsky? --Marinus 14:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

• fail to see the value to readers in connections such as Bakunin->Kropotkin->Rocker

Neophytes need to know which guys are American Individualists, which commies, which mutualists, how they influenced each other, etc. That's what an encyclopedia article is for. Hogeye 16:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• leaves out large swathes of anarchist thought that don't fit neatly into categories thus presenting a distorted overview.

Right; oddball schools aren't presented in this major school view. We shouldn't confuse things with static.

Strange - Georgism is given a prominent position. Compared to the Maknoviks, who actually ran a country at a stage. --Marinus 14:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

• any neutrally drawn tree would look more like a web or cluster.

Draw one; let's see.

• if there are non-anarchists in the "tree", where should the line be drawn? William Godwin, William Morris, Karl Marx, Jean-Paul Sartre? Should Noam Chomsky be included if Murray Rothbard is - to use the google notability test "Noam Chomsky" + anarchism generates tenfold more results than "Murray Rothbard" + anarchism.

Chomsky is an anarchist, both self-identified and seen as such in the movement, btw. --Marinus 14:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The non-anarchists are not in a box. Presently, the non-anarchists mentioned are: Marx, Nietzsche, and Rand.

It would have been nice if most of these arguments had been given on the anarchism Talk Page before putting them here. MrVoluntarist 14:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Most of them were noted before, in various places, and I thought people were aware of them. I apologize for not collecting and listing them there prior. Sarge Baldy 16:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, why isn't this on the Talk page? Hogeye 16:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Sarge, but this is the first I've seen for most of them. This just bolsters my belief that objections aren't well-grounded, but rather ad-hoc excuses. First, it was "original research". Then I said each link is well-documented, and then they essentially said, "so what? It's, uh, not relevant! That's it! Forget what I said about original research." Why can't the opponents of it just say what they mean? MrVoluntarist 18:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Tree is justified

• Hogeye
• Yes, me, MrVoluntarist, (though perhaps with minor changes -- the idea itself is okay). It would be a good idea to summarize a large amount of information into a picture. Everything claimed by the tree (with some exceptions I've noted before) is well-documented. It doesn't simplify any more than Wikipedia already does through summarization of any given philosopher's arguments. MrVoluntarist 18:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
• I think its a fine example of philosophical geneology. --Christofurio 13:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
• I think it's doable. But, the people complaining about it just don't want to take the effort to do it, and that's fine, because it is a hassle. But, it's certainly not "inherently POV." The same information could be said in words --this is just putting it in chart form (and is very effective). The major problem though is that it's not interactive. Normally, if I disagree with something in Wikipedia, I can just go in and change it on my own. But with the chart, I have to make a request to Hogeye or someone else that has access to the software to modify it, and, then it's up to them whether they're going to make my changes for me or not. Maybe if everybody, including myself, got the software, it could be much easier. But, honestly, I can't see it working out in the long term because there's always going to be people without the software that want to make a change but can't. But, then, nothing works out in the long term on Wikipedia anyway. Everything in the article today will be erased many times over in the course of time --it's naive to think otherwise. So, as a matter of exercise I'm willing to give it a shot. RJII 16:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
• I'm not sure how a graphical form is in itself POV. The content of the tree could be argued, but the point that the tree format is inherently POV - that I disagree with. - ICR 05:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The thing is that the tree removes the thoughts from their context, which is a bit silly concidering that the tree is supposed to describe the context and not the thinkers (if it were to be NPOV). See my argument in the section below this one. --Marinus 06:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Any such tree is inherently POV

• Sarge Baldy 09:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
• Theoretically I am open to the possibility there might be an NPOV tree, in which each link and node is perfectly placed to represent significance of every thinker, planted somewhere in the Platonic world of ideals. But the chance of us replicating anything like it here, with the multi-year POV war on the anarchism page, approaches zero.Bengalski 12:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
• AaronS 14:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC) -- Guess I'm "wimping out on rationality"!
• I think the main reason such a catogorisation will always fail at representing reality accurately is because it consentrates entirely on individuals, whereas any political movement/tradition is a social one. This presentation hides the actual existence of a movement (in this case, anarchism), makes no mention of the events which shaped the movement much more than any individual could (the Paris Commune, the First International, Anarchist Spain, etc). It gives equal weightings to groups of decisively different influence (a quick glance makes Rothbard appear as influential in anarchism as say Proudhon, who as an individual and a theorist was arguably the most important of all anti-capitalists before Marx, whereas Rothbard, whatever else he was, is a figure in a largely peripheral group). It misrepresents a social movement as a progression of individuals, a belief that suits hero-worship and emphatically not analysis.In all honesty I believe this representation is an attempt to give the extreme-minority position of anarcho-capitalism (the "anarchism" of which is not at all accepted by the vast majority of practicing anarchists) a greater appearance of consequence than a portrayal of anarchism as a social movement (ie as what it is) would. It also commits the fallacy of defining something by its practicioners rather than by its practice. --Marinus 12:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Well Hogeye's told us his view is a movement means 'taking a dump'.Bengalski 16:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

• The tree is a waste of time. With interlinked wikipages the intelligent reader can move through a serious of links which avoids this essentially hierarchical and two dimensional way of presenting material. I don't think it has any place in wikipedia, and perhaps the people who seem intent on discussing it could find another site where they could tinker with various refinements to their hearts content, as suggested below. As mentioned above, a NPOV tree "might" be possible in Platonic world of ideals, but whether such a world could exist is clearly POV (See Nominalism). Like one or two others I am getting more than a little fed up with something I cannot properly describe in a civil fashion.Harrypotter 14:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
• The tree is a waste of time. As a hierarchical structure, it is inherently inappropriate for describing anarchism, which does and should resemble a fungus or moss, not a monolithic tree, in its structure. Bacchiad

I think that's going a bit far. A chronological hierarchy is a bit different from a power structure. --Marinus 08:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

This tree is POV, but a neutral tree could be constructed

1. —Nightstallion (?) 11:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
2. It could be possible to create such a tree, but I dubt it will be possible in reality. // Liftarn 14:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
3. But not solely by Hogeye. Infinity0 ^talk 17:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• Perhaps the diagram/s could be hosted on another website, with a link to it in the article's External links section. David Kernow 17:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Preferably multi-user interactive, if such a thing exists. If it doesn't, someone needs to invent one. I'm making a call for "Wikichart." RJII 17:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)