Talk:Anarchism/Archive 15

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

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

→

"Nationalist" Anarchism

Regarding the recent two attempts by User:62.64.171.246 and User:62.64.238.62 to add this: National-anarchism seeks to create isolated, intentional, autonomous communities The website compares Aryan Nations, Albania, and Branch Davidians, discussing why they "failed". It says here of the right way to "do it":

1. Acquire and populate a large, isolated tract of land, ensuring that (a) we are sufficiently well resourced before we start and (b) that the land is sufficiently well resourced to make it defensible and economically viable at a reasonable level of comfort. It is senseless to specify a particular size as much depends on the relationship between the resources encapsulated and the resources required; moreover, we have seen that even a nation the size of Albania will come to grief if its resources are badly managed.

2. Attract a large number of carefully screened individuals, including those with required skills and resources, to the project. Throw out unsuitable individuals.

3. Ensure that our activities do not in any way provoke our enemies. We must see to it that we comply with all laws binding on us. We must emphasise that the aim is to reject the Establishment’s world -- the task of overthrowing that world must be left to those who remain outside. We must not seek publicity, nor must we go out of our way to offend or upset our enemies. Confrontations must be avoided and, if unavoidable, must be managed competently. We must keep ourselves to ourselves. But, in doing this we must equally resist the temptation to curry favour with our enemies, risking a sell out.

4. Espouse an ideology that has no self-destructive elements whatsoever. It needs to be ferociously anti-imperialist and anti-Establishment, but must not create the sort of economic deprivation or social enslavement of orthodox Marxist-Leninism. It should not depend on one forceful personality whose continued existence is vital for the continued existence of the project. It must studiously avoid acquiring the characteristics of a suicide cult, or of propagating watered-down Establishment ideals.

As was said before, numorous proto-fascist ideas are expoused throughout the website. What any of this has to do with anarchism, please tell me. --albamuth 18:39, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

We've already got enough to fight against with Capitalists attempting to spread their ideas under the guise of Anarchism (an anti-Capitalist movement), we don't need Nazis too. Any further attempts should be immediately reverted, and I urge all wikipedians to keep their eyes peeled. No platform for Neo-Nazi filth!--Che y Marijuana 03:12, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

I would suggest making another entry Anarchism (word) in which we can list all the movements which are not part of an anachist movement, which, however, use the word. I'm going to do it today or tomorrow... unless there will be strong objection to that (and even then, still maybe). Beta m (talk)

That sounds like a good idea, or at the very least a worthwhile experiment. And it will have strong objections, but most everything does with the anarchism pages. =) Kev 14:25, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

OK, i've created it Anarchism (word), please, everybody quickly run there and ruthlessly edit, and add new entries to it, since i've simply done some copyediting from other sources, already i see much i've missed, but just can't be bothered... q;-/ Beta m (talk)

Let's make a few observations in response to the above.

First, one of the few points of agreement among most anarchists is that the term 'anarchist' is notoriously difficult to define. As soon as people start to justify censorship because they do not regard a particular view as 'anarchist' they are immediately introducing an arbitrary element. Their position reduces to 'I don't like what you're saying therefore I'm not going to let other people see it and make up their own minds'. I suggest that such a position can hardly be described as 'anarchist' in any sense.

Second, the principal justification for censorship in this instance appears to be based on a bald lie. The censors throw the term 'fascism' around but produce no evidence to support this term. (In fact there is evidence linking a RIVAL group of n-as to fascism, but not us!) It seems strange that people who advocate anti-imperialism and autonomous communities governing themselves in their own way should be smeared as 'fascists' whereas those who will not tolerate even one sentence with which they disagree consider themselves 'anarchists'. The term 'fascism' is nowadays as vague as 'anarchism' and, of course, this makes it a very handy weapon with which to try to silence dissent.

Third, evidence of the dishonesty of the censors in this instance can be seen from the arguments they use. One censor quotes from a long article on a n-a Website and then asks 'what any of this has to do with anarchism, please tell me.' One can go to any anarchistic Web site, select a few paragraphs that do not appear to have anything to do with anarchism, and then use this to claim that the site as a whole is 'not anarchist' (and must therefore be censored!) -- such an approach is hardly honest.

Fourth, it has been advocated that the sentence in question be reverted whenever it appears. We can get a team on it and put it back within minutes each time if we really have to. Technological means can be used to impede this, but both sides have access to technology. I suggest, however, that this would really be a waste of everyone's time and a degree of tolerance and compromise might be a better solution for all parties. We're talking about one small sentence, for goodness' sake.

I do not believe that one can argue with the sort of people who seek to impose this sort of censorship. When smears, abuse and lies are used it's always a signal that oppression will be used irrespective of the arguments one summons. I would urge all anarchists and wikis to RESIST CENSORSHIP at every opportunity.

This is Bullshit!

This is bullshit! Sorry to lose my cool but this is absolutely rediculous! These fascists are absolutely positively wrong 110%. There is no debate, it is absolutely irrefutable that this is NOT a form of anarchism in any way, shape, or form whatsoever! It is an absolute truth that there is not a single anarchist on the face of the earth who is racist, to be so would be completely and utterly contradictory! This is rediculous to discuss because it's common sense, plain and simple, irrefutable, not something to be debated. No, it should not be mentioned like anti-statist capitalism, and here's why. They are simply not the same misrepresentation. It should not be mentioned because this "group" is hardly even big enough to be worthy of the dictionary definition of the word "group." It doesn't belong anywhere in this article. Is anyone aware of how many mistrepresentations of anarchy exist, big and small? Are we to include a whole section stating that democrats aren't the same as anarchists?(Yes, stupid people do think that) No, of course not, because it would be an unneccessary waste of space. This is such a stupid discussion when there's nothing to discuss, the claim is so insane. If anyone wants to have a list of all the fake anarchists there are, we should simply link to that page on infoshop.org (http://www.infoshop.org/fake.html). This page lists all the things we've been arguing about. It's much easier just to link to that, isn't it? --Fatal 23:34, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A summary of Fatal's position: anarchism is what Fatal says it is, Fatal will not listen to alternative points of view, Fatal will instead smear them and censor them. Sounds a bit . . . um . . . well, fascist . . .

This is not about censorship, it is about focus. The wikipedia article on the moon landing does not include moon-landing conspiracy links because they are not appropriate for the page, moon landing conspiracy buffs have their own page in the form of moon landing conspiracy accusations. More importantly, "national anarchism" is an extremely recent phenomena that appears to be based entirely on the web and the product of no more than an handful of individuals (indeed, probably one). It is not a proper subject to list amongst movements which involved tens and hundreds of thousands of people and have a broad history dating back more than a hundred and fifty years.

Second, and not to be neglected, the form of the edit is itself objectionable. A link placed within the article to advertise a particular site is not only inappropriate but doesn't fit in with the nature of the article itself, which places all non-wikipedia links at the bottom. This is especially objectionable when this phenomena is so minor, recent, and relatively unknown, given that it acts more as a soap-box than as encyclopedia.

And on a personal note. Come on, not all of us were born yesterday. Are you going to honestly try to claim here that the site you are linking to and the people (person, that is) behind it have -no relation whatsoever- to fascism, neo-fascism, and all the other subsets of that racist, isolationist crap that folks like Bill White spew all the time? I think your own website really says it best: We are 'national-anarchists', not 'anarchists'.

Correct. You can go around calling yourself whatever you want, but this page is here to describe anarchism, thus anarchists. Kev 04:05, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What is a "significant movement"?

RE. 'This is not about censorship, it is about focus.' Refutation: (a) The concern with 'focus' seems to be peculiarly limited to this one sentence. Why does this concern with 'focus' not extend to feminist anarchisms, anarcho-primitivism, etc., etc.?

All of those are significant movements with real historical figures connected to them. The "movement" you are refering to extends about as far as your website, and from all appearances comes from one person. Kev 14:19, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

How do you define a 'significant' movement and a 'real' historical figure? One you agree with? Come on -- you just want to censor us. Why not admit it? Why is, say, anarcho-primitivism more 'real' than N-A?

Aside from the fact that there are more than a handful of anarcho-primitivists, that they hold values fundamental to anarchism, and that they have existed beyond the internet? Kev 19:05, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well how many adherents must a movement have before it can be included in Wikipedia? Who counts them? I have no idea how many N-As there are because it's such a diverse movement. There are groups in Greece, Ukraine, Finland . . . and I've never met these people. They pop up everywhere. You baldly assert that there's so few of us but you just have to look at the number of NA Web sites -- some of which are ferociously opposed to each other -- to see that your conception is way off beam.

N-A is a synthesis between anarchist ideas AND other ideas. So is anarcho-feminism, anarcho-capitalism, anarcho-everything else. (b) The sheer variety of excuses being produced to attempt to justify this act of censorship shows that the psychology here is one of censor first and try to find excuses to justify it afterwards!

Heh, so when people have multiple reasons for doing things, that proves that what they are doing is wrong? Kev 14:19, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No but it suggests that your assertion that 'This is not about censorship, it is about focus' is incorrect. It is clearly about more than 'focus' to say the least.

I completely agree. Kev 19:05, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This is Censorship!

(c) That deletion is resorted to first, rather than argument, shows that your game is that of silencing views that you don't like (although I suspect you haven't really studied them). You want to hide views you don't like so that people don't know about them. You don't want them to see them and make up their own minds like mature human beings.

This passage was discussed on this talk page long before your recent insert. I find it strange that you don't know this, as you were almost certainly the person who put it into the article previously. Kev 14:19, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Now you are attempting to turn this discussion into a personal slanging match. I'm not going to fall for it. As far as I'm aware the approach has consistently been to delete first and then to produce a variety of post hoc rationalizations.

Then feel free to read up on the previous talk page discussion on this very topic which you earlier ignored. Kev 19:05, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

RE. 'the form of the edit is itself objectionable'. Refutation: (a) others have adopted an identical form in the past.

I routinely remove external links from articles, much less ones to controversial, recent, internet based phenomena. The fact that other editors engage in such pratices as yourself is no excuse. Kev 14:19, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I would support happily changing the form of the entry if there were an end to censorship.

Good. Then I expect you to immediately cease to place the link in the text and put it in the external links section. It will still be removed as being inappropriate to this page, but it would at least reflect that you are not blatantly violating wikipedia policy by using this page to "demonstrate a point." Kev 19:05, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Nobody can remove or insert anything as you've prevented anyone who disagrees with you from changing the page at all.

I have never called for a page to be protected, and I didn't start with this instance. Kev 08:42, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Correct Way to Solve It?

(b) Had this been the problem then the correct way to solve it would have been a polite note suggesting an alternative presentation, not censorship and abuse. Such an approach would have produced immediate and sympathetic results.

Correct, had that been the only problem with your edit then that would have been the only response. But clearly that was not the only problem with your edit, nor was it the first time it had been responded to. BTW, why do you remain anon? Is it to make it appear that there are more people pushing this edit then actually exist? Kev 14:19, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to ignore the personal attacks and concentrate on the main point. Various 'problems' have been alleged. None hold water, except perhaps the form of the edit, which I'd gladly see changed if it were not for the overall climate of censorship and oppression that you have instigated. It was alleged that we were somehow propounding 'racism'. We asked where. We received no response. It was alleged that we were sympathetic to Bill White. We pointed out that the site in question actually attacks him. Again, no response and we remain censored! We were accused of fascism. We pointed out that we are anti-imperialist and anti-statist and remarked that this is a very strange idea of 'fascism'. Again, no response and we remain censored. Now we are told that we are censored because we are not 'real'! I wonder how long it will be before you start invoking the fact that the sky is blue and that grass is green as a desperate 'justification' for censorship!

How is it a personal attack to call into question your anon status? This simply reflects your status on wikipedia and the implications are left open. I never alleged that you were sympathetic to Bill White, I stated that they trash you spew is like his. And again, you poison the conversation by refering to this as censorship. National-anarchism belongs on this page to the same degree that moon landing conspiracy belongs on the moon-landing page. If you want to go off and create a national-anarchism page be my guest. And the removal of this bogus link is not a matter of your personal politic being "real", it is a matter of it being encyclopedic. Pages are deleted from wikipedia everyday for being based on original research or recent web phenomena, and this link meets both those categories. BTW - Really really, do you think refering to yourself as 'we' is going to fool someone? Kev 19:05, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'll engage in personal comment to the extent of remarking that if you think that the N-A Web site and White's Overthrow.com are like each other then you need stronger glasses. It's just factually incorrect. I see you have now ceased to justify excluding the entry at all and simply comment that it doesn't belong. I disagree. If you're going to discuss -- as the article does -- traditions that have been influenced by anarchism, such as primiivism, anarcho-capitalism, feminist anarchism, then you need to include a reference to national-anarchism. If you're not going to discuss those traditions because you feel threatened by them, then at least be consistent and censor us all!

This article is not about "traditions which have been influenced by anarchism," because by some standard -all- traditions have been influenced by anarchism since its inception. You are the one saying it is too fuzzy to have a linked tradition requirement, and yet you are justifying the presence of your website here by claiming just such a link. This article is about anarchism. Your movement in your own words of your own articles specifically denies that it is anarchist. There couldn't be better evidence for exclusion of this irrelevant tangent from the article. Kev 23:05, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Links to Fascism!

RE. 'Are you going to honestly try to claim here that the site you are linking to and the people (person, that is) behind it have -no relation whatsoever- to fascism, neo-fascism, and all the other subsets of that racist, isolationist crap that folks like Bill White spew all the time?' Refutation: (a) The site attacks Bill White! Go read it before the next round of deletion and restoration. It is actually comical that you are so anxious to stifle what you suspect MIGHT be politically unacceptable that you haven't even read it to make sure!

I notice that you focus on a single individual (had a falling out with Bill White, did we?) and ignore the rest of the question. Who do you think you are fooling? Kev 14:19, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'd refer you to the article On a decisive break with far right ideology for a full answer. I resent your allegation that I am 'fooling' anyone. You sound like some sort of SS interrogator -- 've know vat you REALLY are, svine!'

I see, so why have you refused to answer the original question? I'll make you a deal, lets compromise. My name is Kevin Kinkel, I have never been affiliated with a fascist or neo-fascist group, nor do I hold that communities of individuals from different ethnicities should be segregated because of differences related to ethnic superiority. Now your turn, would you like to tell your name and explain to us how you have no affiliation with fascist groups? Kev 19:05, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What 'original' question have I refused to answer? I've referred you to an article that clarifies exactly the nature of the 'relationship' with the 'far right'. I'm not getting into personal stuff with you, and I don't care what your name is, but I will say that I do not 'hold that communities of individuals from different ethnicities should be segregated because of differences related to ethnic superiority'. Those who want to create multi-racial communities can do so. Those who don't don't have to. What's wrong with that?

Playing the Race Card

(b) I don't get the 'racist' bit. Can you cite anything on there that is 'racist'? Sure, it discusses 'racist' communities as well as other communities, but mainly to show how they went wrong. Like 'fascism', 'racism' is mainly a term used to stifle debate. Its main fans these days are the bosses who want to increase international labour mobility so that they can exploit cheap labour.

Your isolated communities, how exactly are they going to go about remaining isolated? How exactly are heterogenous communities going to go about becoming homogenous? Kev 14:19, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

However they wish. If you and a dozen other people want to set up a multi-racial community, I'd say go for it. But I notice you still haven't substantiated, inter alia, your alligation of 'racism'.

And if you want to set up a single race community and the other races in that community disagree? Kev 19:05, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I doubt that any community could survive such a dispute. It would shatter, unless there was a remarkable amount of goodwill among the members. In fact such a dispute did arise, with the New Australia project in Paraguay back in 1893 (not to be confused with New Germany, which was very different, albeit not far away). Ironically, the New Australia project was initially supported by socialists and was highly thought of by the 'left' -- this was in the days when 'race' was not such a major issue. It was very communistic with a great emphasis on equality and common ownership of property. However, the founder of the community was completely against non-whites having any role. (He also didn't have a clue how to run an intentional community.) Within months the entire project splintered. Attempts to revive it failed and by 1899 it was dead. Race was not the only issue, but it was a major one.

The Enemy of My Friend of My Enemy of My Friend is...

(c) Which is most fascist? To say that anyone can form their own communities? Or to try to stop people from saying that?

Funnny, people have been saying that all over wikipedia without any censorship. Even in this article. But this article is not about intentional communities, it is about anarchism. Kev 14:19, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

An important feature of 'anarchism' is that it is synthesized with other traditions. Feminism, ecological awareness, primitivism, some would say free market ideology, etc. You don't seem to have a problem with that as a principle.

No, I don't. Intentional communities are already mentioned in the article. Movements with clear links to third positionists on the other hand, not so obviously related. Kev 19:05, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The fact that you do not like someone's friends does not, I suggest, entitle you to censor that person's views. The 'relationship' lies in the rejection of a centralized state and in permitting people to associate as they wish. If you read Keith Preston's article on the site you'll see clearly how this relates to the anarchist tradition.

This is a community-collaborated encyclopedia, not a soapbox in the park. People collaborate to mediate and construct truth. In the park you can say whatever self-contradictory nonsense (that's NOT aimed at N-A, btw) but in an encyclopedia there must be some sort of quorum on what does or does not make sense. If the accepted truth (within Wikipedia) is that anarchism is against States and Nationality, then something calling itself "National-Anarchism" is an oxymoron by the encyclopedia's own definition. Outside of Wikipedia, who knows and who cares? Self-consistancy is needed for Wikipedia to be accepted widely. --albamuth 17:42, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

N-A has nothing to do with anarchism

"National-Anarchism" has nothing to do with the political philosophy of anarchism. If anything, the provided literature only presents a need to form autonomous intentional communities which in itself is not anarchist. No alternative representation is needed because despite the use of the word "anarchism" and claims of synthesis, National-Anarchism does not fit within the accepted definitions of what anarchism is as defined by the article itself. Specifically:

Anarchism is egalitarian. It is opposed to class, ethnic, racial, sexual, religious, etc. prejudice. Therefore to advocate communities based on such criteria disqualifies National-Anarchism.
Anarchism contains a critique of capitalism and is opposed to it. Anarcho-capitalism should not be included in the article because it does not contain that critique. National-Anarchism does not present any critique of capitalism, either.
Anarchism contains a critique of the State structure of power, and furthermore a critique of centralized power itself. National-Anarchism contains no such critique other than opposing an amorphous "Establishment" without presenting a coherent analysis.

The other editors have accused National-Anarchism of "racism" and so forth that I do not find necessarily true. If anything, it advocates isolated miniature Nation-States and does not actually further much more than some sort of revival of the Stand-de-Staadt. If so it is not even a politcal philosophy and is misnamed, if anything. The promoters of "National-Anarchism" would do themselves a favor by renaming their cause "Autonomous Nation-State-ism" to avoid confusion.--albamuth 05:58, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

To answer that one needs to take a little journey back into the philosophy of language. It was Aquinas, I believe, who asserted that each word has a single correct meaning, for which it stands. This 'absolutist' view of language clearly does not capture what happens in daily life. Many words have many different meanings (we can use Plato's example of a chair, which takes many forms -- but political words such as freedom, democracy and rights -- rights which can be moral, legal, human, civil, etc. -- show the problem at its most acute). Words do not HAVE 'correct' meanings -- meaning is something that IS GIVEN to words by people. Meaning is use. One person can use the same word in different ways at different times. We understand each other insofar as we can decode the meaning that the speaker gives to a word. If people use a word in a completely original way -- for example if they use 'anarchist' to mean 'cabbage' -- this is only 'wrong' insofar as the meaning given to the word in this instance has not been seriously used in this sense before and the use juxtaposes two apparently completely unrelated meanings.

Now, your approach to language seems to be that of Aquinas. For you 'anarchism' has a very specific meaning -- which you assert, without any evidence, is the 'correct' meaning. (It has to be 'egalitarian' -- which is itself problematic given the vagueness of the notion of 'equality' and you dictate and command that it must contain certain 'critiques'.) That other people, for example anarcho-capitalists, use the term in a slightly different sense, counts for nothing with you. As far as you are concerned, you're right and they're wrong. You will not hesitate to use censorship to enforce your narrow use of the term, you will accept no argument, and when you encounter resistance to your tyranny, you call upon the 'army' -- in this case the administrator -- to use technological means -- page protection -- to force us all to submit to you.

It is not consistent of you to claim, on the one hand, that anarchism is 'egalitarian' and on the other that you have some superior wisdom and insight into the 'true' meaning of words that means that everyone else has to defer to you with regard to the supposed 'correctness' of your view of anarchism.

Nice try, but you're trying to argue here that since anarchism emphasizes equal relations, you can redefine the term as you wish and anyone who disputes that is trying to assert their superiority. Without some agreement on what certain words mean, we don't have language, but some sounds that we react to at random. Can we agree that equal relations and treatment is a core feature of anarchism? If so, then how can "national anarchism" be anarchist, since it relies upon some form of hierarchy to justify the "national" part of it--not to mention the tendency toward selectivity and euphemisms to mask hierarchical, anti-egalitarian attitudes?

I don't agree that 'equal relations' has to be a CORE feature of anarchism, although it can be a feature of specific communities that wish it to be a feature. Let me elaborate. Anarchism is about rejection of a central 'state'. 'Equal relations' requires either a central state, which I reject, or for free communities of people who WANT to have 'equal relations' to agree to live in that way -- which is commendable. You can't impose equality at gunpoint. Pol Pot tried it -- it didn't work. What you can do is let people who wish to uphold the principle of equality create communities where this is done. And there are many such communities.

The delimiting factor, from the few "national anarchists" I've run across, is race. Racism is a form of unequal treatment, something to which practically every other anarchist is opposed. Even without the race factor, nationalism is itself a form of hierarchy, promoting the well-being and control over resources of one group to the exclusion of all others. Autonomy, sure--anarchism, I strongly object.

Claim that N-A is not racist

I don't agree that race has to be a core feature of national-anarchism. Some differ and there has been an almighty row about that very point, but even the most 'racist' would say that those who want to form multi-racial communities should do so. Could I just point out that there appear to be people of a variety of different races who claim to be N-As (the bitter irony being that the ones I know of were associates of the individual who was keen on race being a central feature!).

I say 'anarchism' is a word like freedom, democracy, justice, liberty, equality, rights, goodness, evil, etc. It is a word that has been vague for many, many years, because people have used it to mean different things. As such, an encyclopaedia article on 'anarchism', to be accurate and informative, needs to reflect the full richness of the term as it has been used in the past and as it is used today. It needs to try to capture ALL interpretations of the term -- not just the interpretation that one little Hitler armed with a 'delete' button and a 'page protection' button wants everyone to believe is the 'correct' version because it happens to be the version that he prefers.

If National Anarchism is to be included at all, I think it should be written to note that while adherents use the term "anarchism", other anarchists reject this philosophy, and state the reasons. A separate article on national anarchism could state the basics of the ideology, but it would be only fair and accurate to note the close connections between national anarchism and racist ideologies. Enough propagandizing--let's outline these things for what they are, and see if everyone is willing to live up to the courage of their convictions when it comes to NPOV and accuracy. That goes for everyone involved.

I could live with that. It's not strictly accurate. N-A has its origins on the far right -- hence the problem (anything with its origins out there immediately triggers the censorship instinct in some). Some, notably Troy Southgate, Bill White (although he's more of an orthodox Nazi these days -- he keeps changing, which might have something to do with his CIA connections) and the like, want to keep it there despite their 'beyond left and right' rhetoric. Others see it more as a strategy that can be used by anyone who wants to oppose the system. That includes egalitarian anarchists and, ironically, in the real world this strategy is probably the only way in which they would ever get to build communities run on anything like egalitarian anarchist principles! Yet others, notably Keith Preston, have pointed out that N-A can be seen as very much part of the anarchist tradition -- the argument is presented in his article on our Web site. The factions do not work well together and there is a clear split. The problem is that the censors focus clearly on the Southgate faction, ignoring those of us who think he's at best a nerd and at worst a cop. You'll note that we never link to his sites and they never link to us.

Purist approach to anarchism!

Finally, I urge you to think of the practical consequences of your tyrannical approach to anarchism. By urging a purist approach -- an approach that says 'my way is right and everyone else can go to hell' -- you are driving a wedge between your brand of anarchism and those who advocate different brands of anarchism. Such an approach will, of course, only benefit the enemies of us all -- the Establishment (certainly an amorphous term but one that I suspect is not a million miles away from what you call 'capitalism') -- because the system just loves a divided opposition. If you are ever going to stand any chance of seeing the sort of society you want to see, intead of trying to oppress us, you'd do well to consider whether N-A community-building strategies could be used to further your own ends. Rather than trying to hide our arguments so that people can't see them, you might do well to consider whether community building (which was advocated by people like Kropotkin, who is USUALLY considered about as mainstream anarchist as they come, although you'd doubtless differ on that) could not be used as a STRATEGY to attain your own ultimate ends.

La luta continua . . .

Again, this ignores the primary reason this edit is inappropriate. It is unencyclopedic and against wiki policy to use original research and make articles which concern purely internet based phenomena. Again, this is especially true in politics, and especially true in controversial politics whose origin is in question any whose following can be counted on one hand. Kev 14:19, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Refutation: (a) You have no way of knowing either (i) the size of the N-A movement, which is highly decentralized and secretive,

Hehe, be careful there, I've seen so very many pages deleted when the editors claimed that their movement was "highly decentralized and secretive", including one I created about your very movement. Kev 19:05, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It is in the nature of the encyclopedia that strong censorship can prevail against weak resistance.

or (ii) whether it is purely Internet based or mostly Internet based or only partly Internet based.

I'm afraid the onus is on you to provide evidence -for- the existence of said movement, including numbers and actions outside of the internet. The reason being that it is, unfortunately, not possible to prove that a given thing does not exist. You know, basic logic and all that. Kev 19:05, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. I think the 'onus' should be on those who wish to censor to prove their case. Um . . . do you know how many members Al-Qaeda has? No? Neither does the CIA, it seems. Or anyone else. Probably even Osama bin Laden doesn't know. Does that mean that all reference to that organization should be deleted from all articles in the encyclopedia. Isn't your argument just a little strange?

That you are comparing your website phenomena to Al-Qaeda might indicate the degree to which you still hold a grasp of reality. That, or it might be evidence that Al-Qaeda is a government invention. Maybe both. Either way, this conversation is pointless. Your "movement" isn't anarchist, you've said so yourself. End of discussion. Kev 05:06, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Accordingly your assertion is quite unsubstantiated. It sounds good, so you say it. You are not interested in truth -- you are interested only in silencing people whose views you do not like. (b) Even if you were correct, and you are not, I would be most surprised if there were a policy, as you claim, whereby Wiki specifically excludes coverage of 'Internet-based phenomena'. In an age where the Internet is becoming very important indeed, such a policy would be arbitrary and bizarre.

It is about relatively minor phenomena whose evidence for existence is based solely on the internet. And it is essential to weed out crackpots like yo-... er, you know, crackpots. Kev 19:05, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It appears you've been reduced to hurling abuse.

Reduced to it? I'm at my best when hurling abuse at fascists trying to weasel their way into other ideologies. Kev 05:06, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Nazis and Bolsheviks!

From your site: 'There's no longer any left or right. There's the system and the enemies of the system.' (Eduard Limonov). A man who's also responsible for another desecration of ideology "National-Bolshevism". Which seeks to combine Nazism with Communist imagery and base it on a "greater russia". No platform for Nazi filth! For those who wanna find out more about the "National-Anarchist" hero, his party, National Bolshevik Party, has a website here: does the flag ring any bells?--Che y Marijuana 07:01, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

Now calm down, sir! Sure it quotes Limonov, who's a NB. It also links to Hoxha, who was a Stalinist. It also links to Hisb ut-Tahrir, who are radical Islamists. It also links to a page on anarchist communities by mainstream anarchists. And a lot of other things. By your logic, therefore, national-anarchism must be simultaneously fascist, Stalinist, Islamist and anarchist. Clue -- just because site A links to or quotes site B, it does not necessarily mean that site A endorses everything that B says. This is ESPECIALLY true when site A specifically states that it doesn't endorse everything that B says. Some people actually believe in free speech and examining ideas from a lot of sources rather in imposing one dogma on everyone at gunpoint!

And some people also believe in taking tired old attempts to indoctrinate people into neo-fascism and wrap them in a new package so that they look shiny and pretty on the outside. Kev 14:19, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

But is that not what you are doing? You claim to preach anarchism, yet your approach is that of the SS. You censor opposing views, you try to misrepresent them, you hurl abuse at people, you make unfounded allegations. This is the stuff of fascism. We do not try to censor you. We have not deleted anything that you have written. We have not requested 'page protection' (or unprotection). We merely try to put one sentence in an article. But no! This is not to be permitted!

Censorship is the suppresion of information. You want to provide your information? Feel free to create a national-anarchism page and have fun with the WfD people who will eliminate it in a matter of days. That isn't my problem. My problem is that you have chosen to erect this little personal politic on the anarchism page when it is inappropriate to be listed here. Stopping this does not require that I censor you by removing all mention of your website from wikipedia, only that I ensure this page is not directed toward irrelevant tangents. "We have not requested..." lol, you talk like a King. Kev 19:05, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Discussed elsewhere in this section. You are unable to produce any coherent argument as to why the one little sentence is 'inappropriate' and MUST be cen . . . er . . . removed. Moreover, the sheer passion with which you argue suggests that your interest is not one of form but one inspired by political ideology.

hehe, and the numerous links to "National-Bolshevism" and Third Positionist websites, known to support and sympathize with fascists, this is just for the sake of intellectual integrity? *eyes rolling* Kev 16:09, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Answered already. Here we go again: 'It also links to Hisb ut-Tahrir, who are radical Islamists. It also links to a page on anarchist communities by mainstream anarchists. And a lot of other things. By your logic, therefore, national-anarchism must be simultaneously fascist, Stalinist, Islamist and anarchist. Clue -- just because site A links to or quotes site B, it does not necessarily mean that site A endorses everything that B says. This is ESPECIALLY true when site A specifically states that it doesn't endorse everything that B says. Some people actually believe in free speech and examining ideas from a lot of sources rather in imposing one dogma on everyone at gunpoint!'

Strange though, you know, the -overwhelming prevelance- of the nationalist and third position links in comparison with the one or two others. Kev 19:05, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I'd like to see more links to Maoist sites but they don't exist. The Shining Path one disappeared. I'll certainly see if we can get more 'mainstream' anarchist ones up.

Hilarious!

Ha ha, this is funny! I just realized that this is all a misunderstanding! You see, the recent visitors to the article took a wrong turn at their last link and ended up on what they thought was Nazism but they landed on this article! Ha, so you see it's all very humorous, you just forgot to read the title of the article at the top of the page. Nazism is the article these visitors are looking to edit. What a hilarious misunderstanding. --Fatal 21:07, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

An Oxymoron

Nationalist Anarchism seems clearly to be an oxymoron, but then again, I also see Communist Anarchism and Socialist Anarchism as oxymorons, while Anarcho-Capitalism makes perfect sense to me; others clearly are of different mindsets. Dtobias 00:24, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Communist- and Socialist-Anarchism are just voluntary (rather than mandatory) versions of communism and socialism, as I understand it. No one is forcing people to share in Communist- and Socialist-Anarchism, people just do it of their own accord.

Personally, I don't see how "Anarcho-Capitalism" could possibly be anything but an oxymoron. Capitalism, or "capitalarchy" is the same thing as government. The only real difference between a government and a corporation is that a government can put you in prison, send people with guns to come arrest you (maybe "accidentally" kill you), and the whole host of other depraved and twisted actions that the corporations would be committing if the governments weren't standing in their way. From where I stand, a government is just a corporation with enough of a monopoly to control the very lives of its victims ... I mean customers. As it is, a person guilty of nothing more than being too poor to pay a medical bill or not sending the right papers to the right office when selling his vehicle can find himself suddenly having his property, his driver's license (and sometimes therefor his income), his house, and everything else ripped away from him by greedy insurance companies and the like, while those companies kick back massive sums of money to the government that betrays its own people by allowing the capitalists to get away with all that. The vast majority of Anarchists see Capitalarchists as the driving "evil" behind the government, and many like myself see no valid reason to make distinctions between business and government. They're two faces of the same dominating, oppressive, anti-individualist coin, both seeking to suck every last drop of sanguis it can out of those that haven't the money (capitalism) to defend themselves legally (government).

I'd even be willing to bet that there's a sizeable number of Anarchists out there who object to the concept of government because it's too easily corruptible by Capitalism, individual Capitalists (such as the majority of politicians), and Capitalist (monetary) interests, (nefarious) motives, and (vampiric) ideals.

Why should the parasite (CEO, manager, president, mayor, king, pharaoh, whatever) get fat off the worker's blood? --Corvun 00:51, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In an anarcho-capitalist world, there'd be nothing stopping any group of people from trying to organize a community within it along voluntary socialist or communist lines, though the anarcho-capitalists would argue that they were doomed to failure, as socialism / communism simply doesn't work on a scale much larger than a family.

To the Libertarian mindset, capitalism is simply what happens spontaneously in the absence of coercion suppressing "capitalist acts among consenting adults". Hence, anarcho-capitalism is perfectly sensible, at least to the extent anarchism of any sort is sensible; many Libertarians reject anarchism (including anarcho-capitalism) because they feel that anarchy would degenerate into chaos and violence, so the existence of a (very limited) government is a necessary evil. Dtobias 01:44, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You said the word "Libertarian". Anarchism is a critique of capitalism and the state. "Anarcho-Capitalists" choose to use that oxymoron instead of the perfectly apt label of "Libertarian" for some unfathomable reason, but let me try: Either 1) these people are dumb as shit, 2) they're using the "anarcho-" prefix to make themselves sound cooler (because we all know how cool anarchists are, right?), or 3) they're desperate for followers so are trying to market their Austrian school ideas to anarchists in the non-oxymoronic sense. --albamuth 06:25, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'll answer that. You're wrong on all 3 accounts. The reason that there is a seperate term for anarcho-capitalists and libertarians is that not all libertarians are anarchists. Most are minarchists --they favor something that is relatively close to a pure libertarian society rather than a pure one. However, all anarcho-capitalists are anarchists. So the term anarcho-capitalist (or free-market anarchist) is used to differentiate anarchist libertarians from minarchist libertarians. RJII 06:41, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Except no "Anarcho"-Capitalists are Anarchists, as has been stated over and over again, because the idea of Capitalism means accepting the idea of allowing bosses to exist simply because they paid to by the land or machines that workers are producing the goods on. Just as such a preposterous excuse wouldn't work for allowing the Saudi royal family which has bought most of the big property of Saudi Arabia to continue to run it, neither would this excuse be acceptable for allowing the hierarchal structures of boss and worker to continue to exist. "Anarcho"-Capitalism does not exist as a form of Anarchism. The lack of acceptance of this claim by any Anarchists should be enough though, if the ideological arguments aren't to your liking.--Che y Marijuana 07:20, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

Sounds tautological to me... if you first define "anarchists" as excluding anarcho-capitalists, you can then confidently state that none of them accept anarcho-capitalist claims. Circular reasoning at its best. What, then, would you use as the terminology for the subset of libertarians who believe that there should be no government at all, within the context of a free-market capitalist system? Dtobias 11:50, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"[M]any Libertarians reject anarchism (including anarcho-capitalism) because they feel that anarchy would degenerate into chaos and violence, so the existence of a (very limited) government is a necessary evil."

Similarly, the vast majority of Anarchists reject capitalism (including anarcho-capitalism) because they feel that capitalism, whether endorsed by the state (as in the present-day USA) or simply left unopposed (as it would be in "anarcho"-capitalism), would degenerate into a mafia-like organization thriving wholly by its engagement in economic tyranny and financial terrorism. Wait, no, sorry, "would degenerate into" should read: "has since its inception been". --Corvun 07:50, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Should mentions of "Atheist-Catholicism" be in the Catholicism article? I think not. In the ten years I have been actively researching anarchism and anarchists, I've personally met perhaps a hundred anarcho-syndicalists, anarcho-communists, -feminists, -pacifists, -environmentalists, -primitivists, -individualists, -buddhists, -taoists, -christians, -discordians, freethinkers, anarcho-straightedge-vegans, anarchists-without-adjectives, and green-anarchists, but never any "national-anarchists" or "anarcho-capitalists". I've met plenty of libertarians, socialists, communists, trotskyists, marxists, leninists, maoists, fascists, realists, classical liberals, neoliberals, new-federalists, right-wing christians and maybe one stalinist, but never any of these internet-only, self-described "movements". I've talked to people in the ISO, SWP, RCP, CP-USA, Libertarian Party, Green Party, Students Against Sweatshops movement, Free Linden LaRouche! "movement", Democratic and Republican parties, and they all seem to understand that anarchists are against capitalism and the state, that is, if they'd even heard of anarchism in the first place. Why is this discussion even necessary? (sorry for the rant) --albamuth 08:55, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In my own case, the first place I'd heard of anarchism (aside from a few vague historical references to turn-of-the-20th-century radical bomb-throwers) was through the writings of libertarian anarcho-capitalists like Murray Rothbard; it's only much later that I even heard of the existence of leftist, socialist anarchists. My 20-year-old self in 1983 would have been incredulous at any suggestion that anarchism could possibly be associated with socialism or communism instead of capitalism. The world is so much simpler and more logical when you're 20 than when you're 40... Dtobias 11:50, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalism is not the same thing as free-market anarchism

The following was written in support of an erroneous edit:

if anarcho-capitalism isn't the same thing as free-market anarchism then what's the difference?

The difference being that long before there ever was a philosophy called anarcho-capitalism there was a group of people advocating what they considered to be a free market form of anarchism. Those people were called individualists, and were sometimes even refered to as free-market anarchists. While their views were quite diverse, they all decried one or more essential institutions to capitalism as contrary to free trade, including but not limited to wage, usury, rent, and property entitlement. To call anarcho-capitalism free market anarchism is to pretend this pre-existing tradition does not exist, and is usually done by anarcho-capitalists who are either ignorant of history, or purposefully trying to conflate two distinct ideologies in order to make claim to the history of anarchism. And to respond to a rather poor argument made in support of this edit:

Where can I find more information on this claim?

I suggest you try reading some of the first individualist anarchists. If, for example, you read the collection of Benjamin Tucker's essays titled Individual Liberty which can be found here (along with an essay dealing with Tucker's relation to capitalism), you will see that Tucker considered himself a socialist, rejected rent, usury, and non-possessive property, and advocated a free market. In the journal Liberty articles sometimes refered to the individualist anarchist position as free-market anarchism. Kev 03:46, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Everywhere I've seen it described, anarcho-capitalism and free-market anarchism are the same thing.

Then perhaps you should broaden your selection of source material. Kev 03:46, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I hope this is not your own invention. Pure capitalists believe in a "free market" as the common definition of capitalism that they subscribe to says is a system of trade occuring in a free market (just see Merriam-webster for the most common definition). An anarcho-capitalist definitely believes in a free market. As far as I can tell, and as far as I've ever seen, a free-market anarchist and an anarcho-capitalism are exactly the same thing. RJII 01:01, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That anarcho-capitalists believe in a free-market is open to debate. The individualists certainly did not agree that capitalism was a free market, and thus would not agree with anarcho-capitalists on this point. But that isn't up for debate here, as it is irrelevant. What is relevant is that there is a group which existed before anarcho-capitalism and had already advocated what they considered a free market and were already refered to on occasion as free-market anarchists. Kev 03:46, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

the anarcho-capitalism article says it's the same.

The anarcho-capitalism page is a controversial article that has been the subject of many revert wars and still retains a number of blatantly false or misleading statements. It is hardly evidence in itself that a particular wiki-pedia article says something, especially in the case of a page so heavily patrolled by biased partisans. Kev 00:09, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't really using this as evidence. I was pointing it out in hope that you or someone else could correct the anarcho-capitalism article if you think they are different. That is, if you think you can handle it. RJII 01:01, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No, I can't handle it as I will almost certainly be reverted by either Sam Spade or Very Verily the moment I attempt to bring a little NPOV into that article. Furthermore, from what I can tell all the article says at the moment is that anarcho-capitalists are sometimes called free-market anarchists. This statement is a fact, even if the attribution of that title is erroneous, and thus I would not have grounds for removing it. However, I do have grounds for objection to wikipedia referances to anarcho-capitalism and free-market anarchism as one and the same, and to redirects that give such an impression. Kev 03:46, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

They may not be EXACTLY the same thing but they are basically the same. One, individualism does not equal capitalism, and this is a silly assumption. Two, since anarchism is anti-capitalist and the market is a capitalist institution, how could the existance of what a market is be part of anarchism? It can't. If you want "market anarchism", go look on an anti-statist capitalist site which, of course, stubbornly tries to sound rebellious by calling themselves anarchists. In turn, of course, they are the only ones who are calling themselves anarchists. They are essentially the same, and individualist tradition does not point to a market at all. Crimethinc is an example of a current anarcho-individualist organization, and you won't find any capitalist brainwashing on there.

Well, if one thinks of anarchism as the lack of anyone ruling over anyone else, and *if* a free market is a lack of such, then a free-market anarchism is indeed anarchism. The matter of debate, apparently, is whether a free-market does indeed consist of free individuals. Anarcho-capitalists think it does. Mainstream anarchists think it doesn't for various reasons such as the private property issue. I don't want this to turn into a debate whether pure capitalism (in the sense of a free-market) is anarchism or not though, so I'll stop here. RJII 03:20, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry Fatal, but you are simply wrong. I suggest you take a look at the anarchist FAQ. Benjamin Tucker and Lysander Spooner were both individualist anarchists, both rejected capitalism, and both embraced the free market. The market they embraced was substantially different than the market that capitalists embrace, and that might be the source of some of your confusion. Kev 03:46, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You can't reject capitalism and at the same time embrace the free market, if capitalism is defined as a system of trade occuring in a free market ...the common modern definition. Pure capitalism and a free market are the same thing. That's why anarcho-capitalism and free-market anarchism are the same thing. RJII 04:32, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Capitalism and the free market are not the same, in fact they are diametrically opposed. Many early anarchists expoused this belief and recent work by non-linear historians (not specifially anarchist) reflect this analysis. Capitalism is an anti-market force in the anarchist analysis. The debate could be better characterized by the definition of capitalism itself, its origins, and its effects on the free-market system of trade. --albamuth 05:30, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You're referring to the traditional anarchist definition of capitalism, not to mention antiquated, but that's ok because it fits in their framework. The modern definition of capitalism can be found in various places such as the Merriam-Webster dictionary: ": an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market" Now, this is the definition of capitalism that is accepted by anarcho-capitalists, therefore they do not hesitate to refer to themselves interchangeably as either anarcho-capitalists or free-market anarchists. They are the same thing according to their definition of capitalism; an absolutely free market would be "pure capitalism." So there is nothing inaccurate in saying in the article that the terms are used interchangeably by advocates of the philosophy. RJII 18:15, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That is correct. There is nothing inaccurate or inappropriate with explaining in the anarcho-capitalism article that they are sometimes refered to as, and sometimes refer to themselves as, free-market anarchists. But the article already explains this. This does not justify refering to them as free-market anarchists within wikipedia at large, as this is a POV issue. It is bad enough that they call themselves anarcho-capitalists when they reject the anarchist tradition, but there is no justification for wikipedia to endorse their recent tendencies to conflate their tradition with free-market anarchism as well. This is all the more important considering that they are not the only group that considers themselves free-market anarchists, and even -more- important given that their very claim to the title anarchist is rejected by all other anarchists while the individualist anarchists who claim the free-market title do so with far less controversy. Stating that they refer to themselves as free-market anarchists is NPOV, refering to them as free-market anarchists when a group already exists with that title is biased POV pushing. Kev 18:34, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Saying "also known as free-market anarchism" is neutral POV, because it's true. Usually when someone is referring to free-market anarchists they are referring to anarcho-capitalists, and always in anything I've ever read. Maybe you know of someone hi history that calls himself a "free-market anarchist" and says he's against capitalism? It would help if someone could let us know about it. RJII 18:48, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't know why you don't understand this. There are two groups of people who refer to themselves as such, it is highly POV to refer to only one of those groups as free-market anarchists outside of the context of the anarcho-capitalism article, not to mention to have that group be the one who claimed the title afterward and did so with much controversy. Simple, no? As for someone in history you advocated free-market anarchism and called himself a free-market anarchist while rejecting capitalism, I ALREADY GAVE YOU THIS EVIDENCE. Benjamin Tucker, Individual Liberty, the link to which I already supplied. Please stop asking for evidence I have given you already. Kev 19:10, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't see him referring to himself as a "free-market anarchist." RJII 19:16, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If you don't see him refering to the anarchism he advocates as free-market anarchism, then you clearly haven't read the book yet. Try it, it isn't all that painful. Kev 19:19, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

We're talking about the use of the term "free-market anarchism." RJII 19:20, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, and of utmost importance to our discussion is the conflation of the term free-market anarchism with a group that is arguably not anarchist or free-market and only considered itself to be advocating an anarchist free market more than 50 years after the individualists. Kev 19:27, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In that case, if it the semantics of capitalism that is disupted, then there is need to further articulate the anarchist stipulation of "capitalism". It also means stipulating the definition of capitalism for the purpose of the article and dis-ambiguating the Anarcho-Capitalist stipulative definition of such. This can be done in short in the opening paragraphs, plus more so on the Anarchism_and_Capitalism page. --albamuth 19:40, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I totally agree. However, in the past such attempts at disambugation on the anarcho-capitalism and even the anarchism page by myself and several others have met with heavy resistance. I honestly don't know why. Perhaps you can try and see if you can get folks to talk about why they don't want this issue explicated on the page. Kev 19:43, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, if anyone wants to see what capitalism is they can always look at the capitalism article. RJII 02:55, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If something is going to be added to the article about this, it should definitely be stated that anarcho-individualism is not a synonym for what anarchists like Tucker promoted. The term "anarcho-individualist" has multiple meanings, and in recent years has been used to refer to "making the revolution happen in your own life" and is often associated with freeganism, squatting, willful unemployment, etc. Anarcho-individualists of this type don't reject social anarchism at all, but feel that their individual actions can help social anarchism come about and is the best way for them to not participate in capitalism. Not only that, but anarcho-individualist can also mean something different from both other meanings, and that is simply that an anarcho-individualist is just a way of saying that you're an anarchist and you care a great deal about individualism. As far as I'm concerned, words are really meaningless. It doesn't matter if "free-market anarchism" sounds capitalist, all that matters is what is actually is, and I admit that I'm a little rusty on the subject but I did look into it a bit. I'm not saying that anarcho-individualism doesn't mean its old traditional meaning but it does indeed have multiple definitions and this should be addressed. --Fatal 03:12, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you, it would be nice if the individualist anarchist article could be flushed out to reflect this reality. Kev 03:39, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Anarchist Criteria

I propose that criteria for what is considered "anarchist" be added to the article. This being an encyclopedia, it is in part responsible for asserting what definitions are used and for what purpose, like a dictionary. This is needed to weed out all abuses of the word "anarchist" and so forth. National-Anarchism is not anarchist because it places allegiance to a particular Nation (group of people) whereas anarchism is explicitly all-inclusive (egalitarian). Anarcho-capitalism is not anarchist because anarchism requires a critique of capitalism in principle (not the argument that capitalism has been corrupted by the state). Socialism is not anarchist because it is pro-State and anarchism is anti-hierarchical. All these should be obvious but they need to be explicitly stated, it seems. --albamuth 05:18, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Urr... I agree with all except the last. The Anarchist FAQ says all forms of Anarchism are Socialist, and I understand there's a "post-left" trend out there amongst many anarchists that would like to say Socialism is a word used to describe Stalinist ideology only, but it doesn't fly. Communism is a form of Socialism, Anarchism is a form of Socialism, Mutualism is a form of Socialism. Considering the sizable Anarcho-Communist faction, you wouldn't get very far saying Socialism is purely a statist ideology.--Che y Marijuana 07:08, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

True. I suppose I should say Marxist / Leninist / Trotskyist and thus be more specific. Technically anarchism is libertarian socialism. --albamuth 16:58, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What I mean to say is that there is no distinction of "Anarchism" from Socialism or Libertarian unless it includes both. So if anarchism was missing either a critique of the state or a critique of capitalism, it would be called something else, wouldn't it? Anarcha-feminism contains both critiques and extends the analysis to include gender relations and a critique of patriarchy. Anarcho-communists, -syndicalists, green anarchists, and so forth make sure to include BOTH critiques (which are arguable one and the same critiques). Anarcho-capitalism as far as I can tell is indistinguishable from Libertarianism (as in the big L).

Are people just adding the anarcho- prefix and -anarchism suffix to random words nowadays because they think it's cool-sounding?! Or are they trying to mislead anarchists into their cause? Either way, it won't work. --albamuth 17:10, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalists, I think, call themselves that because members of the public keep accusing them of being anarchists, and so they began to pre-empt the criticism by embracing the term. - Nat Kraus e 21:25, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I believe that Rothbard termed his ideas anarcho-capitalist well before anyone accused him of being an anarchist. As to his motivations, probably not appropriate to speculate. Kev 21:58, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion, the criteria for what is considered anarchist is already quite clearly displayed in the article. If one is to make a whole list of things required for anarchism, it will just become repetitive since nearly all the things listed would already have been described before. I still stand by the idea that all of anarchism can be summed up in that it is against hierarchy. I am in no way implying that there isn't more to it, there obviously is. But the simple declaration made at the beginning of the article "the elimination of hierarchy and imposed authority" is very clear to me, and even in debates, that can always been the main point without even referencing anything else. So, I think it's unnecessary to further "dumb it down" for users. The abolition of hierarchy and authority generally covers everything. General understanding: if something does not meet the requirements of that sentence, then it is not anarchist. When it goes deeper than that, THEN it is time to debate about certain issues. The reason all the recent edit wars are rediculous is because they're about ideologies which don't even meet the most basic requirements to be called anarchist. Bring up issues that at least meet this basic definition and then argue! Yeah so in conclusion, I agree with your frustration about people just not getting it and although I might immediately support such a thing, it doesn't seem logical to dumb down an article so that a 5 year old can understand it. In the end, wikipedia is an encyclopedia and encyclopedias don't typically do such things. --Fatal 02:57, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've always thought that anarchism was just the lack of anyone governing anyone else --no one using coercion to preventing another from doing what he would will with all that is his (including his body). The talk of "hierarchy" seems vague and confusing to me. RJII 03:45, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If in your words, all of anarchism can be summed up in that it is against hierarchy (and yes, you say many other things are implied, but for sake of argument...) then on the face of it anarchism would be no different than simple libertarianism (maximum freedom for all, and that's all) and thus the word itself would be redundant. It is important to articulate everything that the philosophy of anarchism implies so that we at least know what we are describing. If being against capitalism is a part of the anarchist anti-hierarichal worldview, then it needs to be explicitly stated and contradictory items removed or clearly presented as contradictory. --albamuth 08:47, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

Page protected as per request on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Please list there again in some time for unprotection. (Note: I am not part of the dispute) -- Chris 73 Talk 05:52, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

I requested page protection and I think it should remain protected until editors agree on a definitive scope and purpose for the article. --albamuth 17:14, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I note that you only requested page protection AFTER you had censored out views with which you disagreed. Such behaviour is cowardly and oppressive in the extreme.

An anon who initially refused to enter into this discussion page when he began inserting his inappropriate external links into the middle of the page is calling Albamuth cowardly? Amazing. Kev 19:11, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE make sure the page is in IT'S CORRECT FORM before it's protected! Last time the article was full of capitalist crap while it was protected! Make sure the same thing doesn't happen again if you are to get it locked. I agree that at this point the article should be locked but in it's its correct form. --Fatal 21:13, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

...instead of being filled with socialist crap as you want it? Dtobias 00:19, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

have put a protected tab at the top of the page, apart from this however a protected page shouldn't be edited at all until the dispute is resolved quercus robur 21:21, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

For better or worse there is no official "correct form" for a wikipedia article. A mod who protects an article is supposed to do it regardless of the version it is on, not revert the article and then protect it. Of course, it is up for debate as to whether or not some mods wait a bit for the revert they prefer ;) Kev 22:02, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'll never understand why people protect pages. Why not let the article remain open, alive, and constantly changing ..dynamic? Seems like a cop-out to me. As if the same arguments won't come up again the future ..dream on. Everything everyone writes here will be eventually wiped out many times over. Write a book if you want something that lasts. RJII 03:11, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've never asked that an article be protected, and if I did it would be a last resort. But I do understand that it can allow a cooling off period and often one or both parties will move on afterward. Kev 03:39, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There aren't any "arguments." From what I can tell it's just an anon vandalizing the page with a statement about a nonexistent and absurd ideology. I was hoping he or she would give up but apparently not. --Tothebarricades.tk 04:51, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it goes deeper than that. The reason I requested protection is not because of this particular vandalism, but because of a deeper concern: If the article does not have a precise scope and purpose then it invites all sorts of anarcho-hangers-on to sprinkle it with whatever oxymoronic clap-trap they want. The purpose of Wikipedia is to be descriptive and not prescriptive--ie it must describe ideas rather than proscribe ideas. I think that the page should be frozen until a specific definition of what is being described can be settled upon. Then debates about whether or not National-Anarchism fits within it will be avoided alltogether. --albamuth 08:41, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That's covered by wikipedia policy. Articles are regularly deleted if they're non-notable, so non-notable things like "nationalist anarchism" should be removed from this page. --Tothebarricades.tk 17:18, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

National 'anarchism'

From the website improperly inserted by anon to propagandize his personal politic: Some communities could be socialistic, others capitalistic, others deeply religious, others anti-religious. This is not, indeed, the ‘total abolition of the state’ but rather the delegation of the functions currently associated with large states to the community or homeland level, together with the freedom to carry out those functions however they wish. What is being abolished is not government but rather supra-community government, imperialistic government, and the imposition of ideology upon unwilling communities (the latter being something that the likes of Bakunin are evidently happy to contemplate). And this, surely, is the great strength of national anarchism (i.e. an anarchism of ‘nations’ or ‘homelands’ or ‘communities’ -- an anarchism that liberates communities from imposed government) rather than the classical anarchism that purports to work at the individual level but, in practice, would not work at all.

So what we have here is the author of this website admitting that this form of "anarchism" is -not- the abolition of the state. We further have this same author rejecting "classical anarchism" as not working at all, i.e. rejecting anarchism itself. Indeed, in other parts of the text the author claims that classical anarchism is not even anarchistic. As such, it could not possibly be more clear that this form of "anarchism" does not follow from anarchist tradition, does not hold common definitions for what anarchism is, and most certainly is not appropriate for an article whose primary concern is to explicate a philosophy that is -undeniably- concerned with the abolition of the state. Whether or not national anarchism deserves its own webpage, given that it would constitute entirely original research and insignificant numbers of subscribers (who in the words of the author are "highly secretive"), and constitutes a recent internet based phenomena, is itself a seperate question. But the question of whether or not it is appropriate to link to on this page is already answered in the words of this individual himself. I will continue to remove any attempts to import this. Kev 02:42, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This really is silly. Seriously, is this your idea of a joke? I'm waiting for the next message to be "YHBT YHL HAND." I'd also like to know if this user who uses the word "censor" every time the wind blows has any other users that agree with what he would have the article look like. --Fatal 03:01, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Can we archive the above?

Seriously. The arguments above here are good and all, but they established the conflict and below this line we're trying to resolve it. (I know I've been posting a lot, adding to the mess--no job for the last three weeks) I bet the server admins hate us. Do I hear a second? --albamuth 09:00, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)