Wikipedia

Talk:Anarchism/Archive 20

< Talk:Anarchism
Latest comment: 19 years ago by Der Eberswalder in topic Kropotkin's definition of "Anarchism"
Archive 15←Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22→Archive 25

Open tasks

Open Tasks for Anarchism (Edit this list)
Requested
Articles		 Editing
& Formatting		 Expansion Cross-reference Discussions
of Importance		 Merges

Talk archives

If you want to talk about Anarcho-Capitalism (A-C), make sure you take a look at past discussions about it. Same goes for other controversial topics.--albamuth 21:33, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Timeline

For your perusal and edification:

Anarchism Timeline
1548 Why do people
submit to rulers?		 Étienne de la Boétie A Discourse on Voluntary Servitude
1756 First anarchist essay. Edmund Burke A Vindication of Natural Society
1793 First anarchist treatise. William Godwin An Enquiry Concerning Political Justice
1840 First self-described anarchist. Pierre Proudhon What is Property?
1849 First anarcho-capitalist. Gustave de Molinari The Production of Security
1863 First individualist anarchist. Josiah Warren True Civilization
1864 First hot dog. Some guy in Germany.
 
1866 First anarcho-socialist. Michael Bakunin Revolutionary Catechism
1886 Individualist anarchist publisher. Benjamin Tucker State Socialism and Anarchism: How far they agree, & wherein they differ
1902 First anarcho-communist. Peter Kropotkin Mutual Aid
Clever attempt, but obviously original research - Gustave de Molinari did not use the term anarcho-capitalism, you're applying that label yourself. There are pre-Socratic and Chinese daoist philosophers that share things in common with anarchist thinkers, if we're going to anarchronistically label people. If we include them, anarchism predates anarcho-capitalism by over 2,000 years. --Tothebarricades 20:42, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

I keep on forgetting that "original research" is a perjorative at Wiki. LOL! Actually, there was no real research involved. It's all standard info anyone can find on the internet from various sources. If you are familiar with the definition of anarcho-capitalism, then you know that Molinari definitely was one. (What he called his sytem is irrelevant.)

Here's a more controversial claim: Frederic Bastiat (Molinari's mentor) was an anarchco-capitalist. This is a little dicier since Fred didn't use the terms "state" or "government" like we do today. He did write about "the law," which he defined to be "the collective organization of the individual right to [self] defense." Here's what he had to say:

"The Proper Function of the Law

"And, in all sincerity, can anything more than the absence of plunder be required of the law? Can the law-which necessarily requires the use of force-rationally be used for anything except protecting the rights of everyone? I defy anyone to extend it beyond this purpose without perverting it and, consequently, turning might against right. This is the most fatal and most illogical social perversion that can possibly be imagined. It must be admitted that the true solution-so long searched for in the area of social relationships-is contained in these simple words: Law is organized justice. Now this must be said: When justice is organized by law-that is, by force-this excludes the idea of using law (force) to organize any human activity whatever, whether it be labor, charity, agriculture, commerce, industry, education, art, or religion. The organizing by law of any one of these would inevitably destroy the essential organization-justice. For truly, how can we imagine force being used against the liberty of citizens without it also being used against justice, and thus acting against its proper purpose?" - Frederic Bastiat, "The Law"

--Hogeye 21:25, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand the concept of "original research." See: Wikipedia: No Original Research. If I went and called Plato an Arab Nationalist or something, that would be original research. --Tothebarricades 21:37, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
I assure you that calling Molinari an anarcho-capitalist is no "untested theory or idea."
It is an interpretation, not a fact. What is more, it isn't even a very well grounded interpretation, it is not Molinari's own words or position, but rather a controversial redefining of both his views and those of anarchists to ensure agreement. As such, there are plenty of grounds to dispute it. Kev 00:56, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Wow!!!!!!!! An Excel table!!!! I'm convinced!! For your information, true anarchists have existed all throughout history. Read something on the "Free Spirit" movement from medieval times. --Fatal 23:08, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Right. I'll change the title to "Timeline of Modern Anarchism" (and start with Burke) before I insert it into an article. --Hogeye 23:56, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Your timeline will not stand like that. Molinari is no more an anarcho-capitalist than Lao-Tzu was an anarchist, because anarcho-capitalism did not exist in Molinari's time. Molinari was what he was considered at the time and is still most often considered today, an anti-state liberal. Kev 00:29, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Molinari was an anarchist and a capitalist, ergo an anarcho-capitalist. What he called himself, and what people called him in his time, are both irrelevant. --Hogeye 00:38, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
lol, you include him in the timeline to try to claim a longer tradition to anarcho-capitalism than is actually has. And your evidence? That anarcho-capitalists would consider him an anarchist according to their selective definition of anarchism. In other words, as evidence for your conjecture, you supply the fact that people believe your conjecture. Again, original research, and far more, illogical research at that. Kev 00:41, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"What he called himself, and what people called him in his time, are both irrelevant." - No, it's the only thing that's relevant. Wikipedia is not a place to insert novel opinions about the scope of anarcho-capitalism. No sort of rewriting of history changes the fact that it's an obscure and isolated sect. --Tothebarricades 01:14, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
Yes, my evidence is the definition of anarchism. Anyone who knows the (standard, etymological) definition of anarchism would agree. If you go by a non-standard definition, that's not my problem. The definition of "anarchism" can be found in any dictionary - hardly a novel opinion,TTB. --Hogeye 01:19, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
If we're going by dictionary definitions (which we aren't): Didn't someone provide a definition from the OED (i.e. the most respected english dictionary) that included something about a cooperative society? And your definition is about as non-standard as you can get, since 99 out of 100 people would say that anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron. As a reductio ad absurdum: If we're going by etymology, fascism is all about bundles of rods; if we go by a selective definition, the current administration could be called fascist - "...suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism." (note also that more people make the latter argument than the one that anarcho-capitalism is anarchist - yet nowhere on the Bush article is he called a fascist) --Tothebarricades 01:28, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)


TTB> "Didn't someone provide a definition from the OED (i.e. the most respected english dictionary) that included something about a cooperative society?"
Yes, and I pointed out that an anarcho-capitalist society is a cooperative society. We want to cooperate via the natural harmony of the market. We want voluntary cooperation through free trade. Obviously. --Hogeye 02:48, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
By this standard all societies, by definition, are cooperative. Why then, does anarcho-capitalism fit this definition more so than any other society? Kev 03:17, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Kev> "By this standard all societies, by definition, are cooperative."
All societies have trade unhampered by State or private aggression? Not in this world. I think you're living in Nozick's best of all possible worlds. --Hogeye 03:43, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Now you are just being silly. The means by which you seek to cooperate are not the essential part of your claim to be a cooperative society, because you could fill that part in with any old BS you want (as, in fact, you did). It is rather the fact that you are claiming to be a cooperative society that is the focus of your claim itself, because in doing so you are implicitly importing a very weak definition for a cooperative society (a society in which some people cooperate in some instances). But societies, by definition, are cooperative. Therefore, when anarchism defines itself as seeking a cooperative society, it must mean something more than that some people cooperate in some instances. What do you suppose it means? More to the point, who are you to decide for everyone else that anarcho-capitalism fits the bill, given that most people who considered themselves anarchists for most of history would have readily disagreed? The fact is that anarcho-capitalism does fit the definition, as long as we continuously re-evaluate what it means, but then again so does -any- philosophy that claims to fit the definition. I can use your exact same style of arguments to prove, at least to the degree that you have for anarcho-capitalism, that anarcho-fascism is indeed a form of anarchism. If I did so, would you believe me, or assume that I'm full of shit? If you believe me, then please start editing this article to allow for any and all bullshit claims. If you don't, then don't expect me or anyone else to believe you. Kev 05:30, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Kev> "when anarchism defines itself as seeking a cooperative society, it must mean something more than that some people cooperate in some instances."
Right. It means that the society is stateless. For anarcho-capitalism, it means also that people generally hold to the voluntary harmony of sticky property and the market; for anarcho-socialism it means also that pople generally hold to the alleged harmony of possession property and peer-pressure allocation of capital.
People do not cooperate in a state? Of course they do, you are redefining all words at this point to reach your pre-concieved conclusion. And guess what? Property is not voluntary for non-propertarians. Kev 19:56, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Kev> "... anarcho-fascism is indeed a form of anarchism."
Fascism, by definition, is not stateless. Ergo not anarchism. Get a grip, dude. --Hogeye 16:28, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'm afraid you are the one who has lost his grip, in no small part because you are purposefully quoting me out of context. You know as well as I do that I am not arguing that anarcho-fascism is a form of anarchism. Rather, I am arguing that anyone can bend words to mean anything, just as you have done. A fascist could argue that there is no rulership in their society, that everyone will "voluntarily" follow the glorious leader, just as you argue that everyone will "voluntarily" submit to property enforcement. In both cases the basic meaning and history of anarchism is thrown aside in favor of new interpretations that allow you to pretend as though anarchism always allowed for capitalism or fascism, when clearly it did not. Kev 19:56, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually, what Molinari called himself is indeed irrelevant if he was later on called anarcho-capitalist by many people (serious ones). The relevance of calling him that is something for Hogeye or others to prove - personally I have no idea who Molinari actually was. Just an example from another field: Kierkegaard is nowadays considered the first existentialist, because he set the foundations for it. However, he himself never used the word existentialism. Luis rib 18:30, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Stirners the Ego and Its Own' came out I believe in 1842, making him the first notable Individualist, not Warren.

Mmm, hotdogs. (Look at 1842...) --Psyk0 19:08, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Time for Another Survey?

So perhaps we should conduct another survey, and this time announce it on the current surveys page to get some responses from people who aren't heavily involved in editing this article. So respond below with your ideas for questions that aren't loaded. Then maybe we can 'agree on the questions the survey will pose. (my suggestions follow) --albamuth 04:06, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • What is Anarchism?
  • Are anarchists necessarily opposed to both State and Capitalism?
  • Is Anarcho-Capitalism part of the anarchist movement?
  • Are Libertarians also "anarchist"?

Suggestions from RJII

  • Is individualist anarchism a form of anarchism?
  • Is anarchism one movement or a set of movements with differing, and sometimes opposing, positions?

RJII 04:20, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)


You want to ask these questions to, like, Republicans and Democrats and (virtual) assholes off the street??? --Hogeye 05:14, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Well, obviously allowing anarchists w intense POV's to simply define and write about themselves w/o outside interferance isn't very encyclopedic, is it? Do people let Christians alone to write the Jesus page, or do they create a big freaking fiasco about AD/BC vrs. CE/BCE? Sam Spade 06:55, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
No, but this is an entirely separate issue from anarchist/non-anarchist POV, involving whether anarcho-capitalism is a large or a small movement compared to those forms of anarchy that oppose capitalism. If you think the article is biased towards anarchy as a whole, then there should be more non-anarchist input. Otherwise, though, it's a survey of anarchists that is necessary, not one of wikipedians in general. 192.152.5.250 15:57, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
No, the issue isn't "whether anarcho-capitalism is a large or a small movement." The issue is "How is anarchism defined?" Or, "Should a larger movement simply define a rival movement out of existence?" In particular, whether "anti-capitalist" is part of the definition of an-archy - 'without ruler.' From the Greeks onward, archy was considered to mean 'political rule.' The socialist partisans want to redefine 'archy' to mean something else, with their sole excuse that it was popular to do so among some circles in the 19th century. --Hogeye 16:36, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
No one is defining anarcho-capitalism out of existence, the presence of its alternate definition of anarchism is ensured so long as the disambiguation disclaimer is present. BTW hogeye, anarchism is the absence of rulership, I don't see socialists arguing otherwise, they merely recognize that capital enforcement is a form of rulership. Just because you choose to look the other way and pretend that it is not, that does not mean the definition on this page should change to suit your personal political tastes. Kev 19:52, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Individualist anarchists have no opposition to "capital enforcement." Tucker advocated private "defense associations" to defend private property. Does that make them not anarchists? RJII 20:40, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Tucker and other individualists did have opposition to capital enforcement as it is advocated by acs, because they had a problem with property as it is advocated by acs. The enforcement they did not have a problem with is private possession, their own prefered form of private property. Kev 23:13, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I think the biggest issue is: should we base the content of an article based on a subjective interpretation of etymology rather than historical reality? Should we present a distorted picture of something (regardless of your opinion on AC, it is distorted to present it as a form of anarchism on the same level as others, since so many would vehemently disagree) to placate a small minority viewpoint? What our opinions on anarcho-capitalism are really shouldn't reflect in the content of the article; the only way to achieve balance and neutrality is to discuss this issue on pragmatic, encyclopedaic grounds. The survey and our attempts at resolution should be in this spirit. --Tothebarricades 20:02, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
"Should we base the content of an article on a subjective interpretation of etymology rather than historical reality?"
LOL! Nice use of connotation there, dude. Of course, it reads better the other way:
Should we base the content of an article on a subjective interpretation of history rather than the etymological reality? --Hogeye 20:51, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
We can't base the article - or any article - on etymology. Anarcho-capitalism, etymology and ideology aside, is the odd man out here and should be treated as such. I mean, do you, as an anarcho-capitalist, have any contacts with anarchist groups? Do you coordinate action with anarchists? Do you even talk to them? I'm sure the answer is no on all counts - they either denounce you or don't even know you exist. Primitivists, syndicalists, anarcha-feminists, etc. often work together despite some conflicting views. AC is a pariah in all regards, one of negligible influence both globally and within the anarchist milieu. Actually, it's probably more noteworthy outside rather than inside said milieu! Molinari doesn't matter, greek word origins don't matter - they can be discussed in the anarcho-capitalism article, which mind you we will give the reader visible direction to. Since only anarcho-capitalists would treat it as an integral part of anarchist theory, it is not neutral to compare anarcho-capitalism to anarchism outside of the "schools" section and furthermore it is original research. --Tothebarricades 21:06, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
On a side note, you say, Primitivists, syndicalists, anarcha-feminists, etc. often work together despite some conflicting views; they work together because their views are not fundamentally conflicting, I would just like to point that out. Anarcho-capitalism conflicts with every other "school" of anarchism, and without some complicated, mitigating arguments, would be completely self-contradictory. --albamuth 05:33, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Well, yeah - anarcho-capitalism conflicts on a very elementary level, whereas the others differ more on tactics and vision. --Tothebarricades 17:41, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
You don't consider individualists anarchists favoring private property while the collectivist anarchists oppose it as "fundamentally conflicting"? The individualists sure think it is. RJII 19:40, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why is Anarcho-capitalism still being pushed? It has clearly found it's correct place within Libertarianism - check the L template. - 22:19, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Because it's a type of anarchism. RJII 23:37, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It's both a type of anarchism and a type of libertarianism, just like a porpoise is both a type of mammal and a type of sea creature. *Dan* 02:30, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
It's a type of anarchism in the way a porpoise is a kind of dog. Grace Note 03:54, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Meaning of Capitalism?

Let's make this clear: anarchism is the philosophy that a decentralized social system can replace hierarchical power structures and the economic systems that lead to said structures. A capitalist economic system without states or centralized power may be said to be in "anarchy," but there's no intent of social harmony or philosophy behind it. All the anarchist writers propose ideologies that will lead to stateless, nonhierarchical societies. 50/60 yrs ago some writers (eg. Rothbard) say that their stipulative form of capitalism sans State will lead to... something? None of the philosophical, egalitarian ideals are appealed to, simply that "people should look after themselves, so may the best person dominate" and somehow we are expected to fit this train of thought into a philosophical tradition that has overwhelmingly appealed to the notion of a just society as its prime motivation? WHAT? The belief in private property rights is at the core of this issue, which on the surface seems like a semantic debate on what capitalism is. The idea of ownership, the notion of materialistic virtue lies at the crux of what we define as anarchistic or not. The anarchists are anti-material. Capitalism is materialistic. How can you hyphenate those words and attempt to make sense without stipulating special definitions? Many philosophers, including ones I admire a great deal, will create terms without any regard for who common people will interpret them; terms that can only apply within the contect of the book they are writing. For example, Bertrand Russell's "logical fiction" or Deleuze & Guattari's "pathological fascism" or "body without organs." In that sense, Rothbard's characterization of objective materialists as "anarcho capitalists" cannot be taken out of context. What is the context. then? Certainly objective materialism (from Ayn Rand) is not a "splinter ideology" from anarchism--and perhaps calling an anarchy of free enterprise (without gov't oversight) may constitute an "capitalist anarchy," but to use the term anarchist implies more than merely the absence of power--it implies a long history of social movements that people have come to understand as a radical opposition to centralized power and a fundamental conclusion that systems that facilitate the status quo (capitalism) must be fought against. A robotic, literal translation of "anarchism" is simply naive. --albamuth 05:22, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Then, given that individualist anarchists, such as Benjamin Tucker and Lysander Spooner, advocate private property (including the means of production), as well as advocate private defense associations and courts to protect these properties, am I correct to conclude that you think they're not anarchists? They've been around as long as the left anarchists. RJII 06:49, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Tucker and Spooner are all for private property and free markets, but they are still against capitalism. Their ideas are aimed at achieving a free and just society, the same as other anarchists. (and if you insist on using the term "left-anarchist," then maybe we should start calling anarcho-capitalists "materialist-nihilists" since they don't care about anything but making money) --albamuth 14:04, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It sounds like your definition of the distinction between a "capitalist" and a "socialist" is based solely on the personality and character of the people in question, rather than on any objective facts about what they actually do in the real world; somebody can favor private property and free markets, and even put this into practice by starting a business, raising capital, and hiring workers (as Spooner did), but still be "anti-capitalist" because he mouths the right slogans about favoring a "free and just society". So I guess Bill Gates can be an anti-capitalist socialist too, without giving up one cent of his wealth, if he only says the right things about what sort of society he supposedly favors. Now, unfortunately for your definition, anarcho-capitalists and libertarian minarchists also claim they're supporting a "free and just society". Go try to find somebody, of any political persuasion, who claims to be supporting an "oppressive and unjust society". Outside the comic books and Saturday morning kids' TV shows, you seldom find villains so honest about their villainy. But I guess the most important factor is that capitalists "don't care about anything but making money" -- so, then, I guess anybody who does have values other than moneymaking is, by your definition, not a capitalist. Pretty much anybody who edits on Wikipedia, then, would fit the anti-capitalist definition, since it involves putting in work with no pay, requiring motives other than the purely avaricious (which might range from ego-tripping, to philosophical soapboxing, to an altruistic desire to be helpful in the project). *Dan* 18:34, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
Let me get this straight. You say that "Tucker and Spooner are all for private property and free markets, but they are still against capitalism." Now let's look at the definition of capitalism from the Merriam-Webster Unabridged Dictionary: " an economic system characterized by private or corporation ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision rather than by state control, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly in a free market." Just thought I'd throw that out for a laugh. RJII 19:55, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Again you miss the point, both of you. Let me refer you to this collection of [Tucker's writings]. Especially [this essay on the abolition of interest and usury]. Tucker, Spooner, and the other editors of Liberty were against capitalism very, very clearly. In the essay [Rent], Tucker defends the ideas of Proudhon. Anarcho-capitalists often cite "individualist anarchism" as their transitional/halfway point to anarcho-capitalism, but often neglect to mention that "individual anarchists," or Boston Anarchism as it was known in the day, was/is every bit as anti-capitalist as what objective-materialists consider "left-anarchism." Before you accuse me of pointing you at a "left-anarchist-biased" website, let me point out that the site puts Rothbard in its ranks of "20th Century Anarchists." --albamuth 04:53, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I know that the 19th century individualists were opposed to capitalism. That's why I said I was just throwing that out for laughs, since technically, support of the private ownership of the means of production and a free market IS, by basic definition, capitalism. But, yes, what they opposed about capitalism was profiting from interest, labor, and rent. They thought this was only made possible by government-backed monopoly on banking and currency, and titles to unused land. But, above all they respected private contract, so they opposed intervening in the contracts of others, even if they included profit arrangements. Anarcho-capitalists just evolved a bit from this position. Where the original individualists favored private ownership of the means of production but opposed titles to unused land, anarcho-capitalists allow titles to unused land. And, while the individualists saw contracts as the ultimate law, even if it included profiting, thought they believed it to be exploitative, the anarcho-capitalists have the same respect for contract but disagree that profit is exploitative. But the 19th century individualists were profoundly different in ideology from the communist anarchists, and really despised their philosophy. But, yet, both are anarchists. Communist anarchists may despise the economic philosophy of the 19th century individualists, in reciprocation, but that doesn't mean that these individualists are not anarchists. Likewise, the communists may despise the anarcho-capitalist philosophy, but that doesn't make them not anarchists. This article has so far been controlled by the economic collectivist anarchists. That's going to change. Individualist anarchism will be included as a school of anarchism, and anarcho-capitalism will as well by the same basic reasoning. And the flawed notion that one has to oppose capitalism to be an anarchist is going to bite the dust. What has been the case here so far is that a bunch of uneducated collectivist anarchists who had no clue about individualists anarchism and its opposition to them even existed have been in control of the article. Those days are quickly coming to a close. RJII 05:17, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Individualist anarchism will be included as a school of anarchism, and anarcho-capitalism will as well by the same basic reasoning At this point nobody is pushing for exclusion of those two ideas, because the last survey we did showed that we must at least include them. However, the point of contention is whether or not to show anarchism as:
* A dichotomy of anarcho-socialist/communist/syndicalists and anarcho-individualists/capitalists
* A broad ideology that primarily opposes the State and Capitalism, with many different schools of thought, including some (A-C) that push the theoretical envelope of anarchism.
So you see, I am not--that is, I am no longer--pushing for the total exclusion of Anarcho-Capitalism from the article, since despite the many objections A-C has so many stipulative definitions attached to it that it might as well not use the word "capitalism", but I take issue with "bigging up" one faction of anarchism to make it seem to be nearly half of the entire movement, as I would with anarcho-communism, or situationists, or whomever. There must be a basic understanding of anarchism (as if we are to define ice cream) to which many different flavors exist (though A-C is more like sherbet, heheh). --albamuth 17:17, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Subjectivity

Wow! I just noticed that, in the descriptions of schools of anarchism in the protected article, they've already eliminated Individualist Anarchism. But there's plenty of space for pop fads like "small-A anarchism" and "post-left anarchism." --Hogeye 08:30, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Who is "they"? I'd never heard of small-A anarchism but the post-left thing is pretty important. And RJ, I don't really understand how you can equate the individualist anarchists with the anarcho-capitalists, it doesn't really make sense if you know their ideas. They weren't as radical as most other anarchists but that doesn't make them supporters of capitalism. Are you perhaps mistakenly thinking that all other anarchists are opposed to individualism? This is obviously not the case. All anarchists are individualists. --Tothebarricades 17:39, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
I don't equate the 19th century individualist anarchists with anarcho-capitalists. They're two different schools of anarchist thought. And, no, all anarchists are not individualists --some are individualist anarchists, most are collectivist anarchists Collectivist-Anarchism (or "left anarchists" if you will). By definition, an anarchist who favors collective ownership as opposed to private property is not an individualist, but a collectivist. And, yes, the 19th century individualist anarchists opposed capitalism, but so what? Anarcho-capitalist, a modern form of individualist anarchism, favors capitalism. My point is that anarchism is not a "movement" but a set of different movements, some with opposing ideologies. The 19th century individualist anarchists were vehemently opposed to the collectivist anarchists, such as the anarcho-communists. Benjamin Tucker, even makes the claim that the anarcho-communists are not real anarchists. Does the fact that the anarcho-communists oppose private property mean that they're not anarchists? Of course not. Tucker is just being a baby. Likewise collectivst anarchists that say that anarcho-capitalism is not anarchism beause it supports capitalism are being babies. The fact is, they're all forms of anarchism. There only unifying theme in anarchism ..the only prerequisite of being an anarchist is that you oppose what all of what you believe to be governmental force and favor a society of individuals interacting on a voluntary basis. All of these schools, including anarcho-capitalism, believe their philosophy is consistent with this. It's not for you to make a subjective judgement otherwise if this article is to be objective (or "NPOV"). RJII 19:23, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Any judgment on what is or is not anarchism is subjective. You can't escape that. It just so happens that your subjective interpretation is unusual, and it's hardly neutral to litter an article with information based on bizarre interpretations that most people don't agree with. This is a wikipedia universal, as you know. There is absolutely nothing, nothing, to link anarcho-capitalism to anarchism except for that seven letter prefix and a basic opposition to government; the latter is shared by many non-anarchists, including right-wing libertarian capitalists, with whom anarcho-capitalists share more in common. No connection other than etymology should be pretty good grounds to direct the reader to a different page containing relevant information, and is the only neutral - and the only accurate - course. As for my comment on individualism, yes, all anarchists are individualists by definition - by that I mean they favor individual freedom and autonomy. Individualism and capitalism are not synonymous, despite right wing attempts to make them so. --Tothebarricades 20:34, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

Break up the article (it's too long)

Once the current protection regime is over I propose that the article be made a lot smaller and new articles based on the various sections be created. I started this before the current flare up with Major conflicts within anarchist thought, however the page I made is now not linked. This is a project which I hope to see you all be interested in :).--harrismw 01:56, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • As a disinterested party, I like this idea. Splitting up such a heavily-disputed topic confines the edit wars to only the parts in dispute. It also splits up the discussion to keep it more on-topic. Once the disputes get resolved (if ever), I'd want to put stubs of all the sub-articles in the main one, much like the articles for other major topics. --Davidstrauss 00:03, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Meta-Aggression

Here's a message I wrote to a correspondent on another forum (anti-state.com). I reproduce it here because I discuss some of the same issues we've discussed here, and I critique a type of argument repeatedly seen here.

TO> "Either people are allowed to voluntarily trade their goods and services, or they are not.
Either people are allowed to own the resources which they have homesteaded, or they are not.
Failure to abide by either of the above two principles would constitute a massive aggression -
a massive aggression which would require a state to institute society-wide."

I disagree with the very last part about "requiring a state." It is conceivable that such a society could fail to abide by those principles due to, e.g., informal mobs of socialists. Not every aggressor is a State. So even if your whole line of argument is sound, that does not show that anarcho-socialists are statists. It shows only that they favor aggression.

But there is another issue I'd like to offer for your consideration. That is: the relationship between property and aggression. Isn't it true that what one calls aggression depends on one's theory of property? It seems to me that your argument is a classic tuquoque - the exact same tuquoque that certain anarcho-socialists use at Wiki to "prove" that capitalism is statist. Let me outline the argument:

  • 1. According to property system A, action X is aggressive.
  • 2. Property system B would allow X.
  • Therefore, system B supports aggression.

In your argument, A is the sticky capitalist property system, B is a Bakunite socialist property system, and X is (say) expropriating a capital good from an absentee owner.

In the ansoc argument on Wiki, A is the socialist system, B the capitalist system, and X is (say) repossessing a capital good after the (former) owner has been absent.

Something should worry us here, since the argument is equally valid for both, and is indeed symmetrical. Now it could be that both are correct, and so are the analogous arguments for Georgists and commies and pro-IPers, and anti-IPers, and so on. If they are all correct, then the only non-aggressive anarchists are the anarcho-primitivists - the only group that (arguably) opposes property of any type.

I propose that we are examining the wrong concept, or perhaps more precise, we are examining a concept too narrowly. That concept is "aggression." Everyone is using "aggression" in their own partisan way. Usually this is just fine and perfectly valid. But in the present context, the very question under discussion pertains to what aggression is. If everyone uses a different meaning of aggression, we don't get anywhere, and any semblence of logic is trashed by equivocation.

Let me try to get us out of this difficulty by making up a new word: meta-aggression. Normal aggression is dependent on a property system. We saw that already. Is there a way we can formulate a notion of aggression which encompasses all property systems? Or at least is not biased toward any particular property system? Let me give it a shot:

meta-aggression - forcing a property system on people who do not consent to that system of property.

Examples: Propertarians forcing indigenous tribal peoples to subdivide and "privatize" their traditional hunting grounds. A syndicalist group using force to take over a capitalist factory. A Georgist municipality taking over adjacent privately held farmland by emminent domain. A capitalist buying land from a government and then running off the squatters living there.

Before going on, let me make it clear that I am not saying that one property system is as good as another. You know me well enough to know that I think sticky property is almost always more moral (and profitable) than other forms. All I'm saying is that, whatever the truth of the matter, in the real world people will disagree, and we have to face that fact and act accordingly.

It seems to me, when considering the ramifications of panarchy as we are doing, we have to 'step back' and use the more general notion - meta-aggression. Panarchy is stable to the extent that there is a relatively low amount of meta-aggression. If firms don't attack communes, if mutuals don't attack syndicates, and so on, that's good panarchy.

How would such a world work, and what would it look like? I can only speculate. I think that local tradition, custom, and in short, the status quo would play a major role. If X is currently owned qua sticky property, then OTBE it should stay sticky property. Of course, if the owner gifts it to a commune or a Georgist municipality, then the property system rules change. Similarly, if a collectivist utopian community owns X qua usufruct property, then OTBE it should stay usufruct. Of course, if the community sells it off to a propertarian person or firm, the status changes. This is basically how the more libertarian American colonists did it. They bought land from the tribal owners, changing the status from 'communal hunting grounds' to 'private farm.'

Back to those damn anarcho-socialists: I will respect their communal holdings. I expect them to respect my private holdings. As long as they respect my property (respect as in 'not abrogate'; they can criticise it all they want) I will consider them non-aggressive. As long as they don't set up a State, I will consider them anarchists. But meta-non-aggression is the best we can hope for in relations between diverse communities, given the reality that there exist vastly different opinions about property. --Hogeye 04:37, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Blah blah blah. Yeah, go ahead and post your manifesto. It doesn't have relevance to this article. We're going for accuracy here, not your personal, stipulative definition of anarchism or capitalism. --albamuth 04:53, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oh, no! I would never post my manifesto here. For that, you have to look here. --Hogeye 05:06, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
You have just proven to me and the other editors that you are only here to push your personal agenda, and not attempt to represent truth. --albamuth 05:27, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I think that was already pretty clear :P --Tothebarricades 17:43, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
Blah blah blah. How dare you present a cogent presentation on why ancaps are anarchists and ansocs are agressors- when it obviously bears no relevance to this anarchism topic. We dont need no logic and reason in here as can be shown by a response of blah blah blah instead of a thoughtful carefully constructed reponse. Its a whole lot easier to credit your response as posting your "manifesto" then it is to try and answer your points.CosmicV 9:37, Jun 13, 2005
Exactly. It is irrelevant what he/she or anyone can argue about on a theoretical level -- it constitutes orginial research. This is not a forum for ideological hairsplitting and the endless refinement of dogma. The relevant arguments are about evidence, history, semantics, and the article itself. --albamuth 04:52, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia Self-Consistency Argument

Usage of terms such as capitalism, individual anarchism, and so forth need to be consistent with what other articles define them as. So let's take a moment to see what the other articles say:

  • The anti-capitalism article says about anarchism: Anarchism argues for total abolition of both the state and the capitalist economy, as well as all other forms of coercive hierarchy.
  • The capitalism article readily admits that there are different definitions of capitalism but goes on to say: In common usage it refers to an economic system in which all or most of the means of production are privately owned and operated for profit, and where investments, production, distribution, income, and prices are determined largely through the operation of a "free market" rather than by centralized state control (as in a command economy).
  • The individualist anarchism article says: Anarcho-socialists often note that Spooner, Tucker, and Stirner all rejected some principles of capitalism, while anarcho-capitalists observe that they also rejected some principles of socialism, particularly collective ownership. Tucker referred to himself as a socialist, defining it as "the claim that labor should be put in possession of its own".

Note that the third article, on individualist anarchism, says that the individualists rejected some notions of socialism, and some principles of capitalism. However, if capitalism is an economic system in which private ownership and operation of property is done for profit, then is it not accurate to say that the individualists were anti-capitalist? For the record, I have had no hand in editing any of those three articles at all. --albamuth 05:27, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's well known that the 19th century individualist anarchists opposed capitalism (capitalism being a complete set of characteristics). But what's the importance of that? Anarcho-capitalism, which is a modern form of individualist anarchism, doesn't oppose capitalism. Just because those anarchists oppose capitalism it means you have to oppose capitalism to be an anarchist? Where is the logic in that? Anarcho-communism, anarcho-socialism, and anarcho-syndicalism oppose private ownership of capital. Does that make individualist anarchists not anarchists because they support it? All anarchism does not embrace collectivist economics. Where is the absurd idea that you have to oppose capitalism to be an anarchist coming from? All anarchism does not embrace collectivist economics. Benjamin Tucker, the 19th century individualist anarchist, even went so far as to say that those who oppose private property are not anarchists. We could listen to him and refuse to allow all the anti-private-property schools of thought to be listed as anarchism. That would be just as arbitrary as doing the same for a school that favors capitalism. Individualist anarchism is in its own class, just as anarcho-capitalism is. But, that doesn't make them not anarchism. Opposition to private property doesn't make one an anarchist any more than opposing capitalism makes one an anarchist. RJII 05:55, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
All anarchism does not embrace collectivist economics. Where is the absurd idea that you have to oppose capitalism to be an anarchist coming from? Collectivist economics -- what do you mean by that term? My point is that opposition to the system of capitalism does not hinge on whether or not a person supports collective property. Rather, as the capitalism article clearly states, it is a system of economics in which the means of production are privately owned and operated for profit. The crucial point here is that it is done for profit, with no other purpose in mind (hence my statement earlier that capitalists are only interested in making money). If instead you are referring to an ideology of economics in relation to the Statem (that some would say leads to a "better" society), then perhaps you are talking about classical liberalism (to which Rothbard is clearly opposed). --albamuth 17:03, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
What do you think private property is? It's everything that is not collective (or community) property and that is not government property. I'm not saying that the 19th century individualist anarchists were capitalists, but like capitalists, they rejected the idea of collective property, in favor of private property. (Benjamin Tucker: "That there is an entity known as the community which is the rightful owner of all land, Anarchists deny. I . . . maintain that ‘the community’ is a non-entity, that it has no existence, and is simply a combination of individuals having no prerogatives beyond those of the individuals themselves.”) Tucker's position was that those who opposed private property, such as anarcho-communists, were not anarchists. The same type of thing is being done with a rejection of anarcho-capitalism, by the collectivists. But, if this article is to be NPOV, then it has to rise above these disputes. The common definition of anarchism says nothing of private property and nothing of capitalism (Merriam-Webster: "a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups.") This article should not be POV. It should not take Tucker's position that you have to support private property to be included as a type of anarchism, and it shouldn't take the communist anarchists' position that individualist anarchism and/or anarch-capitalism are not types of anarchism. The communists should not be allowed to confine the definition of anarchism to suit them. RJII 00:18, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
(RJII I assume you posted that?) Anyhow, you say, It should not take Tucker's position that you have to support private property to be included as a type of anarchism, and it shouldn't take the communist anarchists' position that individualist anarchism and/or anarch-capitalism are not types of anarchism. Yes, I agree with you, the definition of private property (as opposed to personal property is not the issue. However, it is the intent and usage of private property that separates capitalists from anti-capitalists. Please, see my response in the preceding section. --albamuth 19:56, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry RJII - where are the connections between Ben Tucker and modern anarcho-capitalists.. U WROTE: Anarcho-capitalism, which is a modern form of individualist anarchism, doesn't oppose capitalism. Just because those anarchists oppose capitalism it means you have to oppose capitalism to be an anarchist? Anyone can call themselves anarchist, god or whatever - e.g Idi Amin as king of Scotland - but if it flies in the face of reality and widely-accepted encyclopediac definitions... But really we argue that A/C is insignificant and not provable as inheritors (claims yes) of any anarchist tradition -max rspct 17:30, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The connection between the 19th century individualists anarchists and anarcho-capitalists is that they both support private property (including capital) and oppose collectivism, and both support a market economy. An anarchist that rejects private property (individualist property) is a collectivist anarchist [1]; one who supports it is an individualist anarchist, hence the title. Therefore, anarcho-capitalists is a modern form of individualist anarchism. For example, Wendy McElroy is a self-described modern individualist anarchist who supports capitalism. As far as anarcho-capitalism not being significant, that's just false. The philosophy has been around since the 50's, and it comes up on Google 42,100 times. What does it take for something to be significant? RJII 19:32, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Given that part of the definition of capital is its ability to produce further income, (i.e. interest and profit), it is pretty easy for anyone who has read a single individualists to see that they did not support capital as anarcho-capitalists do. Further, individualists did not believe that a market such as the anarcho-capitalists advocate would be a free market. So what you end up with is only a single similarity here, that they both opposed collectivism. But opposition to collectivism does not an anarchist make, more so, it does not make one an anarcho-individualist. Don't you feel the slightest bit ashamed in ascribing anarcho-capitalism to the tradition of individualism when the individualists flatly denounced captialism? Doesn't it make you feel like you are doing something slimey when misrepresenting this to wikipedia editors and readers? Kev 00:33, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yet another Proposed Solution

Instead of having a separate historical and and "schools" section, why not combine the two? The section headings could then become:

  • Precursors to Anarchism - (this section already looks good)
  • Early Anarchists - Godwin and company
  • 19th Century - Proudhon, Bakunin, etc.
  • 20th Century - Tucker, Spooner, Goldman...
  • Contemporary Anarchists - Rothbard, Zerzan, Bookchin, little 'a', post-left, situationist, etc.

So then, within each epoch subheadings would describe the submovements that arose and the major, influential writers. I was always hesitant about the "schools of anarchism" label because it carries a connotation of competing ideas, whereas anarchist flavors should be thought of as complementary ideas. --albamuth 17:33, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

But some of them are not "complementary" but are indeed "competing." The individualist anarchists have always denounced the collectivist anarchists (anarcho-communist, etc). RJII 00:22, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Um, actually many individualist anarchists have accepted, worked with, and agreed with collectivist anarchists at many times and on many points. Kev 20:54, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
RJ, either you're a bit confused or you're deliberately confusing the meanings of words. Using "individualist" to refer to a school of anarchist thought is confusing enough (obviously this title has stuck, though), but using it to mean "capitalist" is downright intellectual dishonesty. Not to mention that you equate the two, but you then proceed to rewrite history based on your contrived definitions! --Tothebarricades 21:25, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
What?? rearrange the whole article so Anarcho-capitalists get ideological kudos whereas before Anarchism article structure wasn't courting AC claims? -max rspct 17:53, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I don't see how it would differ so greatly in giving them kudos than how A-C is mentioned in the article already. --albamuth 23:53, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Well, the problem is that a lot of schools span multiple time periods. You do have a point about the competing vs. complementary thing, though, and that should certainly be approached somehow. --Tothebarricades 21:47, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
As far as spanning multiple timespans, I was thinking of the origin of each term, which was suggested to me by that timeline above. Having a chronolgical arrangement to the anarchist flavors is probably the least biased. Alphabetical order is akin to random order and gives the reader nothing to chew on. --albamuth 23:53, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This sounds like a good solution to me. Clearly a good portion of this debate is related to how anarchists perceive of anarchism as it has existed throughout history, and how anarcho-capitalism is a more recent phenomenon (gaining most of its real popularity only since about the 1950's). There should be less objection if anarcho-capitalism is positioned clearly within the context under which it arose, plus the article would have a more informative organization.
My main worry is whether or not individuals like Gustave de Molinari, a 19th century economist who came up with a great deal of what became anarcho-capitalist thought, would be included at all in the 19th century section. Frankly, I would even include a mention of Frédéric Bastiat, who was a contemporary of Proudhon and debated him on the subject of capital and interest - though Bastiat accepted the state during his lifetime, there is much to be said for his influence on future anarcho-capitalists (like Molinari). Also, from his writings it seems likely he would have advocated it himself had he lived past 49. My concern is that it seems to me that many editors would object to the inclusion of any of this information at all, since it is more related to anarcho-capitalism than to anarchism - even though I believe it has a place in any complete history of anarchist philosophies. --Academician 02:45, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
There is an article on anarcho-capitalism where it would be more than appropriate to discuss the origins of that philosophy. Given that it is not "anarchism" as understood by the overwhelming majority of "anarchists", it's not appropriate to give it great weight in this article simply because a couple of libertarians are trying to make the page about their own ideology. Grace Note 03:13, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I agree that anarcho-capitalism should not be over-emphasized - but if this sort of idea is adopted, as a chronological description of anarchism's origins, anarcho-capitalism at least needs a couple of mentions. I'm not suggesting giving it "great weight", nor am I trying to make the article about libertarian ideology. What "anarchism" is understood to be by the majority of anarchists should not exclude entirely the fringe movements that differ. Unless you're suggesting that most anarchists think it is about, say, primitivism? --Academician 19:23, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Of course people would reject referance to these individuals on the anarchism page. Not only are they significant only to what is at best a side-movement of anarchism, not only is that supposed side-movement hotly contested itself, but both of them pre-dated anarcho-capitalism. There is a compelling argument that going back in history and relabeling dead people according to our modern political definitions is not legitimate, it is historical revisionism, and it is all the more disturbing when we are describing that history to newcomers. Neither of these individuals ever used the term anarcho-capitalism, in fact to my knowledge neither ever described themselves as anarchists, and one clearly was -not- an anarchist, so where is the legitimacy of putting them in the main article? Because of their influence on a sub-movement? Should we go on about Rousseau's influence on anarchism in the context of the main article just because he relates to primitivism? Or perhaps we should trot out Arne Næss due to his relation to eco-anarchism? Why are the AC partisans pushing so hard to have this philosophy over-emphasized? You people should be ashamed. Kev 04:16, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I don't know what "AC partisans" are pushing - all I think is proper is a reasonable mention of anarcho-capitalism, in the context in which it has existed and today exists. What I am suggesting is that, in accordance with albamuth's idea about chronological ordering, that anarcho-capitalism be mentioned only twice - among the multitude of other movements, sub-movements, and branching that has gone on over the last several centuries. First, in the 19th century with Bastiat (not an anarcho-capitalist, but if you read Government, The Law, or Economic Harmonies it is the logical conclusion of his thought) and his intellectual heir, Gustave de Molinari (who, while he may never have used the term "anarcho-capitalism", if you are familiar with what he wrote at all you would recognize it as the about exactly the same tradition). A mention of Bastiat's debate with Proudhon on the nature of capital and interest would likewise be enlightening. Then, a second time, as anarcho-capitalism arose in the 50's with Murray Rothbard and his ilk.
I am not, like some others, proposing a radical re-write of the article to skew it for one side - I am just asking for an acknowledgement of AC's existence within the larger anarchism movement. Should Kropotkin be left out because Bakunin did not consider him a "real" anarchist? Should Proudhon be left out because he dabbled in electoral politics? Should AC's be left out because partisan anarchist wikipedians wish to exclude them?
I understand you are aggravated, and that you have dealt with this for a fair while. I lurked over the edit wars in this entry and the AC entry in the past, and it is not the inviting atmosphere that Wikipedia is supposed to be. I would ask that, despite your existing aggravation, you please show some small amount of courtesy. As far as I have seen, I personally have given you no reason to react so violently. --Academician 19:23, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Violently? I had no idea I was being violent. But your suggestion is totally out of bounds. Anarcho-capitalism -will not- be introduced by way of a man who was neither an anarchist nor an anarcho-capitalist. I'm sorry, but I won't stand for that kind of historical revisionism. If you want to include a debate between he and Proudhon, which btw is already present on wikipedia and will almost certainly not fit in this article, fine. But that is not introducing anarcho-capitalism, it is a sidebar on Proudhon. As for Molinari being in the tradition of anarcho-capitalism, he could not possibly be, because anarcho-capitalism did not exist at the time for him to have a tradition to draw from. Anti-state liberal? Sure, but anti-state liberal does not an anarchist make, and going back in time to refer to him as an anarcho-capitalist only adds legitimacy to anarcho-capitalist claims to anarchist tradition. A completely false legitimacy given that -he was not an anarcho-capitalist-. In a timeline anarcho-capitalism can and should be introduced when it actually arose, in the 50s, period. As for your rhetorical questions about Kropotkin and Proudhon, they have no relevance, as I never suggested that anarcho-capitalism should have no mention in the anarchism article until the point at which it was disambiguated BY THE ANARCHO-CAPITALISTS THEMSELVES. Before that time, I actively supported referance to anarcho-capitalism in the article, and should the disambiguation warning be removed I will support it once again. As it stands, having this article both disambiguate the traditional anarchist meaning from the anarcho-capitalist meaning AND introduce anarcho-capitalism is not only redundant, but also destroys the entire point of the disambiguation. Kev 20:50, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It would be interesting to include these references -- not simply to mention that these debates happened, but even better to supply the outcome of these historical debates. After all, it is the resultant outcome of these dialogues that became the anarchist memeplex, in their time and thereafter.--albamuth 04:58, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thank you. That is what it is intended as, and I find it appalling that the mere suggestion gets rejected with such vitriol by others (even though that is what I have come now to expect, from both sides). --Academician 19:23, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I agree with your idea on a chronological history alba. I advocated such an idea several times myself as an alternative to both disambiguation and the drastic shredding of the article that happened a couple times. While the article did sketch a basic outline a couple times before, an in-depth history has never been attempted and I believe it would be a wonderful solution to allowing all claimaints a place in the article while also putting their claims in context. However, if this is done I must stress that the disambiguation warning would need to be removed as it would no longer be relevant. Furthermore, I personally will not accept any tradition, be it primitivism or socialism or individualism or capitalism, going back in time and relabeling long-since dead thinkers with labels they never chose from themselves. Historical revisionism doesn't belong here. Its fine to claim "roots" or "influence" from history for anarchism as a whole, but sub-movements splitting hairs in order to one-up each other or exaggerate their history by way of vague claims to individuals who may or may not have even agreed with them is not acceptable. Such claims belong in the articles of said sub-movements, and even there ought to be labeled clearly as the POV of the claimaints making them whenever their claims are even remotely contested. Kev 21:00, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Kev> "I personally will not accept any tradition, be it primitivism or socialism or individualism or capitalism, going back in time and relabeling long-since dead thinkers with labels they never chose from themselves."
This is unreasonable. By this standard, Kirkegard wasn't an existentialist, Luther wasn't a protestant, and Locke wasn't a liberal. Philosophical labels, especially political labels, change over time. By today's standard definition of anarchism, William Godwin and Gustav de Molinari were clearly anarchists. According to Kev, they are not - since they didn't call themselves "anarchist." --Hogeye 21:23, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
No, Kierkegaard wasn't an existentialist. He was a philosopher whose work anticipated existentialism, same for Luther. If you took the time to look, you'd notice that the Kierkegaard page states: "Philosophically, he bridged the gap that existed between Hegelian philosophy and what was to become Existentialism" and that Luther was "an Augustinian monk whose teachings inspired the Protestant Reformation and deeply influenced the doctrines of Lutheran, Protestant and other Christian traditions." Do you see a trend, that in general, your interpretations of how we should write articles have not manifested in the content of about 600,000 other articles? There's a reason for that. --Tothebarricades 21:29, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
I'll readily admit that my knowledge of Luther is entirely lacking to be relevant to this. However, I did study Kierkegaard, and everyone I've known considered him a "proto-existientialist". I think there are plenty of grounds to object to him being an exitentialist per se, but then again I've seen lots of philosophers who actually did call themselves existentialists moved in and out of the "official category" over the years. Again, I have no problem whatsoever with anarcho-capitalists claiming Molinari as direct influence for anarcho-capitalism in the context of their own article. And anarchists without adjectives (we still have no article of our own btw, though I don't spend half as much time bemoaning that fact as capitalists do the fact that they don't have 5 extra referances in all articles remotely related to anarchism) can claim Lao-Tzu as an intellectual predecessor all they want in their own article. What I object to, given the war-like atmosphere that has surrounded this article, is a constant attempt by partisans to push one another around on the timeline. That can be carefully and cleanly avoided by refering to facts (i.e. do did or did not call themselves an anarchist) rather that resorting to speculation (i.e. who may or may not have been an anarchists according to one or another sub-groups special definition of anarchism selected for that purpose who themselves may or may not even be anarchists according to some other sub-group). Avoid the edit wars, put the claimaints in their articles chronologically, and put everything in context of the history of anarchism. What could be wrong with that?
Now I happen to agree with you that Godwin was a prominent pre-cursor of anarchism, in fact I think he was an anarchist. But I recognize that this is my personal interpretation, not a fact, so not an appropriate claim to attribute to wikipedia. Further, to my knowledge he is not "claimed" by any particular sub-movement. As an individual whose work applies to all of anarchism, and in the absence of any strong objection, I think it is perfectly legitimate to refer to his influence on anarchism (rather than actually refering to him as an anarchist). On the other hand, if some debate ensues that he is specifically a mutualist or a capitalist, when he never refered to himself as either (to my knowledge), then he should be removed to avoid conflict and put in the respective articles. As for Molinari, if he was an anarchist at all (a claim which I disagree with), and if his philosophy was compatible with anarchism (another claim I disagree with), he still most assurdly belongs to the tradition of only a sub-movement of anarchism, not of anarchism as a whole. Given this, and given the fact that he predated the tradition he is said to have contributed to, I don't think it is appropriate to list him in the context of this article. Rothbard, who actually considered himself an anarchist, and indeed appears to be amongst the first to have ever refered to this off-shoot of anti-state liberalism as anarcho-capitalism, seems a much better choice. Kev 22:04, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Kev> "... totally out of bounds. Anarcho-capitalism -will not- be introduced by way of a man who was neither an anarchist nor an anarcho-capitalist. I'm sorry, but I won't stand for that kind of historical revisionism. ... Anti-state liberal? Sure, but anti-state liberal does not an anarchist make. ... I happen to agree with you that Godwin was a prominent pre-cursor of anarchism, ... I think it is perfectly legitimate to refer to his influence on anarchism (rather than actually refering to him as an anarchist)."
Are you saying that you wouldn't object to introducing Bastiat and Molinari in the mid-1800's as anti-statist liberal pre-cursors to anarcho-capitalism? --Hogeye 05:43, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
That seems like a reasonable label. --Tothebarricades 09:15, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
I think it would be a mistake to start putting pre-cursors to anarchist sub-movements in the history, because it will become bloated and overloaded with everyone from pre-historical tribals to Zeno to the Stoics. I mean, some christian anarchists would even try to put christ in there, its just inviting edit wars. I think the history should focus solely on precursors that would apply to anarchism in general, rather than specific sub-movements. Further, it should take care not to be overly broad in who it claims as a precursor for general anarchism. So again, I think it would be a mistake. But do I actually object? No. Kev 10:26, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Then for what it's worth, my three conditions are satisfied.
  • Anarchism should not, anywhere in the article, be described as anti-capitalist. Specific schools, of course, may be so described.
  • Attributions to what anarchists say, or think, or believe, should be accurate. E.g. If anarcho-capitalists or individualist anarchists don't subscribe to a belief, a more specific term such as "anarcho-socialists" should be used.
  • If there is a "Schools of Anarchism" section, the Individualist Anarchist and Anarcho-capitalist schools should be included.
So if there were only we three editors for all time, a bargain might be struck. --Hogeye 21:29, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)


It's apparent the monopoly socialists claimed on the word Anarchism has ended. There is no possible way the free market type anarchists are going to ever let them have it all to themselves ever again. The differences are truly irreconcilable since there is no common frame of reference. The socialists claim that a core tenet of anarchism is anti-capitalism. The free-market types can't understand this because capitalism can be understood to include strictly state and/or strictly non-state institutions (a free market), yet the socialists don't seem to distinguish between the two. The argument here is not about what the encyclopedia entry will be, it's much more important than that.

The old institution that says "anarchism shall be this" is being challenged by extremely competent and intellectually saavy newcomers with fresh ideas. Mark my words, the discussion here on these pages will someday spill into the broader arena of ideas in ways none of us ever imagined. But the argument will NEVER be settled.

"The argument here is not about what the encyclopedia entry will be, it's much more important than that." - Actually, there really shouldn't be any text on this talk page not relevant to this encyclopedia entry. You can take your dramatic rants to a message board or a chat room or something. They are not welcome here. --Tothebarricades 09:13, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
When you say you're against capitalism, are you referring to the free-market or mercantilism? For argument sake, lets define the free market as being without a state and mercantilism as being state run. If you answer both, I understand your disagreement with mercantilism, but I don't understand your disagreement with the free market. It begs the question, how do you propose to prevent free market trading in the absence of a state and enforce your will.

Back to the articles

So far, the discussion after the page protection seems to have been all about either theorical aspects of Anarchism, or complete rewrite proposals. Let's instead try to improve the articles incrementally. To help focus the debate on the articles, I ask of the editors:

  • What are the specific objections (not general ones like "it gives too much/not enough importance to school X of anarchism") the editors have to the content of both Anarchism and Anarchism (disambiguation), in the version I protected (so we can all start from the same revision, even if older revisions might be better)?

--cesarb 19:33, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have no significant objections to the currently protected version of anarchism. However, seemingly minor edits (such as changing all occurances of "anarchist" with "anarcho-socialist" (which was done recently to Anarchism and capitalism)) significantly alters gist of the article in a way that represents a very narrow POV--the perception of all the other anarchists from the anarcho-capitalist POV). These alterations from certain factions corrupt the language and intent of the article(s) and I would like to make sure that they do not occur again. --albamuth 19:50, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)


I want just two simple things to keep it NPOV.

  • Anarchism should not, anywhere in the article, be described as anti-capitalist. Specific schools, of course, may be so described.
  • Attributions to what anarchists say, or think, or believe, should be accurate. E.g. If anarcho-capitalists or individualist anarchists don't subscribe to a belief, a more specific term such as "anarcho-socialists" should be used.

The current Anarchism (anti-state) satisfies these criteria (I think, last time I looked...). The disambiguation page should disambiguate, i.e. give both the dictionary meaning and the popular meaning, with links to both if they are separate articles. --Hogeye 20:14, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No way. The article should, as all WP articles do, reflect views fairly. There is no way "anarchist" should be rendered "anarcho-socialist" just because a couple of people who are not even "anarchists" in the generally used sense of the term don't hold the view stated. See the NPOV policy for clarification on this. Grace Note 05:14, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Does the disambiguation page do so currently? If not, what exactly should be changed? --cesarb 20:54, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Currently, the disambiguation page does not disambiguate at all. It gives one overall definition. Then it simply gives a link back to Anarchy. Ridiculous. (There is a link to anarchy.) The current disambiguation page might as well be called a "schools of anarchism" page.) A good disambiguation page needs to tell the different definitions of anarchism - in order to disambiguate - and provide links to the article associated with each defintion. Here's a well-done disambiguation page: Anarchism (a good disambiguation page)

I thought of another one.

  • If there is a "Schools of Anarchism" section, the Individualist Anarchist and Anarcho-capitalist schools should be included.

--Hogeye 20:33, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No ifs, I asked for your objections about the current revision. --cesarb 20:54, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The current version's "Schools of Anarchism" section should include the Individualist Anarchist and Anarcho-capitalist schools. --Hogeye 21:04, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I object to having anarcho-capitalist viewpoints presented throughout the article, although the current revision only has one instance of this as far as I can tell (see below). As Hogeye pretty clearly mentioned above, we'd have to write the whole article on the false assumption that anarcho-capitalism is a major school of anarchist thought (i.e., by constantly creating a dichotomy between "anarcho-capitalism" and "anarcho-socialism", the latter being a term rarely used outside anarcho-capitalist circles). The only unacceptable lines in this regard in the present revision are: "As Fredric Bastiat wrote, 'When goods don't cross borders, soldiers will.' Anarcho-capitalists believe that converse is also true: when goods do cross borders, war is less likely."
The major beliefs of anarcho-capitalism can be summarized and discussed within its section under Schools. Thus the discussion of anarcho-capitalism in this article should be limited to: 1) A mention in the introduction stating that a certain minority viewpoint holds that anarchism is compatable with capitalism 2) A section under "Schools." This will be sufficient to introduce the reader to anarcho-capitalism and direct him/her to a seperate article where we can offer more depth and present a clearer picture. Anarcho-capitalism, being wholly distinct historically and a vertiable pariah in present reality, does not merit excessive attention on this page. It is for the most part, either irrelevant to, or in stark contrast to, the rest of anarchist thought.
Hogeye's objections are based on personal bias and do not reflect a spirit towards neutrality and accuracy. It should be noted that the present state of the article is already a compromise: all have agreed to at least this minimal survey of anarcho-capitalism despite very strong antipathy towards the philosophy. Hogeye has failed to offer objections to the article on grounds other than his personal opinions, which he presents as unquestionable reality despite obvious objections. --Tothebarricades 21:38, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
I see no problem stating that the collectivist anarchists think that anarcho-capitalism is not a form of capitalism in an anarcho-capitalists section. Likewise, in the communist/collectivist anarchism sections it should be said that the individualist anarchists don't regard the communist anarchists as anarchists. And, there needs to be an section about individualist anarchism. The fact that there's not a section on individualist anarchism shows just how biased this article has been (or perhaps the writers have simply been illiterate about the range of anarchist philosophies). RJII 00:30, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Actually RJ, you are just revealing your own ignorance of our history, again. You falsely divide individualists from socialists, then you go a step farther and equate the socialists with collectivists, at the same time pushing this BS view that anarcho-capitalism is a form of individulism (ignoring the fact that all individualists rejected capitalism). But there have been, and still are, anarchist individualists who are socialists. And, in fact, there are collectivists who support capitalist market economies. Your over-simplifications and false dichotomies are designed only to support your own POV, and have very little historical basis, and only the mostly heavily interpreted basis in modern definitions and political spectrums. Kev 05:09, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Read what I wrote. I said "communist," not "socialist." The 19th century individualist anarchists were not communists (collectivists), but individualists. Anarcho-capitalists, likewise, are individualists (not collectivists). RJII 14:18, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Are you denying that you have associated socialists with collectivists? Please oh please deny that you have RJ, that will be fun. Kev 00:28, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Let me learn you something. Communism is a form of socialism. Not everyone who calls themselves socialists are collectivists (communists). Some socialists are indeed collectivists. Anarcho-communists and anarcho-syndicalists are collectivists. Individualist anarchists are not collectivists. Duh! RJII 01:32, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Could you point out where I claimed otherwise? As always, you ignore my points and then go on a rant about something I didn't even say. Kev 04:05, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Why would I do that? I never claimed that you claimed otherwise. But, as an aside, just looking over your paragraph above, it just becomes more and more clear that you haven't the slightest idea of what you're talking about. For example "there are collectivists who support capitalist market economies." Man, you're a riot. Don't you realize that capitalism is about private ownership rather than collective ownership? Let me see if I can make it clear to you. There are individualist anarchists and collectivist anarchists. Individualists anarchists favor private property (that's why they're called individualist anarchists --because they oppose collectivist ideas of property); collectivist anarchists favor collective property. RJII 04:37, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I don't have time to waste on your trolling anymore RJ, you are clearly trying to goad me, and not at all interested in constructive dialogue. Kev 07:15, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Good riddance. RJII 14:20, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Exactly. There's no way that the article should be nuanced to his POV, because it is such a minority view. It's like having to suggest all the way through the article on the Earth that "roundearthers" think this, "roundearthers" think the other. Grace Note 05:17, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Anarchism as a political football

Perhaps, in our ongoing debates about how to structure the anarchism articles, we could take some hints from how the articles on football are structured. Like "anarchism", "football" is a word that's used to describe several different, and diverse, things, some of which are regarded by partisans of other forms as "not real football". In most of the world, "football" means what Americans call "soccer". However, in the USA, the game of American football is universally referred to as "football" with no qualifier needed. Some other varieties, like Australian Rules Football, exist elsewhere in the world.

If the article on football were to be exclusively about one of these varieties (and the partisans of soccer would certainly claim that theirs ought to be the One True Football for this purpose, since it's the dominant form in most of the world), then fans of a different type of football would be peeved; Americans certainly wouldn't go for a definition at the top of the article that said that "Football is a game played with a round ball that the players are not allowed to touch with their hands."

It's possible the article has gone through some edit wars in the past, akin to those in the anarchism articles; I haven't checked the history. However, the way it's done now is very elegant. The main article on football gives a general, broad definition covering the whole cluster of sports that are known by that name, gives an overview of what those sports are and where they're popular, and a history that illustrates how the different varieties arose and how their histories are interrelated. Then there are separate articles on each type of football that are linked from the main article, so that each gets a complete treatment, in its own article, as a distinct sport.

If the anarchism articles were to be done this way, the main one would give a broad overview of all the ideologies that have been known as "anarchism" or "anarcho-"something, without giving a definition that excludes some of them; the section on history would explain what relationships, if any, exist between the types. Then, separate pages would get more specific about the different varieties, including anarcho-capitalism and the socialist anarchisms.

The analogy isn't quite accurate and the solution would not be very effective. Anarchism needs to be treated as a whole, because most of it overlaps. Anarcho-capitalism doesn't overlap with any of it on grounds other than etymology, hence the solution I proposed above, which would acknowledge its existence but not drag this article into absolute absurdity. Treating anarcho-capitalism as an integral part of anarchist theory, rather than as a subject of peripheral significance, is consciously misleading and constitutes original research. --Tothebarricades 23:36, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
Anarcho-capitalism is just as much a type of anarchism as any of the other schools. And, just as significant as the most popular types. And, more significant that some of the other types listed in the article as schools of anarchism (anarcha-feminism, green anarchism, etc). RJII 00:41, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Anarcho-capitalists admit that they use a different definition of anarchism than any other "anarchists". This includes Proudhon, who called for more than the mere abolition of the state, Kropotkin and Bakunin and Tucker who also all called for more than the mere absent of the state. Anarcho-capitalists want anarchism to mean less than it ever did before, and to back up their claims they use quotes by a couple of these thinkers very selectively, only using those which call for the abolition of the state or appear to support private property. Given that anarcho-capitalists are using a different definition than all other anarchists, given that anarcho-capitalism overlaps with all the other ideologies to the least extent, it is entirely reasonable to maintain the disambiguation that allows wikipedia readers to understand that while this article describes what is most commonly refered to as anarchism, both in modern times and historically, and throughout most of the world, there are other definitions. But this is already indicated in the very first sentence of the article. In fact, it was the push for this that anarcho-capitalists fought for so hard months ago, through numerous revert wars. They finally got their way, this page now first and foremost indicates that this is not the only definition and refers to another, despite the fact that the anarcho-capitalist definition is one used far less by a small sub-movement hostile to anarchism. And what do you know, now they demand more, completely changing their arguments and pretending that we haven't already bent over backwards to give anarcho-capitalism far more space, time, and effort, than it deserves given its relative impact. Until the ACs come up with a compelling reason why their philosophy should be show-cased, I have no problem with reverting. Kev 04:52, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The definition of an anarchism is "a political theory opposed to all forms of government and governmental restraint and advocating voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups in order to satisfy their needs" (Merriam-Webster Unabridged). Anarcho-capitalists do not use a different definition as "all other anarchists." They may, however, use a different definition than uneducated anarchists. RJII 14:13, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Are you actually going to pretend that you are being civil with dig like that? You are a joke RJ. Anarcho-capitalists do use a different definition for anarchism than all other anarchists, in no small part because the anarchist tradition did not rely on merriam-websters to act as their beacon of light and hope when constructing a movement designed to question and challenge authority. Just as we did not start advocating chaos and disorder the moment the dictionary began to associate anarchy with such, neither did we cease to reject all forms of authoritarianism when certain dictionaries neglected to refer to this aspect of our tradition. Ironically, you call me uneducated in this matter, when anyone who has been here for a few months already knows that you arrived completely ignorant of anarchism, and the only extend of your education thus far has been what you have been told or linked to from wikipedia, even then you seem to have failed to absorb much of it after repeatedly being handed the information you lack. You have yet to read any of the original anarchists, you still know next to nothing of our history, and yet you find yourself in a position to belittle others as uneducated. Cute. Kev 00:27, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Ignoring ad hominem. RJII 01:27, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
How about a simple descriptive? Like say, hypocrite? Kev 03:59, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I can honestly say I feel sorry for you, little buddy. RJII 04:38, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I agree. That's exactly what I've wanted all along - the broad definition. (But I doubt if most anarcho-socialists are going to go for it.) --Hogeye 03:22, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
RJ, fuck Webster, webster was a capitalist how the hell can that company accurately describe various words that would be hostile to capitalism? Dictionary companies are primarily in the business of making lots of money, not concerned if they make up false definions along the way. If you read 1984 and seen the overlap of that book into modern day society you can see how parties and governments redefine words for their own ends. For example, do you think when Bush says "freedom" he really actually means that definition of freedom? Of course not! Here's another example of how false dictionaries are and how they just swallow up whatever a government tells them the definition of a word is. The American Heritage Dictionary defines communism as: "A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people." Here this dictionary has definied simply the bare word "communism" as Stalinism. I would certainly consider that inaccurate. No doubt this is the definition all western governments wished to define communism as when in actuality it was practically the complete opposite of communism if you even slightyly read history. The primary goal of anarchists is anti-statist, but along with that comes social hierarchy and domination (racism, sexism, ageism, materialism even, and so on) and using the same logic as the state (domination and submission) capitalism took off. There was never a single moment in history when anarchists didn't oppose capitalism, especially when it first started and was the least regulated (which is the kind of capitalism that "anarcho" captialists wholly want and promote). They are polar opposites. Anyone who can make a comparison or even insinuate that they are related terms and the like simply HAVE NOT read anarchits literature, talked to real anarchists, seen anarchy in action, or anything else. Unless you have a mental filter on (much like the one people have on when they read 1984 and think the entire book is about promoting capitalism and smashing the soviet union), then I really can't understand how you can read up on anarchist history even a little bit and think that your point is valid, it's because you haven't and have a complete misunderstanding of anarchism. --Fatal 15:50, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Neither RJ, nor any of the other anarcho-capitalists, are interested in the definition of anarchism. They only use it as a tool to make their case, if every dictionary disagreed with them they would still have the same arguements for the legitimacy of their claims. This much is evidenced by their clear cherry picking of only those sources which support them, note for example the following:

The chief tenet of anarchism is that government and private property should be abolished.

Compton’s Interactive Encyclopedia, 1995

The encyclopedia is wrong. Many anarchists throghout history did not think private property should be abolished. These include the 19th century individualist anarchists and the anarcho-capitalists. RJII 01:19, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
(ăn´erkĬzem) [Gr.,=having no government], theory that equality and justice are to be sought through the abolition of the state and the substitution of free agreements between individuals…Since the Industrial Revolution, anarchists have also opposed the concentration of economic power in business corporations.

Encylopedia.com

Both 19th century individidualist anarchists and anarcho-capitalists oppose corporations. RJII 01:19, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[Gr.,=having no government], theory that equality and justice are to be sought through the abolition of the state and the substitution of free agreements between individuals.

Columbia Encyclopedia 6th edition 2001

19th century individidualist anarchists and anarcho-capitalists both agree with this principle. RJII 01:19, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
As to their economical conceptions, the anarchists, in common with all socialists, of whom they constitute the left wing, maintain that the now prevailing system of private ownership in land, and our capitalist production for the sake of profits, represent a monopoly which runs against both the principles of justice and the dictates of utility.

Encyclopedia Britannica 1910

Out of date encyclopedia. RJII 01:19, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Anarchism rejects all forms of hierarchical authority, social and economic as well as political.

Grolier's Electronic Encyclopedia

Anarcho-capitalists reject this as well. They only believe in self-authority and the right of individuals to use that authority to contract with others. RJII 01:19, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)


These sources, and so many others, are never refered to by anarcho-capitalists because they would all disagree with their pre-concieved conclusions. Their throwing about of this definition or that quote is just a distraction, anyone who has read any of the original texts from which the quotes come, or a breadth of dictionaries and encyclopedias, already know that the tendency is to define anarchism as contrary to capitalism, and there is certainly never any indication that anarchism is supportative of or compatible with capitalism except when that indication is made by anarcho-capitalists themselves. Kev 17:13, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So, even with your cherry-picked sections from encyclopedias, only 2 out of 5 are anti-capitalist. What does that tell you? Just for fun, let's get the definition from the horse's mouth, from the original essay of the first self-referencing anarchist:

"Anarchy, -- the absence of a master, of a sovereign.", Pierre Proudhon, "What is Property" (1840) Proudhon notes: "The meaning ordinarily attached to the word 'anarchy' is absence of principle, absence of rule; consequently, it has been regarded as synonymous with 'disorder.'"
"Liberty is anarchy, because it does not admit the government of the will, but only the authority of the law; that is, of necessity."
"Well! you are a democrat?" -- "No." -- "What! you would have a monarchy." -- "No." -- "A constitutionalist?" -- "God forbid!" -- "You are then an aristocrat?" -- "Not at all." -- "You want a mixed government?" -- "Still less." -- "What are you, then?" -- "I am an anarchist."

Well, nothing anti-capitalist in Proudhon's definition. Clearly he's talking anti-statism. --Hogeye 17:43, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Only 2 out of 5 are anti-capitalist? Are you telling me that anarcho-capitalists support equality? That is news, you'd best run over to the anarcho-capitalist article and change that part real quick. Since when do anarcho-capitalists oppose the concentration of economic power? And they are now actively opposing heirarchy as well, you are telling me that there is no heirarchy in capitalism? Well, I suppose if you want to completely rewrite anarcho-capitalist philosophy to bring it in line with all those definitions, then you would indeed fit in the definition of anarchism. The problem is, you would end up with individualism, not anarcho-capitalism. As for the encyclopedias being cherry picked, I have news for you, that is -exactly- the point I was trying to make.
As for Proudhon. Really, any time you want to claim that he supported capitalism, you go right ahead and say so. I'm waiting with anticipation. Until then, please stop trying to misrepresent him by only selecting those quotes which do not explicitly rule it out. I encourage you to reread what I have written above and note that it is just this kind of cherry picking that I'm trying to get you people to avoid. Selecting only those quotes that agree with your premise, especially when there is ready availability of quotes that deny your premise, is dishonest. You don't want to be dishonest, do you? Kev 20:40, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
So, let me get this straight Hogeye: you not only want to base the article on word for word dictionary definitions (as opposed to writing an encyclopedia article), but you want only to base it on the ones you like? I think I speak for everyone when I say that we should cease treating you as a rational editor and start treating you like a troll. RJ too. Your arguments are absurd on countless levels, and have no basis in wikipedia policy. Please stop wasting everyone's time. --Tothebarricades 19:58, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)


Kev> "Are you telling me that anarcho-capitalists support equality?"

Yes, equality of rights.
So they are for one specific type of equality, but the definition did not list only a specific type. It listed equality itself, rather implying the general form thereof. Are anarcho-capitalists for equality outside of that specific form, are they for general equality? Again, you might have to go change the anarcho-capitalist article once you give your answer. Kev 00:36, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Kev> "Since when do anarcho-capitalists oppose the concentration of economic power?"

When it is accumulated by political means rather than economic means.
Though not always, as I'm sure you know. Given such, wouldn't that entail, at the very least, that some anarcho-capitalists are not anarchists? Kev 00:36, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Kev> "And they are now actively opposing heirarchy as well, you are telling me that there is no heirarchy in capitalism?"

There is no "hierarchical authority" in the ancap ideal of capitalism, i.e. zero political authority. Note that not one of your hand-picked examples condemns hierarchy per se, only "hierarchical authority".
Hehe, so you are really claiming that, say, a manager in a business does not have any authority over his/her subordinates? Surely you are not claiming that there is not hiearchy, given the presence of subordinates and all. Kev 00:36, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Not all anarchists are oppose to the liberty of people to sell their labor to others (employers) --the individualist anarchists, for example. There is no general requirement for anarchism to oppose boss/employer relationships. RJII 17:32, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Like I said elsewhere, "So if I hire you to fix my toilet, then, given that it is physically possible that I refuse to pay, or that I refuse to offer the job to anyone who doesn't agree to my terms, I'm a boss? A ruler?" Basically, a boss is just a purchaser of labor services. There's just as much hierarchy of him over you as there is of you over the guy you hire to do your plumbing. So at the very least, it's not laughable to claim that in an employer/employee relationship, there is not hierarchy, "given the presence of subordinates and all". 63.98.86.134 21:41, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Kev> "As for Proudhon. Really, any time you want to claim that he supported capitalism, you go right ahead and say so."

Nice try (to switch the issue.) The issue is about how Proudhon defined anarchism, not whether he was anti-capitalist. (He was.)
I see, so a man who wrote books of material detailed the anarchist philosophy, which he held himself, and in which he railed consistently against capitalism, did not feel that anti-capitalism was a part of anarchism. Funny coincidence, that. Did it ever occur to you that the reason he didn't explicitly define anarchism as against capitalism was because he took it for granted that anyone who bothered to read his books would not then be silly enough to claim to be both an anarchist and a capitalist? As I explain below, you seem really set on taking the absence of exclusionary evidence (in certain select cases), to be the presence of inclusionary evidence in all cases. Kev 00:36, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Kev> "please stop trying to misrepresent him by only selecting those quotes which do not explicitly rule it out."

It's Proudhon's definition. You are welcome to look through "What is Property?" for other places where he defines anarchism. You won't find any. Admit it - PP defined anarchism as anti-statist, not anti-capitalist.

TTB> "So, let me get this straight Hogeye: you not only want to base the article on word for word dictionary definitions ..., but you want only to base it on the ones you like?"

No, you have it backwards. I'm the one who offered an unbiased sample of definitions - An unbiased list. Kev is the one who hand-picked his examples, and even then less than half were anti-capitalist. --Hogeye 21:51, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Your position would only hold if none were. And all of the definitions he gave are anti-capitalist anyway with the exception maybe of the one that talks about "free agreements between individuals" because I guess the standard capitalist propaganda is that all of its abuses are voluntary. And since anarcho-capitalists only deal with a mythical form of capitalism that never has and never will exist, perhaps ignoring reality is a safe course. But again, this is not about the validity of your or my beliefs, or of anyone else's. Let's pretend we're both Stalinists or liberal democrats or perhaps apathetic apolitical people for a moment. Take 30 seconds and think about the situation in hand - seriously, do it. If you can drop your crusade for half a minute you should realize that treating anarcho-capitalism as a universally accepted form of anarchism, to be contrasted constantly with what you call "anarcho-socialism" is illogical, ineffective, and inaccurate. Doing so would make this more of an anarcho-capitalist essay than a serious encyclopedia entry - which I presume, based on your behavior, is exactly your goal. --Tothebarricades 23:42, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
TTB>"Let's pretend we're both Stalinists or liberal democrats or perhaps apathetic apolitical people for a moment."
Okay. I'd want an article using the standard defintion, not the pop definition. --Hogeye 23:59, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Amongst some silliness you have some points worthy of response Hogeye, but at this moment we are just spinning wheels. You know, as I do, that some "standard" definitions and descriptions of anarchism exclude capitalism (unless you are denying that, happy to provide lots of evidence if you are). Further, I think you would have to admit that there are NO standard definitions of anarchism (I haven't even looked at the list you gave but lets use that as an test group) which specifically refer to capitalism as compatible with anarchism. Now I'm sure we can both agree that the absence of exclusion (or rather, the occasional absence of exclusion, since sometimes it is exclusion) is not evidence for inclusion. In other words, it can be argued that for the sake of brevity dictionaries only focus on the primary aspect of anarchism (a complicated political philosophy), rather than going through bullet points of all its possible entailments (absence of government=absence of law, absence of police, absence of interpersonal domination, absence of domination based on sex/race/ethnicity/age, absence of domination based on economic status, etc). So I would really like to know, while it is clear that many individualists and all other anarchists absolutely rejected capitalism in all its forms, but that some individuals didn't make themselves explicit one way or another, can you point to a single individual who predated anarcho-capitalism and explicitly declared that capitalism was compatible with anarchism, that someday we could have capitalist brethren walking amongst us and legitimately claiming to hold our radical anti-establishment title? Just one? Kev 00:36, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
TTB> "You know, as I do, that some "standard" definitions and descriptions of anarchism exclude capitalism..."
Only one out of the first twelve defs in the unbiased list excluded capitalism. The only one that excluded capitalism was Wikipedia!
TTB> "there are NO standard definitions of anarchism (I haven't even looked at the list you gave but lets use that as an test group) which specifically refer to capitalism as compatible with anarchism...."
Right, they say any belief compatible with anti-statism is anarchism. That's the essence of the definition.
TTB> "Now I'm sure we can both agree that the absence of exclusion (or rather, the occasional absence of exclusion, since sometimes it is exclusion) is not evidence for inclusion."
Yes, and also compatibility with the essence part of a definition is evidence for inclusion. See definition.
TTB> "it can be argued that for the sake of brevity dictionaries only focus on the primary aspect of anarchism..."
It would be an error to argue so, since a good definition specifies the essence of what it's defining, and then gives the differentia. The essence of anarchism is anti-statism. Period. Your ad hoc additional criterion of anti-capitalism is not included in most reputable dictionaries. Face it - you are promoting a non-standard "pop" definition - perhaps a fad among your cohorts, but not the standard def. --Hogeye 16:55, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The above person you are responding to is me, not TTB. I'm a little saddened by this response Hogeye, it demonstrates a perspective so skewed that I don't think communication will be possible. You are seriously claiming that no part of the first twelve definitions rules out capitalism, you are really going to weasel that much? This isn't worth my time if you are going to display so much intellectual dishonesty. BTW - I wonder, if it is really NPOV you are so worried about why are you focusing only on this article? Think of how many political definitions used on wikipedia do not fit perfectly with the "essence" of their definition (as you describe it). I mean just think of all the pages which use "democrat" or "republican" in a way that doesn't fit the standard dictionary definitions? Cripes, even "fascism" and "communism" both have aspects in their introduction that are not present in every single part of their definition, all need to be changed now, and many many more I'm sure. Hurry, go, get to work! Obviously you have set an all new standard for wikipedia that needs to be enforced! Its the new ideal that whenever a political group is contested, the -absence- of evidence against their claims in those great in-depth political briefings known as dictionaries now counts as positive evidence! Kev 18:09, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The only encyclopedic and NPOV thing to do is provide all verifiable definitions, or at least the most prevelent. Currently an intense preference is given to the communist-anarchist POV. There are lots of others, the most notable of which being the traditional outsiders POV of the black-clad madbomber, or Somali warlord. I just saw a documentary today about the class struggles of 19th and early 20th century europe, and the bomb-tossing assasin role was played by the anarchists. When I read cia.gov's article on Somalia, I see that it is a 'stateless society. That is anarchy. The wikipedia, like the Cia factbook, or an almanac, is a book of reference, and should sound like one. Including the wiki-anarchist concensus POV is one thing, allowing it to dominate is another. Sam Spade 00:33, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm not responding to Sam, as he is just a troll. However, I think folks might like to know that this tired old argument of his has been responded to countless times. The general responses go something like this, "this article is about anarchism not anarchy, whose definitions overlap but are not identical" and "an encyclopedia is not the place to be pushing POVs which we can verify are not based in fact" and "the article already deals with the misattribution to anarchism of the stereotype of the mad bomber, by dismissing it and moving on, just as any false stereotype should be dealth with in any article". Sam has in the past admitted a certain degree of hostility toward anarchism, in addition to demonstrating a large degree of willful ignorance of it, but somehow he can always spare the time to come back and repeat this nonsense. Kev 00:43, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And you, for your part, clearly think that non-"anarchists" should not be editing this page, much less the article. How "anarchic" is it to try to silence an alternate POV with slurs? I'll tell you one thing, anarchist or no, it isn't intellectually honest. Sam Spade 00:47, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I, speaking for myself at least, have nothing against Hogeye's or the various trolls' right to express their points of view. That is not at issue. It's a pretty low tactic to make ludicrous claims and distortions that only a small sub-sect would agree with and cry censorship when people try to correct your errors. We're not talking about merely including a section on anarcho-capitalism: Hogeye wants the entire article to give equal representation to this school of thought.
It's good, then, that you bring up intellectual honesty, because that's something that's missing on a certain side of this debate: you know you're arguing from an obscure minority viewpoint, so stop pretending that you don't. Wikipedia does not cater to fringe elements, it kindly directs the reader to the page he/she might be more interested in. This is why the government article doesn't qualify every sentence by being kind to anarchists' feelings. In that context, anarchists are a fringe whose views are only peripherally relevant and which deserve a focused mention, and a direction to this page. There are about a million other ways one could edit wikipedia to prove a point here, but I'll just kindly assume that you all know that you're wrong and leave it at that.
And Hogeye, I'm going to nominate the anarcho-capitalism article for speedy deletion, since it's not in the dictionary. Or maybe you should do it first, since you want the dictionary to be the foundation of all wikipedia content :P --Tothebarricades 01:05, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
While you're at it, delete the anarcha-feminism, anarcho-primitivism, etc. sections because they're not in the dictionary either. What's that you say? Feminism is in the dictionary? Primitivism is in the dictionary? Well, so is capitalism. 63.98.86.134 21:48, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Um, you seem to have missed the point. He was not actually suggesting that the anarcho-capitalism article should be deleted for that reason, in fact he was mocking an argument based on blind adherence to the dictionary. Kev 06:31, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
No, you missed the point. The above poster was reconciling support for usage of the dictionary as a guideline with absence of "anarcho-capitalism" from the dictionary. JohnSharp 16:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why should it be relevant that only anarcho-capitalists support capitalism? Before the anarcho-capitalists, only the individualist anarchists supported private property and opposed communist anarchism. Did that mean that the individualists weren't anarchists? Of course not. Likewise, because only the anarcho-capitalists favor capitalism that doesn't mean they're not anarchists. They communist/leftist bias of some of the editors here is ridiculous. They're trying to monopolize the word anarchism and twist it to fit collectivism. It's absurd. RJII 01:19, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Whether or not they are anarchists is, again, not the issue. I'm more interested in the article than in this glorious mess of a talk page or trying to prove that you're wrong on ideological grounds. Simply put, there is no argument in favor of an anarcho-capitalist presence in this article outside of Schools/the intro that is not: 1) Original research 2) Based on subjective, unorthodox perspectives 3) Highly controversial in the anarchist community. Thus any mention of it must highlight these three things in a focused, summarized presentation of anarcho-capitalism. No further debate necessary.
No other unique school, even ones commonly accepted as part of anarchism, gets the attention Hogeye desires. For instance, we do not qualify statements about workers or collective ownership or whatever by reminding the reader that John Zerzan wants us to live in the woods and hunt deer. Nor should we. I don't see how the issue could be any clearer. --Tothebarricades 18:36, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

There is nothing about anarchism which isn't subjective or unorthadox, and absolutely nothing which isn't controversial in the anarchist community. Pretending otherwise suggests no intention of allowing things to become clear, nor of moving beyond partisan rhetorical flourish. Sam Spade 23:12, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The fact that "partisan" in your case consists of 99.99%+ of the anarchist community proves pretty firmly the nature of this debate. Pretending that anarcho-capitalism is anything else is blatantly "partisan rhetorical flourish." As for the claims in your first sentence, they are clearly red herrings. --Tothebarricades 02:09, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Huh?

I tried to read that last section, but it started to hurt my eyes. Plus I got the idea that I was reading utter nonsense. Proudhon wasn't anticapitalist? And I suppose Augusto Pinochet was never a dictator? American footballs are spherical? Can someone summarize the arguements made thus far in point-counterpoint form? Sheesh. --albamuth 00:17, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Why don't we see how hypocritical these people are?

I would suggest that whatever compromise we come to on this page, should also be the compromise for the libertarianism article. After all, there are several supporters of anarchism and/or some forms of Marxism that have described themselves variously as libertarian or libertarian socialist. Why should there only be a disambig header on the libertarianism page that points to other forms of libertarianism?

Heck, if you look at the history of that article, the same edit warriors that argue for the inclusion of anarcho-capitalism on this page reject geolibertarianism as a form of libertariansism, because its not capitalist enough. Since when did capitalism become a prerequisite for libertarianism?

But honestly, the disambig on the top of the libertarianism page serves its purpose, and I really don't see the need for anything more than a disambig on this page. millerc 16:25, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Excellent point. And it's even more obvious here, since we had the word libertarian first :P --Tothebarricades 18:14, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)


I don't quite understand your suggestion re the Libertarian article. Are you saying that the Anarchism article should start like this?

Anarchism
The term anarchism also has a standard dictionary definition - see Anarchism (theory). This article deals with the meaning of "anarchism" prominent on US college campuses.
What bizarre world do you live in where the common perception of anarchism includes advocacy for capitalism? --Tothebarricades 20:41, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
In the real world, the common perception is that anarchism means fundamental opposition to the State. The definition says nothing about preferred economic system. But, TTB, you didn't give your opinion about the beginning of the article. Would the above meet your approval? --Hogeye 20:59, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Where above? --Tothebarricades 21:22, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
Anarchism
The term anarchism also has a standard dictionary definition - see Anarchism (theory). This article deals with the meaning of "anarchism" prominent on US college campuses.
How about:
This article deals with "anarchism" as defined by all other anarchists, the Oxford English Dictionary, and all historians of anarchism. It deals with a number of overlapping trends spanning several continents and centuries, involved in toppling governments, revolutions, street rebellions, etc. For "anarchism" as defined by Hogeye, a few unimportant American economics professors, and three or four journals no one has ever heard of, see anarcho-capitalism.
I whole heartedly support the above paragraph as a disambiguation between anarchism and anarcho-capitalism. Maybe someone can remove the polemic and unencyclopedic expression (which I feel too, due to the emotive nature of this polemic ram-raid by anarcho-capitalists), and attach to anarchism's header.Fifelfoo 23:14, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm. I'm surprised Geo-libertarianism isn't included in the Libertarian article. I'll have to remedy that. For that matter, in our article where are the anarcho-Georgists? I also need to correct the implication that propertarian Libertarianism is just a US thing. That would surprise, e.g. the Movimiento Libertario in Costa Rica, as well as the diverse membership of the ISIL, which is holding its world summit in Cologne, Germany this year. --Hogeye 19:32, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why exactly is the page locked?

Why is the page locked? RJII 00:19, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Because certain belligerants keep messing it up. --albamuth 03:19, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
CesarB chose to change the article to the socialist version and lock it. Also he put these two split the question pages up for deletion: Anarchism (anti-state) and Anarchism (socialist). The idea before everything got locked up, was to use this Anarchism as the main page, in order to avoid permanant edit-revolution. I have no idea how long Cesar is going to keep it locked. --Hogeye 04:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Anyone with admin powers can unlock it, and sooner or later someone will. Reaching a consensus here would spead things up. As to "the idea before everything got locked up", well, that was your idea. Several people here expressed disagreement with it. Kev 04:27, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Right. There are several possible reasons to disagree.
  • You're against forking (in principle, or due to ignorance of past edit wars)
  • You really believe that anarchism is by def anti-capitalist and you don't mind a continuing edit war
  • You think you can win an edit war
--Hogeye 04:42, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
There is also an alternative solution being proposed above. It would almost fit *into your first suggestion but it isn't a principle or ignorance, but rather an alternate possiblity. I would almost accept the second only that I do mind a continuing edit war, which is why I'm giving my favor to Alba's solution. Kev 06:29, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Well, Kev - you, me, and Alba agree to the proposed solution. But I don't understand what that means in Wiki. IOW it doesn't bind anyone else, and the first anarcho-socialist that comes along will likely break it, restarting the edit war. So I still think splitting the question is best. --Hogeye 16:43, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
What it means is that the proposal is slowly gaining support. Eventually if it gains enough support then it will be the new standard when the page is unprotected. At that point any single or handful of editors that comes along not knowing or caring of the conflict will find themselves reverted by a greater number of regulars who have spent more time on the page and who have come to a general consensus. Kev 22:31, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Right. An edit war. But you think the former consensus has an advantage in an edit war. Or at least may get it locked on their page. Perhaps so. --Hogeye 00:48, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Let's please cease the pointless debates about dictionary/encyclopedia definitions, who was or wasn't a capitalist, and all that other nonsense. Let's instead focus on what solutions would work to make a better article. I asked for survey questions and instead everyone filled that section with pointless rigmarole. I suggested an alternative format for the article and that thread got sidetracked. Can we stay on topic for once? --albamuth 14:18, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I see. Since the dictionary doesn't support your position, you want a survey among your buddies. Duh. --Hogeye 16:43, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hogeye, if you are hoping to gain anything from these discussions you will have to step up your level of discussion a bit. Kev 18:04, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't see why this issue has caused so much debate. Anarchism is against all forms of structured opression, includeing matriarchy, patriarchy, capitalism, racism et.c. No serous person claims otherwise. This whole debate is like letting members of Flat Earth Society influence articles about geography. // Liftarn

  • Exactly! more than enough evidence has been provided that shows Anarcho-capitalist claims are wrong. All this is trolling by revisionist a/c's and white supremacists/racists like Sam Spade. They are serious POV pushers and do not respect wikpedia or it's democracy. -max rspct 15:47, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Some more true believers with blinders. See what I mean? Any agreement will be overridden by the next partisan asshole that shows up. --Hogeye 16:43, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This is true of any proposed solution, regardless of which one. In fact, a solution much like your previous one has already been tried on this page before. We will continue to try to create a page that allows for some stability, but in the meantime your complaints might best to directed to wikipedia policy itself, rather than this page in particular. Kev 18:04, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hogeye> "Any agreement will be overridden by the next partisan asshole that shows up."
Kev> "This is true of any proposed solution, regardless of which one."
One would expect that having separate articles might help, since each group has its own sandbox to play in. Edit wars might be limited to intra-party squabbles.
That is one possible expectation. It was my hope in one of the instances when the article was disambiguated. It has not worked yet, apparently because many people don't want to see the topic of anarchist ripped to shreds. I once with hesitation supported this solution, but I no longer think it will work and there are better solutions on the table. Kev 01:26, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Kev> "In fact, a solution much like your previous one has already been tried on this page before."
Will you please link the page? I'd like to see it, and see if/why having two separate articles didn't work. You seem to be saying that there used to be an Anarchism article page that was pretty much like this? --Hogeye 00:39, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
A quick look at the Anarchism (disambiguation) history shows it was created around 7 April 2005. Take a look into the history of Anarchism around that date and you will find it. Here's one instance of the disambiguation version. --cesarb 01:11, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
No, that's not the same thing at all! That does not disambiguate between the two definitions of anarchism. That surrenders the term "anarchism" to the socialist assh, uh, partisans completely. For the umpteenth time, this is not about an anarcho-capitalist article. This is about a fair and unbiased Anarchism article. - a general article which includes all schools, even the schools the socialists want to denigrate or delete.
So as it turns out, the disambiguation idea has apparently not been tried before. What has been tried is a socialist biased article with a link to the ancap school article. --Hogeye 17:10, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Well, there are other "battles" that already are "surrendered". For instance the article about Earth state "The Earth is approximately a slightly oblate spheroid" and "Earth orbits the Sun" even if they obviously are those who disagree. // Liftarn
I will revert any edits which block out any mention of anarcho-capitalism, and will also revert edits which overemphasize it. Hogeye, what's important to realize is that we're trying to compromise: an extreme position would be to erase any mention of AC. Your position is the other extreme. If certain people, as you claim, will always attempt to push POV, that is hardly a reason for keeping the page locked - they are a minority and will be overriden by other editors. I would say that most of the frequent editors of this page accept the schools/intro/disambig note solution and would oppose attempts to remove AC from these areas. For the interest of everyone, I suggest that you accept this neutral solution. My interest is not in proving right or wrong your beliefs - I don't care enough about them to be bothered by them, despite my disagreements. We should all (emphasis on all) have a collective mission to provide a decent and balanced article, not to make it look like something we'd like to publish under our own names in our sectarian zines or whatever. --Tothebarricades 20:22, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
TTB> "an extreme position would be to erase any mention of AC. Your position is the other extreme."
I have never ever taken the position that all anarcho-socialist shit should be erased. My "extreme" position is to use the standard definition of anarchism.
According to what you have decided is standard, a rejection of encylopedic evidence, historical evidence, definitions accepted by the vast majority of anarchists, favoring instead a highly interpreted definition from something so simple as a dictionary. Again, if this is your standard, why are you not on a crusade to change the articles on "democrat", and "republican", as well as most other political wikipedia articles that go far beyond a one-sentence description of a complex political theory? Kev 01:24, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
TTB>"I would say that most of the frequent editors of this page accept the schools/intro/disambig note solution and would oppose attempts to remove AC from these areas."
Huh? The only solution on this page that has as many as three agreeing is Albamuth's, with no specific definition, no schools, but a general history - a history which refers to anyone not specifically calling themselves anarchist as "quasi-" or "proto-" or some such. --Hogeye 00:39, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

One More Proposed Solution

This would probably work if there is a way to lock only one section of an article. This is a compromise - it let's the socialists have the main article, but points to the general broad-tent dictionary definition at the beginning of the article. I propose that the article begin as follows, with this beginning locked:

Anarchism
The term anarchism also has a standard dictionary definition - see Anarchism (theory). This article deals with the meaning of "anarchism" prominent on US college campuses. For other usages, see Anarchism (disambiguation).

Is everyone happy with this? --Hogeye 16:55, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Where in the world are you getting the idea that this article deals with anarchism as prominent on college campuses? When I attended college there was very little knowledge anywhere of what anarchism is. Further, anarchism as it is described on this page is prominent worldwide, in particular it is the only association I ever heard from people in France, Spain, Mexico, and Japan. No evidence is being offered for these claims of scope, so they should be dropped.
Further, what is the reason of pointing both to the disambiguation page and a definition page? A disambiguation ought to be sufficient. If it hasn't stopped the edit wars on its own, neither will yet another warning pointing to another page. I think I would still prefer alba's solution.
BTW - To my knowledge one cannot protect only a certain part of a page, and I think that is probably for the best. Kev 18:00, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'm not happy with it. An article called "anarchism" should be about all philosophies of anarchism, not just left anarchism. RJII 20:50, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
No, an article about anarchism should include information about all philosophies claiming to be anarchist. It does not have to "be about", that is to say, be framed as necessarily compatible with, each and every one of those philosophies, and NPOV policy of wikipedia clearly states that equal time and representation need not (in fact, should not) be given to minority POVs. Kev 02:59, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Of course it shouldn't be framed as if all forms of anarchism are compatible with each other. They're not. Anarchism is a diverse set of philosophies who just happen to agree that government should not exist and that people should interact voluntarily. Beyond that, anything goes. RJII 14:55, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That was why NPOV was invented, and why the wikipedia abhors voting in favor of concensus. Unfortunately, the POV advocates here are unwilling to respect wiki-policy, rather prefering radical egoism and rhetoric. Sam Spade 21:01, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • rubbish sam - how can u witchhunt admins when u say u desire more hierarchy ! (see your chats over 'members advocates agency ting'). U cannot stand wikipedia consensus - but are u complaining about anarchism versus capitalism article? nae cause the admin favoured keeping it for now! You a/c's are bitter coz u are outnumbered by ordinary, better-read wikipedians. (who u and wheeler et al cannot see as your peers) - max rspct 21:10, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

LMAO... thats exactly what I was talking about! Thank you for the example XD Sam Spade 21:19, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh come on SS.. You moan about the anarchists.. but here are only 3 or so writing on this talk page. Many of the points in the article u don't like are supported as much by general wikipedians passing thru or just taking an interest than the 'traditional' anarchists on this page. That is the reason that your POV/inaccurate edits don't win thru. You simply cannot accept the verifiable balance and encyclopediac content of the article. -max rspct 22:00, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why is this still being discussed? Hogeye is clearly unwilling to compromise in any way, and it's pretty clear that RJII and Sam are just trolls, so their opinion amounts to very little. This is really just one person being disruptive, plain and simple. So, Hogeye, do you have any intention of working constructively on this article? I haven't seen anything to lead me to believe that you do. So, what reason do we have to keep putting up with you? Spare me the typical smart ass comeback and prove that you are at least trying to act in good faith. --Tothebarricades 02:08, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

I've given my three reasonable conditions several times on this page. Your turn, TTB. Tell us what you want. --Hogeye 16:52, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Latest update: It sounds like at least two people agree on 2 and 3. On #1 what about the beginning italics saying something like this:
This article surveys a broad range of political philosophies that oppose the state. Many of these philosophies also oppose capitalism and/or religion. For other usages, see anarchism (disambiguation).
Hogeye 21:26, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'm still baffled. If we are going to change the definition of anarchism in this article to be compatible with capitalism (we aren't, because that would be dishonest), and we are going to include a section on capitalism (we should), then why in the world would you still call for a disambiguation warning? If you had your way either the disambiguation or the inclusion of anarcho-capitalism would make the other unnecessary. Kev 00:54, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The disambiguation page is for non-political uses of "anarchism," such as Hakim Bey's "ontological anarchism," and for punk and other lifestyle anarchisms. Hogeye 06:40, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Personal attacks do not serve any constructive purpose here. RJII 14:47, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Serious trolling thrust lately.. the archives have bloated coz of all this.. A minor, refutable claim (Anarcho-capitalism should replace anarchism!). Evangelical POVers who WHITEWASH both their own ignorance and misbehaviour in the quest for ideological kudos. If you reject encyclopedias and historical research just because A/C isn't counted.. don't come here looking for a new history! - max rspct 12:18, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Max> "A minor, refutable claim (Anarcho-capitalism should replace anarchism!)."
A strawman of course. No one has ever claimed that about the article. Do you totally misunderstand the issue, or are you just trolling? The issue is whether to have a biased 'socialists-only' Anarchism article, or whether the Anarchism article should be inclusive of all forms of anarchism. IOW should we define anarchism according to current fashion on some college campuses, or should we use the standard dictionary definition?


You've both already proven that you arn't acting in good faith, by your personal attacks. I don't see anything I need to prove, especially since we've long since stopped talking about the facts in favor of your ad hominem distractions. Sam Spade 13:25, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Proposal rejected on these grounds: college campuses -- huh? Another attempt to smear protagonists of the definition of anarchism that you don't like? --albamuth 08:09, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Anarcho-Capitalism

Where did the anarcho-capitalist entry go? This needs to be re-added to the main article.

MSTCrow 07:32, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
The article is protected, it cannot be modified right now. Also, the entry on anarcho-capitalism is still present in the article. Kev 09:32, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The socialist assholes repeatedly have either erased anarcho-capitalism and individual anarchism entirely, or relegated them to the Conflicts section instead of the Schools section. The current frozen socialist version of the article has no individualist anarchist section at all, and has the anarcho-capitalist section in Conflict. My absolute minimum program is this:
  • Anarchism should not, anywhere in the article, be described as anti-capitalist. Specific schools, of course, may be so described.
  • Attributions to what anarchists say, or think, or believe, should be accurate. E.g. If anarcho-capitalists or individualist anarchists don't subscribe to a belief, a more specific term such as "anarcho-socialists" should be used.
  • If there is a "Schools of Anarchism" section, the Individualist Anarchist and Anarcho-capitalist schools should be included.
--Hogeye 15:41, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Please, no personal attacks. Let's try to keep the civility here. --cesarb 16:01, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Well, from my personal contact with socialist-anarchists, they are dogmatic, rude, ad hominem, US bashing for the hell of it, and don't know anything about anarch history, economics, or politics. Basically, uneducated thugs. So I have to agree with Hogeye; they aren't at all interested in Wikipedia or facts, just propaganda.
MSTCrow 20:00, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
That's a pretty broad conclusion you make there. If you intend to work on this article please leave your biases elsewhere. --Tothebarricades 20:52, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Funny - that soundz like you and hogeye! -max rspct 20:40, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Anarchism is against all form of organised opression, that includes capitalism. // Liftarn

Growing anarchism

I just read this sentence: Today, anarchism is a growing tendency around the globe.. Is there any proof for this claim? To me, anecdotical evidence would rather point to the contrary. Therefore, I would kindly request a source for this claim. Thanks. Luis rib 20:19, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I would say, since at least 1994 anarchism has both overtly and indirectly been a growing tendency. See anti-capitalist protests, Seattle, etc. Movements like Zapatismo, the Argentinian workers movement, etc. show an opposition to hierarchy, support of consensus decision making, direct democracy, and so forth. I would say that method of organizing is now the norm in revolutionary organizing as opposed to party-based, Communist-like organizing. There are plenty of organizations/movements which show these tendencies which could be used as "proof." But a basic proof would be that there are more people identifying as anarchists today than there were, say, 15 or 20 years ago, which could be proven by increased readership of certain zines/magazines, website traffic, organizational participation, and world events. --Tothebarricades 20:57, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
Bullshit. There have been protests thruout history. Internationalism is a "growing" movement, and perhaps localism and radicalism and whatnpt are also increasingly signifigant forces, but anarchism? lets see a cite. Sam Spade 21:18, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yeah. Citing anti-capitalist WTO-type protests ignores the fact that most of the protesters were not anarchists - they were statist protectionists, do-gooders wanting States to force labor and environmental regulation on LDCs, and special interests wanting the State to save their jobs and businesses from more productive foreign people. The claim that the Zapatista movement is anarchist is also rather dubious. I saw a film on it at my local Infoshop ("Zapatista!" with Noam Chomsky et al) and Zapatista leaders are shown saying how they want a share of the power, a place at the statist table, and so on. OTOH, there may be something to the Argentine movement to ignore the State and run abandoned factories laissez faire. Hogeye 21:37, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Do not turn every discussion into a smear on anarchists and AC POV - this has nothing to do with your other objections. This is trolling to the extreme by both of you and you should be ashamed. --Tothebarricades 21:40, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

With the Google image search "anarchists march":

  • [[2]] - SanFran 2005 Anarchist Bookfair (Indymedia)
  • [[http:// nefac.net/node/1403]] - pictures from NEFAC of various 2004 events
  • [[3]] - some antiwar protest w/ plenty of black n' red flags (Indymedia)
  • [[4]] - anti-police-brutality march in LA during DNC 2000

Those are a few, you get the idea. Where are all the anarcho-capitalists? Where are all the dollar-sign flags? --albamuth 18:04, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Move to Post Public Survey

Survey Questions

Since this "discussion" is going nowhere (in circles, to be precise), I move that we post a public survey under requests for comments about the terms and definitions this article deals with. Multiple choice would be good way of limiting the scope of answers, Suggestions:

1. Anarchists are:

a. against governments and capitalism.
b. against governments but not necessarily capitalism.
c. against capitalism but not necessarily governements.
d. neither against capitalism or governments.
e. variations or multiples of the above.

2. Anarcho-Capitalism...

a. is a major faction of the anarchist movement.
b. is a minor faction of the anarchist movement.
c. is not a part of the anarchist movement.
d. does not exist.
e. is one term among others (radical or classical liberalism, libertarianism, etc...) for a type of political / economic ideology, related to anarchism philosophically.

3. Anarchism is:

a. a social movement.
b. not a movement, but a word used to encompass various movements, all of which are philosophically compatible with each other in all material respects.
c. not a movement, but a word used to encompass various movements, some of which are philosophically opposed to each other in some material respects
d. a philosopical term rooted in the term "anarchy", which has been used for a variety of divergent groups and individuals thruout history, perhaps most notably Michael Bakunin.
e. undecided
f. none of the above / the question is flawed

Survey Responses

Please restrict your contribution under this subheading to direct responses to survey questions. Please restrict your commentary on the survey questions to the appropriate area. Please restrict any debate arising from the survey to the appropriate area.

1a. 2c. Fifelfoo 04:14, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
1a. 2c. 3a. albamuth 13:20, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
1e. 2e. 2d. Sam Spade 15:23, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
1e. 2e. 3d. *Dan* 15:46, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
1e. 2e. 3c. RJII 16:16, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
1a. 2c. 3a. Fatal 00:12, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
1a. 2c. 3a. Tothebarricades 00:51, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
1a. 2c. 3a. Bk0 01:03, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
1e. 2e. 3d. Hiding 09:08, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
1a. 2d. 3f. Liftarn 12:43, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
1a. 2c. 3a. Feighnt 21:48, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
1a. 2c. 3a. max rspct 21:25, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
1a. 2d. 3a. Chekovfeeney 02:43, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Historical Figures - How Luminaries Would Vote

1b. Pierre Proudhon 05:32, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
1a. Michael Bakunin 05:32, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
1b. Peter Kropotkin 05:32, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
1b. Emma Goldman 05:32, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
LOL, Hogeye, but I think they would have answered:
1a. 2c. 3a. --albamuth 07:58, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It's not debatable. We have their answers in black and white. See Kropotkin section below. Hogeye 4:43, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Haha, that's a hoot, Hogeye - I'd like to see Peter Kropotkin defend capitalism. --Tothebarricades 03:54, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
You still haven't figured out the difference between a definition and advocacy, I see. Hogeye 19:48, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

How another historical figure (presumably non-anarchist) would answer:

I don't care, people are good in their essential nature, and y'all should head into the great outdoors and calm down, okay? Anne Frank 22:14, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

— Rickyrab | Talk 22:15, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Commentary on Survey Questions

This subheading is intended for commentary on the survey questions themselves. There is a seperate section for debate arising from survey questions.

Sure. The demographics of wikipedia, and the internet itself, are very skewed, but ce la vie, they are in fact the people making up the project. Kev 01:04, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
But, is this going to solve the problems on this page? Perhaps a question overtly asking about the place anarcho-capitalism deserves in this article? Or something that would lead to a decision about this? --Tothebarricades 01:40, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
The questions are horrible. First of all anarchism is not "a movement." There is no "anarchist movement." There are various movements that fall under the name "anarchism." How can it be one monolithic movement when you have philosophies that oppose each other? Notwithstanding anarcho-capitalism, the traditional individualist anarchists oppose the collectivist anarchists (left anarchists, anarcho-communism, anarcho-syndicalists). This idea of an "anarchist movement" is bizarre. RJII 15:54, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
You're utterly clueless. Of course there is an anarchist movement, which would be obvious if you knew anything about the topic. Anarcho-capitalists are generally not involved in this movement, while all other anarchists are. I'll leave your continued ignorance of the individualist anarchists alone for now. --Tothebarricades 00:47, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
How can anarchism be a movement when different kinds of anarchists oppose each other? It's indisputable that individualist anarchists are opposed to anarcho-communists and other such collectivist anarchisms, and support private property and trade. A movement is unified. Anarchism is not a movement. Maybe you just haven't been out much if you think all anarchist philosophies are compatible. There are other types of anarchism besides Euro anarchism. Get with the program. RJII 02:16, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
There probaby is as many versions of anarchism as there are anarchists, but nevertheless they have no problem working together as they work towards the same goal sometimes within the same organisation. // Liftarn
"Anarcho"-capitalists are not anarchists. It's just that simple. Please stop insulting individualist-oriented anarchists by implying that they support so-called private property and whatever you mean by the word "trade" (I'm assuming exchange economy relations). Bob Black would not be pleased, I'm sure, nor would Stirner were he around to read such rubbish. --Bk0 02:52, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Individualist anarchist, Benjamin Tucker, said Anarcho-communists are not anarchists. RJII 02:55, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
$10USD says my NEFAC can beat up your Rothbard. --Bk0 02:58, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"Anarchism is a word without meaning, unless it includes the liberty of the individual to control his product or whatever his product has brought him through exchange in a free market—that is, private property." -Benjamin Tucker, individualist anarchist" RJII 03:02, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Have you ever been arrested, RJII? Or have you ever put yourself in physical danger to fight to create the world you believe in? I'm not asking to be elitist, as I've never been arrested either (although I've come close on a few occassions), I'm just curious. "Anarcho"-capitalists are a peculiar breed of individual that seem to exist solely on the internet, or rarely in a corner of some elite university. Do you people actually fight for anything, or are you content to troll and argue meaningless nonsense all day long? --Bk0 03:12, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Bk0, as I think you're new I'll let you know that RJII is not an anarcho-capitalist nor does he know all that much about the topic. --Tothebarricades 19:50, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
You're unjustified in making that assertion about me. I've never stated what I "am" or am not on Wikipedia. I might be an anarcho-capitalist or I might not. I am knowledgeable on the philosophy though. What would you like to know? RJII 22:34, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'm not talking about anarcho-capitalists. I'm talking about the traditional individualist anarchists. Individualist anarchists oppose using violence against private property. What did you almost get arrested for? Did you smashes the window of a private shop owner at a demonstration, in opposition to private property? You rebel, you. RJII 03:30, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Agreed, but I added a reasonable answer to each question, which seemed to me more fair than rewriting the whole mess. Sam Spade 16:00, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I added a new question to address my concern. RJII 16:17, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Can we maybe merge c and d? (I added d ;) Sam Spade 16:34, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Question #1 is very poorly stated. There is a built in bias with the word "only." Why was "only" used in (b) and (c), but not (a)? Could it be to make (b) and (c) clearly wrong answers? The word "only" should have been omitted from (b) and (c). All anarchists are anti-state, but that isn't the only thing they believe. It is, however, the core belief that all anarchists, by definition, hold to. The correct answer is (b) if you delete the word "only." Hogeye 17:25, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Don't you understand the premise of multiple-choice questions? You would rather have choices that only conform to your ideas? --albamuth 17:30, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I understand some of the premises. E.g. The answers should not be rigged by the surveyor. There should only be one correct answer to each question. Right now, there are two correct answers to #1: d and e. (Assuming that the implied quantifier is "All", i.e. "1. All anarchists are...") Hogeye 17:41, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I did not insert "e" into that question, FYI. And why did you revert my clarifications/wifications to the questions? --albamuth 18:07, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Sorry - I think I used the back button to return to the edit box, and you'd posted in the meantime. Don't you think that (b) and (c) would be better without the word "only"? Hogeye 18:27, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Well, if they didn't then what would be the difference with (a)? --albamuth 18:55, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC) Okay, I reworded the question. Hopefully that is good enough. --albamuth 18:59, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yes, much better! Hogeye 20:19, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I see a division between movement and philosophy. Maybe an agreement could be reached that the philosphy includes a capitalist branch, but the movement doesn't. The marches and so forth are called anticapitalist by the press, so maybe its even true. 4.250.138.127 04:03, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Sam Spade 14:33, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Battle Lines

So far the survey has only confirmed the biases we've all known about (of the regular editors) for some time. Let's hope some third parties come in. --albamuth 05:09, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm really not sure what we hope to accomplish by this survey. As you say, it's just confirming what we already know about the people who have disputing these articles all along. We could try to focus on third parties voting, which would mean that the regulars need not vote at all. To be entirely honest, I suspect that most neutral third parties avoid this page like the plague. Most of the third parties that vote in our polls, I fear, are actually just as POV at heart as you and me; they just haven't bothered to edit the page before.
The questions above have been improved somewhat, but they still have major flaws. The first question moots "capitalism", but it neither gives nor requests specificity on what "capitalism" means (it also doesn't say what "government" means, although we can assume it means the state). Personally, I might considering going further and saying that all logically consistent anarchists oppose socialism, but this would be seen as needlessly inflammatory and it begs a lot of questions about what "socialism" is.
The second question, likewise, seems to assume the existence of an "anarchist movement" without defining what is meant.
I think we would be better off with something along the lines of ==Back to the articles== above. We just need to make sure that we press people to go back to discussing the substance of the articles instead of veering off onto personalities or other tangents (which isn't easy). - Nat Krause 13:56, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't have a user name and all that but I am just editing this comment in cause I'm not very savvy with message boards. I think this survey has absolutely no legitimacy if it is given to the public since very few people have any clue about anarchism. How do you expect them to give educated answers w/o any background other than what they see on the news (when we are presented at all). I didn't have any clue anarchism was anti-capitalist (and it IS anti-capitalist, despite what some "anarcho"-c(r)apitalists want to try and make you think) until I actually started studying it 2 years ago. Most people I know think I'm contradicting myself when I say I'm a communist and an anarchist, which shows that we can't let non-anarchists write this article or answer survey questions about it.

Right, I think many of us share your concerns about letting other people determine the meaning of the labels we place on ourselves. Over the years I have lost some of my "leftist" enthusiasm, primarily because conversation with many people seems to be fruitless (it inevitably degenerates into argument or "debate" where people are only concerned with winning, and not mutual understanding). If right wingers have ever proven me wrong in anyway, its not in their arguments, but rather in their unwillingness to even come to an understanding with others. George Berkeley thought Christians should listen to non-Christians only to the extent needed to refute their arguments; he assumed ahead of time that he already knew the Truth. I think RJII's "eternal edit war theory of wikipedia" shows my point nicely. But I think its also necessary that at some point "leftists" show respect towards others by assuming that voters will be intellegent and intellectually honest enough to go do the research for themselves before voting. millerc 02:47, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Methodological Problems

I've been having some trouble with the survey questions. They all seem to ask us to decide if anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism, or if capitalism is compatible with anarchism. I don't think the answer to these questions is very meaningful (as far as wikipedia is concerned). I'm concerned that in the edit war, we've all been caught up in the quest to determine what anarchism really means. But wikipedia is concerned with NPOV not the Truth. I would have thought that confusing the Truth with NPOV was more a fault of POV warriors like Sam Spade (I recall him using the excuse that "the truth is NPOV" before). Sadly its something we're all guilty of, and I'm somewhat frightened by that. I don't mean to insult anyone, since I am including myself in that assessment. Maybe its time to rethink the methodology of the survey? Any comments or thoughts? millerc 03:15, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

First of all, I think it's hilarious that a few people have voted (2d): anarcho-capitalism does not exist! So that right there negates this survey as a "truth"-finding tool. Secondly, truth is determined by people. Just like the writers of a dictionary are presenting their semantic reality, the writers of an encyclopedia define a cultural/social/historical reality for their entries. A dictionary that defines abortion as "the murder of the helpless unborn" is certainly written from a particular POV. So a dictionary ascribes to a technical description devoid of any colorful language that most people can understand. Nor do dictionary writers insert their own, made-up words, or change the meanings of words unless it enters the popular understanding. "Like" as a (slang) particle has an entry because of the popular usage by American youth, which is fairly recent.
So when the survey is over with we might be able to see what the common person thinks is included in anarchism. It's not so esoteric or technical a subject that computer-literate people would have not even heard the word used, unlike quantum loop gravity. The conceptual direction that people point to via the survey is merely a guideline for determining what needs to be explained. We haven't even touched on the whole word-war of "left-anarchism/anarcho-socialists". I can't even envision a survey for that without some surrealist formulation ( 1. Blue is actually... a. Blue b. Anti-Yellow c. Greenish Blue d. a nonentity) --albamuth 05:12, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Debate Arising from Survey Questions

Personally I think of all anarchists being opposed to both government and "property relations", but "capitalism" is reasonable shorthand for "property relations". All of the individualists I know are opposed to the "governance" implicit in property, even when their proposed solution is not communistic. Fifelfoo 04:14, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I go by reality and the dictionary, not popularity contests. So I decline to vote. Hogeye 06:43, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hogeye, have you ever considered that the "reality" you see is not exactly the same as that of everyone else? The closest we can come, as finite human beings, to measuring objectivity is to compare the perspectives of different people and see where they meet. Where there is universal and near universal agreement, we can begin to measure, to a limited degree, "reality" that applies to all people. That is one point of such a discussion, it is a way of gauging perspective, it is not merely a popularity contest, nor a method by which to rule out a minority or dominate them. It is a discussion between a large number of people, nothing more.
Very good. I will discuss but not vote. Hogeye 16:48, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
As to the particular definition you go by, in those dictionaries you favor, which I suppose you believe lends some manner of objectivity to your stance, even that you interpret in your own way (even in some ways it is not normally interpreted), and even in your choice of dictionary, rather than say, political journal or encyclopedia, part of your own personal bias is represented. Kev 07:59, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Have you ever looked into the definition of psychotic? --albamuth 13:23, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Many of the anarchists here apparently think of the word anarchism as their property. As far as wikipedia encyclopedic standards are concerned, it doesn't matter what the anarchist POV cabal here votes about anarcho-capitalism. What matters is whether anarcho-capitalists self identify as anarchists or a form of anarchism. If so, they have co-opted some of the meaning of the word, and reconciled that meaning with the popular usage of the term, despite the rather technical version of the term the marxist anarchists want to impose.--Silverback 08:26, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

"marxist anarchists". With that phrase you have discredited yourself and proven you know nothing. — Chameleon 12:48, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Amen to that!! Marxism is inherently authoritarian and Marx himself was completely opposed to libertarian socialism. Marx ruined socialism but that's a different subject. On subject, Marx is not admired by any anarchists that know history and have read his works in which they'll find he's totally opposed to freedom. --Fatal 00:15, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
wtf? people arn't allowed to misuse a term without being ridden out on a rail? What is with anarchists and gratutious personal attacks? perhaps both anarchists and blackshirts share a hue for a reason...
Sam Spade 16:33, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
And the blackshirt comment isn't a gratuitous personal attack? As for "misuse" of a term, there are degrees. If he had written "anerchists", I could let the mistake slide, but we are talking about blithely saying something so contradictory as to display one of two things: an ignorance of the subject matter so extreme that the article is clearly better without them being able to edit it, or a deliberate lie demonstrating bad faith so extreme that the article is clearly better without them being able to edit it. I would say the same of someone who on the talk page of a science article started talking about how water is dry. — Chameleon 20:36, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Your desire to restrict who is and is not "allowed" to speak or edit is telling. Not very anarchic at all, but rather reminiscent of something other... Sam Spade 21:27, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Just stop your pathetic insinuations. — Chameleon 21:37, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The correct term, Silverback, is "anarcho-socialist" or "anarchist who believes in the exploitation theory." Marx was the arch-rival of Bakunin. Hogeye 16:53, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I was viewing "gift economy" utopian communists and anarchists as a fringe subset of marxism, when perhaps the similarity is only rhetorical due to the exploitation emphasis. Don't worry Sam, I didn't find the dismissive comments particularly cogent.--Silverback 19:23, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
Thank you Hogeye, that was a very polite way to respond to that confusion. Sam Spade 17:05, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Technical version? I think the survey choices are very straightforward. --albamuth 13:23, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"anarcho-capital"

In a capitalist state there will always be a ruler, so it can not be anarchist. anarcho-cap. would just make it easier for corprations to screw peaple over. These ideals are what the republican party is for, not anarchists. you are just a libratarian not an anarchist.

Anarcho-capitalists want a stateless society with a capitalist economic system. Corporations would be innocuous without government privilege. Hogeye 04:08, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the corporations would become more powerful: they can easily hire mercenaries etc. - they are not anarchist and would certainly have no problem with using violence to take what they wanted from those who were only existing for themselves and their family/collective. -Elliot 20:00 GMT

Movement vs Philosophy

I see a division between movement and philosophy. Maybe an agreement could be reached that the philosphy includes a capitalist branch, but the movement doesn't. The marches and so forth are called anticapitalist by the press, so maybe its even true. 4.250.138.127 04:03, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hey, great idea! Brilliant! Hogeye 04:49, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Is that what makes something a movement ..that you're out demonstrating, smashing shop windows, and overturning cars? RJII 04:55, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Body piercings help, I hear. But seriously, we want to use the philosophical meaning, and they want to use the popular 'movement' meaning. That is an apt description.
But there is such a thing as an intellectual "movement." RJII 05:03, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
True and if we decide that the article is about a social movement and not a philosophy, then the disambiguation needs to distinguis that. --albamuth 05:33, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Encyclopedia Britannica says anarchism is "cluster of doctrines and attitudes centred on the belief that government is both harmful and unnecessary." Anarchism is not one movement, but a bunch of philosophies, some which oppose each other. RJII 05:47, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Okay, now pay close attention: Enc. Brit. is wrong. ;-) --albamuth 13:57, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Encyclopedia Britannica commercial: "Did you ever want to make it through Checkpoint Charlie by the skin of your teeth?" --albamuth 14:00, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Did you know that the original Encyclopedia Britannica article for Anarchism was written by Peter Kropotkin, an anarcho-communist? Since you love that Encyclopedia so much, it would make sense that you agree that the people working on the A book had enough sense to consult someone with real first-hand knowledge of the subject, someone who was against the state and capitalism. --Fatal 20:14, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
You're joking right? That encyclopedia entry is from 1910. Do you realize that's over a century ago? In other words, that encyclopedia is out of date. Things have happened since then, dude. Stop living in the past. RJII 03:57, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Incidentally, this distinction between anarchism qua movement and anarchism qua category for types of thought was what I had in mind when I initially wrote the first disambiguation message for this page: "*This article concerns anarchism in the sense of a socialist movement or trend which has included thinkers such as Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Mikhail Bakunin, and Emma Goldman. For other senses of the word anarchism see anarchism (disambiguation)." I'm also amenable to moving this page to anarchist movement (or movement anarchism, although I guess I'm joking, because "movement" seems to be a derisive as an adjective for some reason). - Nat Krause 14:12, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I feel that anarchism is better characterized as a social movement beceause how else could you explain the many diverse writers and participants that always manage to collaborate on so many things? However, the main article anarchism should remain as it is--describing the philosophical and popular movement that is anarchism. Can we have a page for anarchism (theory)? --albamuth 14:23, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
We used to, but some [person] redirected it. Hogeye 17:08, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Removed personal attack. --cesarb 17:43, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
If there is an article to pertain only to a "social movement," by which I think you mean a movement where people are out protesting in the streets, then it should not be this article. The term "anarchism" almost always refers to politcal theory. RJII 15:33, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So, we have Anarchism (philosophy) and Anarchism (movement) articles now. You're welcome. Hogeye 16:41, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wow!! Thanks! Thank you so much for ruining this article! It's been great ever since you showed up. --Fatal 23:36, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hey, I'm not the one who froze it on the stupid socialist version. We used to have a good article at Anarchism (anti-state), but the socialist faction got it deleted. Hogeye 23:43, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"The socialist faction" meaning everyone but you and the professional malcontents? --Tothebarricades 00:54, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
I'm just an amateur malcontent here... *Dan* 01:26, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
Ha, well you I do not mind. You seem the only reasonable editor on the opposing side of this debate. --Tothebarricades 18:09, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

RFC: Hogeye

Need I say more? Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Hogeye (yes, modified from the address before) --Fatal 23:38, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The right place is Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Hogeye; the one above was while it was being drafted. --cesarb 23:47, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Ah, I see! The reason no one was worried about an edit war is that you ban anyone who disagrees. Hogeye 00:47, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Don't sweat it. This is just a cowardly attempt to harrass you for disturbing the status quo. Most likely nothing will come of it. RJII 04:03, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It's not a "ban." And there is no "you." --Tothebarricades 00:51, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
Yeah. As far a I can tell, its another one of those meaningless rituals. In retrospect, I should have just ignored it. Hogeye 05:28, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Kropotkin's definition of "Anarchism"

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

We already saw that Proudhon didn't define anarchism as anti-capitalist - even though he personally was anti-capitalist. Now let's look at Kropotkin's definition:

  • "ANARCHISM, the name given to a principle or theory of life and conduct under which society is conceived without government - harmony in such a society being obtained, not by submission to law, or by obedience to any authority, but by free agreements concluded between the various groups, territorial and professional, freely constituted for the sake of production and consumption, as also for the satisfaction of the infinite variety of needs and aspirations of a civilized being." [5]

Well, that sure sounds like free-market capitalism to me! Certainly stateless capitalism as anarcho-capitalists conceive it complies with Kropotkin's definition.

Please don't make the mistake, like someone earlier did with Proudhon, in confusing Kropotkin's political position with his definition of anarchism. I think it is significant that even anti-capitalists like Proudhon and Kropotkin define "anarchism" as anti-state and anti-authority, but not anti-capitalist.

Kropotkin makes it absolutely clear that his anti-capitalism is a prediction or hope about how anarchism will turn out:

  • "If, it is contended, society were organized on these principles, man would not be limited in the free exercise of his powers in productive work by a capitalist monopoly, maintained by the state." Italics added.

Note that, just like anarcho-capitalists, he is strongly opposed to "a capitalist monopoly maintained by the state."

While we're surveying the big shots: Bakunin defined anarchism as "stateless socialism." So there does exist one luminary who agrees with the socialist partisans of Wiki. Emma Goldman gives her definition in Anarchism: What It Really Stands For:

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

So Emma's definition doesn't rule out anarcho-captalism either. Very interesting. Again, it's anti-statist, not anti-capitalist. As I've said, I'm not voting in the silly survey. But I really must put up the votes of Pierre, Peter, Michael, and Emma. Hogeye 04:18, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

From that quote, it looks like Emma Goldman also parts company with those anarchists who advocate violence.--Silverback 05:28, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
Also, she apparently parts company with anarchists supporting the right to organize for self-defense, e.g. create voluntary legal systems, courts, and PDAs. No wonder Benjamin Tucker didn't think she was a real anarchist. Hogeye 05:43, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I don't care what you think of my use of words, how stupid are you? You claim you have so much knowledge of anarchism and time and time again have shown you know nothing, this being yet another case! Emma Goldman was very very far from being a pacifist. She associated and aided several "propaganda by the deed" attacks and one of her best friends, Alex Berkman, attempted to assassinate Frick. I'm reading Living My Life right now (her autobiography) and anyone who does even the slightest research on Goldman will find out how full of shit you are. Admit it, you know nothing of anarchism, you're most likely a member of the libertarian party who came on here after you overheard the word "anarchism" in a crowd, you then went and looked up the "definition" in your local barnes and noble in a dictionary and then sought to tell the word what "real" anarchism is. No doubt you'll continue to deny your lack of anarchistic knowledge, but anyone who DOES know what they're talking about can see right through you. --Fatal 22:46, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'm just going to say three words, No Original Research. I will also let you know that your ultimate schemes (as I assume your talk page propaganda here has some relation to the article, if not present then future; if not, please say so, I'll just revert it out because Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a discussion forum) are mostly like in violation of those three words and about two-dozen other wiki-guidelines. --Tothebarricades 05:49, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)


What are you blathering about? Quoting primary sources to show what Kropotkin, Bakunin, Proudhon and Goldman mean by "anarchism" is quite appropriate to the article and to the definitional issue. It is not even remotely original research.
Here's some more non-original research. The book "The Political Philosophy of Bakunin" has a preface written by Bert F. Hoselitz, a university of Chicago prof. Here's something he writes about anarchist history:
"It is of the utmost importance to understand that the anarchist doctrine as propounded by Godwin, Proudhon, and their contemporaries was the apotheosis of petty bourgeois existence; that its ultimate ideal was the same as that of Voltaire's Candide, to cultivate one's garden; and that it ignored or opposed large scale industrial or agricultural enterprises; and that it, therefore, never became a political theory which could find real sympathy and enthusiastic support among the masses of industrial workers. It was a radical extention of the liberalist doctrine... How and why did anarchism become associated so closely, around the middle of the nineteenth century, with socialism, a political philosophy which championed the aspirations of a different social stratum and which had appeal for so different a class orf men?"
In short, Hoselitz considered anarchism to be a type of liberalism until Bakunin in the mid-1800's, when it went socialist. Hogeye 06:17, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

While you're trying to convince me that Emma Goldman wasn't against capitalism, you might as well try to convince me that Colgate Toothpaste cures AIDS. --albamuth 08:03, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The ol' switcheroo (again). No one has claimed Emma wasn't against capitalism. I claimed that Emma's definition of "anarchism" is compatible with stateless capitalism. All you have to do is read her def to figure that out. Hogeye 14:04, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps Emma Goldman had a moral center, that would not allow her to be against capitalism in the sense that you mean. Would she use violence to prevent people from deferring consumption (accumulating capital) so they could save for periods of illness or infirmaty or old age? Would she use violence to prevent people from deferring consumption so they could fund research and the development of inventions? Capital is a store of value that represents a deferral of consumption, that allows the pursuit of something other than daily subsistance. Producing capital equipment requires capital, in other words funding of the subsitance of those who produce it, because while capital equipment may be eventually used to increase total productivity and wealth, its process of its production does not provide subsistance, because you generally can't eat it or use it for shelter. Yes, you can create research, philosophy and art without capital, as the ancient Greeks (among others) proved, but their freedom from the daily concerns of subsistance came on the backs of surplus production of slaves, not from the deferral of consumption. If only slaves had been allowed to keep their surplus production, and defer it, so they could make long term investments in improving their lot. We might have had capitalism and all this wealth much sooner. Of course, many slaves would have consumed the "surplus" production instead of saving it, but in a free society, that would be their choice that they may later regret or remember fondly.--Silverback 09:31, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

"or by obedience to any authority" (my emphasis). Your boss in a workplace certainly is an authority and as noted earlier anarchism is opposed to all rulers. // Liftarn

Your boss has no authority over you. It is just a voluntary contract. You can go freely if you want - and he ceases to pay you (since you don't deliver anymore as agreed in the barter). Der Eberswalder 20:32, 28 August 2005 (UTC)


I'm still waiting for their explanation of how it is possible to acquire capital in the first place without any coercion. Grace Note 09:39, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Deferral of consumption, or don't you think it is possible to produce more than you consume? Exchange that excess production for a store of value. Of course, the most direct form of deferral of consumption might store your production itself for your own later consumption. Most cultures in temperate climates for instance, have means of preserving food for consumption during the winter months. If you are stuck indoors during those winter months, you might while your are consuming your previous production, use your time to produce tools (capital equipment). These might allow you to product more the next growing season, perhaps enough more to support an artist or an inventor, etc. Where is the coercion?--Silverback 09:50, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
LOL. Bill Gates must have made shedloads of tools then! Grace Note 09:53, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The point being that you cannot turn yourself into tools. You must use other forms of capital to do so. How can you acquire them? Grace Note 09:57, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Foul! We implicitly meant coercion against people, now you are extending it to nature. Next you will be telling me that you don't chew your food because that would be coercion. So are you going to sit and wait for nature to "give" herself to you? Dream on!--Silverback 10:18, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
(Sorry if I put things out of order, Silver. I didn't realize you were responding to my comment. Feel free to edit for what you intended to be the correct order. - Nat Krause 15:56, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC))
Everything's fine up till the point when you tell the artist who you are supporting that you want a return. Or perhaps you're suggesting a more benign sort of "capitalism", in which your motives for, *kof*, deferring consumption are purely philanthropic? Almost as though you were suggesting that if you were able to produce more than you could consume, you might do so to supply others' needs? That what you're saying? Grace Note 11:05, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)


The above statement was made when the statement below was above it. It did confuse the issue. However, as to your Bill Gates question, we are not at the initial stages of creating that first capital from a subsistance life style. In Bill's particular case, he got a head start, some would say because of the "unfairness" introduced by mixing a gift economy with capitalism. He received a gift of capital from his parents. Of course, parents gifting their offspring is common in nature, and is no more unfair than any genetic advantages they also may have given them. Of course, we are no longer talking about a non-coercive society, because Gates made most of his subsequent wealth from the government enforcement of an unnatural Intellectual Property monopoly. Despite his tremendous wealth, he is actually consuming a miniscule percentage of it, the rest, if it is any consolation, it probably being better managed than it would be in some governments hands. since it is employed and not stuffed in a mattress, it is still providing general benefit to society.--Silverback 10:56, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
Ho hum. So basically your argument is that if you receive your capital without coercing anyone, it never involved any coercion? I'm not discussing fairness, Silverback. The article doesn't consider whether this or that philosophy is fair. Grace Note 11:05, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Grace Note: "The point being that you cannot turn yourself into tools. You must use other forms of capital to do so." You exert labor on natural resources. You also cannot live without appropriating natural resources to use as food. - Nat Krause 10:13, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Lucky then that in the anarcho-capitalist paradise we all have abundant resources to hand that nobody else has any claim on -- because you are yet to explain how exactly you intend to "appropriate" them if they do. Grace Note 11:05, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure I follow the question: you're asking how to appropriate natural resources that someone already owns? - Nat Krause 15:56, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The pattern is this: The ansoc clique realizes that the definitions of virtually every dictionary, Proudhon, Kropotkin, and Goldman don't include anti-capitalism, so they go through massive contortions trying to redefine "cooperative" or "against authority" as "anti-capitalist." Duh! Hogeye 14:12, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please. As previous authors have done, I will again urge you to consult this document before you edit here any further: No Original Research. Anarchism is etymologically and historically anti-capitalist. RadkoBadley 22:06, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
But isn't original research exactly what an anarchist would do? — Rickyrab | Talk 22:09, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anarchism/Archive_20&oldid=1142752273"