Talk:Anarchism/Archive 49

Archive 45

←

Archive 47

Archive 48

Archive 49

Archive 50

Archive 51

→

Archive 55

Weird Eurocentrism section in race

While the term eurocentraism may make sense in relation to discussion in North America its use in the race section for groups based in Europe makes no sense. At the comically extreme the idea that a European group (Wombles in UK) involving itself in a European campaign around European employment legislation (EUMayday)is eurocentraism is very weird indeed. Obviously European groups will be involved in European issues rather than a campaign for labour rights in say North America. I reckon the mentions of eurocentraism should go as they are all used with regards to groups / individuals in Europe - the term is only applicable to describe groups outside of Europe obcessed with European struggles / history etc. AndrewFleming72 12:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think this is about Eurocentrism vs. broader global/third-world struggles, not Eurocentrism as opposed to a focus on North America. So, for anarchists in Europe to articulate their struggles in terms of Europe-wide, rather than global, struggles, could indeed be seen as Eurocentric. That being said, we should only include this if we have reliable sources showing that a criticism of anarchist Eurocentrism has been put forward by notable sources, rather than being one wiki editor's opinion. The only source I can think of off-hand is a brief mention in Stewart Home's pamphlet, "Anarchist Integralism," but there may well be others. VoluntarySlave 17:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

If this was true - "for anarchists in Europe to ONLY articulate their struggles in terms of Europe-wide, rather than global, struggles, could indeed be seen as Eurocentric" I agree there is a point here. However we are actually talking of a group of a dozen or so people that no longer exists (Wombles) rather than 'anarchists' plus there is no evidence that the 'only' above applies - quite the opposite as in relation to their G8 activism they emphasised stuff outside of Europe. In fact part of the Euromayday agenda was a campaign for workers without papers (ie workers from outside Europe). The entry is bizarre and at best 'original research' / opinion. The whole section should go - its irrelevent.AndrewFleming72 12:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Well I have done a bit more work on it. I must admit I find AndrewFleming72 remarks a little bit on the weird side. When Mayday has been for many years the day when workers of the world express their solidarity, then when groups like the Wombles use it to proclaim their European identity, restricting the expression of solidarity to people in Europe, it should come as no surprise that this is questioned. Of course Indeed I do belief that Euromayday is being retired (and not before time in my opinion). I have included a citation concerning that discussion and Eurocentrism. At first glance some might find it bizarre that an anarchist group like the Wombles are so readily dragooned behind a programme of reforming the EU coming from people close to Toni Negri the advocate of the EU constitution - but perhaps for them anarchism is more about an evasion of responsibilities than the supercession of the state.Harrypotter 22:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Harry I'm geninely puzzled by just what you are up to, the above looks more like an eagerness to have a dig at a tiny group that no longer exists than a serious contribution to a global entry on anarchism. I can't see what other context to read the Negri remarks above in. From what you say above it appears to me that referring to your Eurocentrism entries as 'original research' would be too kind - the whole section is irrelevent and marginal. Your latest addition of what some guy said in his blog back in 2002 really just proves the point AndrewFleming72 12:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

No doubt there are those who think that any critique of Eurocentrism is irrelevant or marginal. In fact the critique of anarchist Orientalism was presented as a paper at a No War But The Class War conference in London in 2002, so it is not merely the case of some guy doing a blog. It is quite true that his contribution was marginalised by the anarchists presented, but it is precisely this process of marginalisation that is being discussed, rather than just accepting the consequences of it. Certainly the remark about Foti being close to Negri is 'original research' which is why it has not been included in the article. I merely included it in the talk page so that you would better understand that just as you may find somethings weird that other people find normal, other people might find weird that which you find normal.Harrypotter 21:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Where does the logotype come from?

Where does the logotype used on the main page come from -- the A in a circle? Is this a symbol used by anarchists or anarchist organizations on a regular basis? I only ask because it is (was) the symbol of a notorius Chicago streetgang, Orchestra Albany. (They could be thought of as crypto-anarchists, I suppose, but I doubt they thought of themselves as such. Athansor 17:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

You're not familiar with it? That's odd; it's very well-known. The circle-A is probably the best-known anarchist symbol. It has been used by anarchists since the early 1900s. ~ Switch (✉✍☺) 02:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Good article nomination

This article continues to have serious issues, beginning with the definition, which is inclusive to the extent of marginalizing the broadest sections of anarchists, historically and contemporarily. For many anarchists, the central concern is power, or coercion, rather than specifically "compulsory government". Stability is another concern, as this article is likely the rockiest one on all of Wikipedia. Though it appears to be in a peaceful period at the moment, more time needs to be given to see if such a peace will remain. Owen 20:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Good article template says: "If you have not contributed significantly to this article, feel free to evaluate it according to the good article criteria and then pass or fail the article as outlined on the candidates page." You have made 271 edits to this article, and I would say that that disqualifies you for deciding on GA nomination. NHF. -- Vision Thing -- 20:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that was intended to prevent people from upgrading articles they've contributed to, seeing as anyone is allowed to delist an article that doesn't meet the requirements. Still, I'll abide by the wording. Owen 21:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

How are you defining "coercion"? I don't think any self-described anarchist except for pacifists oppose the use of coercion. To retrain someone when he attacks you is coercion. Coercion can be aggressive or responsive. And don't forget the "propaganda by the deed" anarchists. They support the use of aggressive coercion. As far as "compulsory government" I think that makes sense. Proudhon even defined anarchy as "a form of government or constitution in which public and private consciousness, formed through the development of science and law, is alone sufficient to maintain order and guarantee all liberties. In it, as a consequence, the institutions of the police, preventive and repressive methods, officialdom, taxation, etc., are reduced to a minimum."Anarcho-capitalism 03:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

If this article has been nominated as a "good article", then Wikipedia is more of a fucking joke than is generally known. This article has biases and inaccuracies throughout it. The sections on anarcho-capitalism represent fantasies from users like Anarcho-capitalism, who is clearly using Wikipedia to normalize his insane take on this subject matter. The sections on real anarchism are seriously deficient. You would get the impression from reading this crappy article that anarcho-capitalism are significant parts of anarchism, when in fact mutualism is a small tendency and anarcho-capitalism continues to be an oxymoron pushed by a small group of ignorant people. There have been millions of anarcho-syndicalists, anarcho-communists, and other anarchists around the world, but you wouldn't get that impression from reading this article.

This article is biased, unbalanced and inaccurate. People need to understand that this article represents one of the main problems with Wikipedia, that individual zealot editors can control the content of an article simply because they don't have lives. Many anarchists have attempted to fix and improve this article, but a small group of anarcho-capitalists have more or less fucked up this article. Two big thumbs down to calling this piece of crap a "good article." Chuck0 18:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The thing about Wikipedia is you're not allowed to push your POV on whether anarcho-capitalism is anarchism or not. It's difficult to censor information. You can try to censor individualist anarchism out of existence on your own web site, but not here. I find it really funny that you call the people who write about anarcho-capitalism "ignorant people," when a few weeks ago you thought anarcho-capitalism was the same as mutualism. You said to me, "A mutualist is what you should really be calling yourself, not the oxymoron known as "anarcho-capitalism." So who's ignorant about anarchism?Anarcho-capitalism 20:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Nice try, trying to paint me as a censor. You just look more and more ridiculous as time goes on. Your credibility level here is at an all-time low. I have no interest in removing information about individualist anarchism because that is a part of anarchism. You may conflate anarcho-capitalism with individualism, but that is rejected by people who call themselves individualists. I've never said, nor have I believed, that mutualism is the same as "anarcho-capitalism." Mutualism has long been part of anarchism, whereas "anarcho-capitalism" is a contradiction in terms. Some people who have called themselves anarcho-capitalists have figured out this contradiction, so some of them gravitated towards mutualism. I suggested that you call yourself a mutualist because some of your views follow their ideas. You also falsely claim that I've removed material about individualist anarchism from Infoshop. This is not the case at all. We have articles on the site by individualists, as well as more information about individualist anarchism. And when it comes to complaining about POV, try looking into the mirror sometime. Your take on these subjects represents a warped POV rather than any objective take on reality. Chuck0 17:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Yikes!!! Elodoth 21:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's look at another example about who's "ignorant about anarchism." You've been deleting large portions of the social anarchism article because you disagree that social anarchism is an unmbrella term which includes anarcho-communism, anarcho-syndicalism, etc. I quote from you, "Social anarchism is a subset of anarchism, but this entry has been written to make it seem like social anarchism is an umbrella for anarcho-communism and other tedencies." [1] Coming from someone who claims they are an expert an anarchism you continually show that you know nothing about it. Social anarchism is indeed "an umbrella for anarcho-communism and other tendencies." What is most astounding is that this is pointed out in the "Anarchist FAQ" that you host on YOUR "Infoshop" website! I quote from that FAQ "Are there different types of social anarchism? Yes. Social anarchism has four major trends -- mutualism, collectivism, communism and syndicalism." [2] Have you even bothered to read the thing? Granted, that FAQ has a lot of bad information in it, but it's correct on that widely known point. Unbelievable. Anarcho-capitalism 17:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed)

My comment here was censored by a Wikicrat. If anybody wants to read it, they can find it in the history files for this page. Chuck0 08:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

"Most Individualist Anarchists"

Stating that "most individualist anarchists" support capitalism poses several problems. (1) Who are the individualist anarchists? Does this include egoistic communists? Does this include altruistic mutualists? Is this an economic-sustem category or a personal-philosophy category? (2) What is private property in this context? Proudhon favored personal or small-group possession, and somewhere argues that we cannot apply one set of rules to products and another set of rules to the means of production. We might say that Proudhon, Tucker, et al. favor private possession over common possession or private property. (3) What is capitalism in this context? There are some rather overbroad definitions going around that describe communism as capitalism (if it is all voluntary) or anarcho-syndicalism as anarcho-capitalism (since the unions are market mechanisms). There are other definitions which focus on the separation of ownership from labor. In this case most classical individualist anarchists and many contemporary ones don't support capitalism. Jacob Haller 00:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

left-anarchist anti-fascism

Someone with a better knowledge of the history should probably complete the edit and supply sources, but the movements described include groups such as Anti-Racist Action and the antifa groups. Libertatia 01:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of March 21, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Yes

2. Factually accurate?: Sorta

3. Broad in coverage?: Overly

4. Neutral point of view?: Sorta

5. Article stability? Sorta

6. Images?: Some

When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you for your work so far.

While I think this article is well written, it's accuracy, NPOVness and at times stability means that I don't think it is quite there yet. Also, it is far to fucking long! See my comments above regarding this.--AFA ^{http://www.revleft.com} 01:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

On Capitalism and "Anarcho-Capitalism"

And why "anarcho-capitalism" isn't anarchistic. People talk about how individualists and ancaps are the same, but I disagree. I'll explain. The big and most important difference is on the issue of property.

Individualists advocate a usage based system, if you don't use it, you lose it.

"Anarcho-capitalists" advocate something completely different, the unlimited accumulation.

Individualist see a world of worker and worker

The caps, worker and boss.

So, individualists advocate a system where it is possible to "get ahead", but not so far ahead that you can start oppressing someone. The system advocated also calls for worker-worker relationships, relationships between primary producers or (to use Marxian terminology) petite-bourgeois (assuming that they don't employ anyone).

The caps, a system where you can use a bit of land, and then leave it forever and continue to own it. Where you can accumulate control of resources, far beyond what you can use. This control over resources is important, with it you can order someone to do something, or else you won't give them something. You can have a boss-worker system.

The major difference between 'anarcho-capitalism' and individualist anarchism, is on the issue of property and economic systems. To an individualist anarchist, the right to property is limited to what one uses, and also does not include inheritance (but if a child were using it's parents house, then no one would be about to evict that child, as it is using the house). Anarcho-capitalists have a much more liberal property rights, including a right to own unlimited property. The anarcho-capitalist sees no problem with large accumulation of property, but the individualist anarchist sees this as leading to social ills.

Land is the classic example of property, it is only considered owned whilst it is in use, according to the individualist anarchist. However, the anarcho-capitalist considers land to continue to be owned by the first user (until transferred), even if that person no longer is using that land. For example if a house is empty and it is then occupied and then later (be it months or more) the 'owner' comes to claim it the libertarian would consider the 'owner' to be in the right to evict the occupier, and the anarchist would consider the occupier to have the right to resist the person trying to evict them.

While both support the free market, they have different definitions of what constitutes a free market. Anarcho-capitalists believe in the 'subjective theory of value', whilst individualist anarchists generally support a 'labour theory of value'. Individualist anarchists oppose all forms of usury, including rent and interest, while anarcho-capitalists support these as part of their property rights.1

Where anarcho-capitalists see a society of workers and capitalists, individualist anarchists see a society of workers and workers. This comes from the labour theory of value. If a person is hired and paid less for a product then what the hirer sells it for, then the hirer is profiting and thus being a capitalist.

The above paragraphs are from http://www.ids.org.au/~harrismw/writing/nozick_and_anarchy.doc which is a Word document (the .doc gives it away doesn't it). This is why anarcho-capitalism can not be considered a form of capitalism. Even if it is in the article, the point should be made that there are fundamental differences between "anarcho-capitalism" and other sorts (including mutualism and individualism).

Circular reasoning. Your premise is that to be an individualist anarchist you have to oppose ownership of land when it's not in use. You say that anarcho-capitalists support land ownership while not in use, and then conclude that therefore they're not individualist anarchists. But anarcho-capitalists are individualist anarchists. Prohibiting someone from owning land that he purchased if he's not using it is not required to be an individualist anarchist. The sufficent conditon of being an individualist anarchist is solely to be an individualist and an anarchist. Your argument is nonsensical.Anarcho-capitalism 02:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

No, your definition of individualist anarchist is. That is like saying, to be a class-war anarchist you simply need to be a class-war and an anarchist. Doesn't quite work does it? Individualist anarchists are people who believe X, X includes not owning land that they are not using. An-Caps are not individualist anarchists, because they believe that unlimited accumulation of property is good. Simply really. I'm not even arguing (here) whether they are anarchists or not. Or if they have been influenced by individualist anarchism or not. I'm simply saying that they are two different things, and as such should be clearly labelled as such. To do otherwise is crazy and definitely non NPOV. AFA ^{http://www.revleft.com} 02:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

What you're doing is circular. You're simply defining everyone who supports land ownership while not in use out of the anarchist fold. Not only are you defining out Murray Rothbard, but you're defining out old individualists like Lysander Spooner, as well as Max Stirner. None of those individuals oppose ownership of land while it's not in use, but they're all individualist anarchists. Anarcho-capitalism is one of the several forms that individualist anarchism takes. A sourced definition of individualist anarchism says that individualist anarchism holds that "individual conscience and the pursuit of self-interest should not be constrained by any collective body or public authority." (Heywood, Andrew, Key Concepts in Politics, Palgrave, ISBN 0-312-23381-7, 2000, p. 46). Clearly anarcho-capitalists fit that definition. Anarcho-capitalism

Also, you said caps are for "worker and boss." Please find an anarcho-capitalist who advocates "worker and boss." Anarcho-capitalists support the right to choose to be self-employed or to be employed by someone else, whichever the individual prefers.Anarcho-capitalism 02:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

"Right to be self-employed or employed by someone else"? Same thing as boss and worker. You're quibbling over synonyms here, A-C. It's like the difference between saying a "ham sandwich" and "two pieces of bread with slices of ham in-between". Come on now. Anyway, anarchism means "without rulers". Bosses are a form of ruler within the workplace and in terms of property. You can't be an "anarchist" if you support a form of rulership in the same way you can't be a fascist and not believe in government. In a regular capitalist society, property deeds and labor contracts are secured by the state, in an "anarcho"-capitalist society private capitalist own state-like powers to enforce such things (such as private police, private courts, private armies, all the trappings of the state). The absence of a formalized state is not equivalent to being anarchistic any more than standing in a garage makes you a Cadillac. A "state" is simply anything (even an individual) who has what is considered a legitimate monopoly of force and decision-making influence/power. I can be a state if I get to a position where I have my own private army and own all the property in my town. A private individual or firm can be a state in the same way. Full Shunyata 22:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

A "boss" isn't ruling over anyone. You don't have to do what your "boss" says. You can say "no" and walk right out the door. Go start your own business. Take the money you've saved up and buy a shoe polish kit and go peddle your services (or is the customer a boss too because he's telling you what to do? You just can't win can you? How oh how are you going to acheive your communist paradise?) If you have a job where you have a "boss" you're voluntarily allowing him to boss you around. That's anarchy. About monopoly of force, that concept only applies to force used on someone else's property. You may have a monopoly of force in your own home, but that doesn't make you a state. What would make you a state is if you had a monopoly of force in my home. Anarcho-capitalism 22:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

That isn't really relevant actually, the bit above is more relevant. AFA ^{http://www.revleft.com} 02:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

This is wrong also: "If a person is hired and paid less for a product then what the hirer sells it for, then the hirer is profiting and thus being a capitalist." The 19th century individualists said no such thing. There never pointed out any relation between how much a good sold for and what an employee's proper income was. In their eyes, an employee could actually receive too much income if it were a matter of how much a good sold for. They wanted individuals received an income in proportion to labor exerted, so that everyone who labored the same amount received the same income - no more, or less, income than that regardless of what price something sells for. Anarcho-capitalism 16:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Worst article on a subject I've seen

In terms of wikipedia accuracy, it is truly atrocious what a few capitalist vandals have done to this page. There isn't a soul in the entire anarchist movement that would say that capitalism "doesn't necessarily have to rejected." The rejection of capitalism is a given, how can you NOT be against one of the primary causes of oppression in the world when you're trying to create a new one free of hierarchy and compulsion? I've met thousands of anarchists in the past few years and not a single one has been a capitalist or has ever met any one who was a "free market" anarchist, just saying the words makes me shudder, what a horrible terrible concept. You are a laughing stock to real anarchists. Want to know why capitalists are NEVER seen anywhere? Not at protests, convergences, bookstores, news, anywhere at all? Because so called "anarcho" capitalists don't DO ANYTHING. They're completely uninvolved in any anarchist movement worldwide. There has been a very very limited number of writings which grossly fall short of understanding anarchism at all that have made this concept and I would argue that the only visible presence it has is through internet trolls, a few rediculous message boards, and a website or two. All things on the internet alone, I would add, that anarchists also aren't involved in. Sorry "anarcho" capitalists, but your "movement" simply doesn't exist. You're a "movement" internet trolls, constantly giving absurd electronic pressure to the idea that "We are anarchists too!" which you are not.

It really is kind of funny how infamous this wikipedia page has become. Whenever wikipedia is brought up in conversation amongst anarchists (This has personally happened to be many times without even initiating it), the response is, "Yeah, wikipedia is a good resource, but the Anarchism page sucks!" Wikipedia has shown to be inadequate for accurate information, given the Anarchism page as a frequent example. If anyone would remember this, a while ago on this page there were even some asshole "nationalist anarchists" that wanted to be included. Not only is nationalism less compatible with anarchism than sand with a parched tongue, but they were blatant racists! Nevertheless, they were given attention and some people who were trying to be "objective" actually gave them some credit for a few weeks before everyone editing the page realized, "Okay, let's finally acknowledge that these people are scum and have nothing in the least to do with anarchism and never could possibly at all" and that was that. But what an embarassment to wikipedia and a testament to the continued joke of this wikipedia page on Anarchism that they were given any attention at all!

If you are an anarchist, you KNOW that one of the consistent desires of yourself and other anarchists is to completely destroy capitalism beyond the power of memory, you KNOW that "anarcho" capitalism does not exist at all as a "movement" and has no prescence whatsoever at any events, protest, or convergences that anarchists have, and you KNOW that only through the tool of the internet have these idiots gained any credibility at all, sadly. So stop giving into absurd demands and assert what you know to be true, that sympathy for capitalism does NOT BELONG anywhere on a wikipedia page about anarchism!

By the way, the fact that this page was actually nominated as a "good article" is absurd, hilarious, and tragic (in the internet sense of the word). -Fatal 20:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

You said "There isn't a soul in the entire anarchist movement that would say that capitalism "doesn't necessarily have to rejected." If your conclusion is that therefore anarcho-capitalism isn't part of the "anarchist movement," then that's circular. Your premise is that anarcho-capitalism is not in the "anarchist movement" so you're not taking their opinions into account. Anarcho-capitalism 22:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

My understanding of anarchism, is that all variants could co-exist in a future anarchistic society. Any form that could not co-exist with (for example) communism, *can't* be anarchism. But that is just my opinionAFA ^{http://www.revleft.com} 10:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course the Wikipedia article doesn't speak for the Anarchist community, that was never intended. In fact, it arguablly is Wikipedia policy to NOT speak for just your community. Wikipedia policy is that truth is irrelevant, the verifiable facts and the popularity of a concept determines how prominent it will be here. To get Wikipedia to bring it's article to conform with anarchist views, you just need to become more than a tiny fringe political philosophy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for the larger culture, which is exactly why you hate this article... Raggz 02:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

One line you mentioned, "popularity of a concept," is applicable here. A very few number of rich, white men support the concept of "anarcho-capitalism" in theory. They warrant one line, on the Libertarianism article, and that's it. Vert et Noir^talk 20:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Removal

Someone removed the Black anarchism link from the anarchism sidebar. i suspect it was someone who didn't want any links to alphabetically precede "Capitalist." I don't know how to edit the side bar but someone who does should add the Black Anarchism link back in as it is an important article (thought it needs work) referenced in many other frequented pages, such as Black Panthers. Blockader 15:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see Template:Anarchism sidebar for the side bar and the discussion on the talk page. I have restored both Black anarchism and Nationalist anarchism.Harrypotter 22:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Individualist anarchism in the Unites States

I think the old section title helped distinguish between market individualism (Warren, Tucker, et al.) and egoism (Stirner, Tucker, et al.). Despite the overlap these are not the same tradition. Jacob Haller 20:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Culling the source-spam

Here is a list of ths sources used to support the opinion that "ancapism is a form of ind-anarchism". I am going to be culling these based on how well-known they are, and I am going to check that by an amazon.com search. I will only be leaving a maximum of 5 sources to be inserted into the actual article. -- infinity0 12:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

• Alan and Trombley, Stephen (Eds.) Bullock, The Norton Dictionary of Modern Thought, W. W. Norton & Company (1999), p. 30
  • Amazon.com Sales Rank: #952,632 in Books, 2 left in stock. - delete
• Outhwaite, William. The Blackwell Dictionary of Modern Social Thought, Anarchism entry, p. 21, 2002.
  • Amazon.com Sales Rank: #639,443 in Books - potential keep
• Bottomore, Tom. Dictionary of Marxist Thought, Anarchism entry, 1991.

Amazon.com Sales Rank: #39,015 in Books - potential keep

• Barry, Norman. Modern Political Theory, 2000, Palgrave, p. 70
  • Does not seem to be on amazon - delete
• Adams, Ian. Political Ideology Today, Manchester University Press (2002) ISBN 0-7190-6020-6, p. 135
  • Amazon.com Sales Rank: #1,942,199 in Books - delete
• Grant, Moyra. Key Ideas in Politics, Nelson Thomas 2003 ISBN 0-7487-7096-8, p. 91
  • Amazon.com Sales Rank: #4,190,711 in Books - delete
• Heider, Ulrike. Anarchism: Left, Right, and Green, City Lights, 1994. p. 3.
  • Amazon.com Sales Rank: #1,390,056 in Books - only available from third party sellers, delete
• Ostergaard, Geoffrey. Resisting the Nation State - the anarchist and pacifist tradition, Anarchism As A Tradition of Political Thought. Peace Pledge Union Publications
  • Essay; not major - delete
• Avrich, Paul. Anarchist Voices: An Oral History of Anarchism in America, Abridged Paperback Edition (1996), p. 282
  • Amazon.com Sales Rank: #765,250 in Books - potential keep
• Sheehan, Sean. Anarchism, Reaktion Books, 2004, p. 39
  • Can't find on amazon.com, possibly because of vague title, but delete until evidence of notability is given.
• Tormey, Simon. Anti-Capitalism, One World, 2004. pp. 118-119
  • Same point as above
• Raico, Ralph. Authentic German Liberalism of the 19th Century, Ecole Polytechnique, Centre de Recherce en Epistemologie Appliquee, Unité associée au CNRS, 2004.
  • Can't find on amazon.com - delete
• Offer, John. Herbert Spencer: Critical Assessments, Routledge (UK) (2000), p. 243
  • Amazon.com Sales Rank: #3,201,360 in Books - delete - for some reason this book costs $1,235.00
• Levy, Carl. Anarchism. MS Encarta (UK).
  • MS Encarta is relatively well-used, possible keep
• Heywood, Andrew. Politics: Second Edition, Palgrave (2002), p. 61
  • Amazon.com Sales Rank: #386,027 in Books - keep

Sources stating anarcho-capitalism as a form of anarchism in general:

• Sylvan, Richard. Anarchism. A Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy, editors Goodin, Robert E. and Pettit, Philip. Blackwell Publishing, 1995, p.231
  • Amazon.com Sales Rank: #266,380 in Books - keep
• Perlin, Terry M. Contemporary Anarchism. Transaction Books, New Brunswick, NJ 1979, p. 7
  • Amazon.com Sales Rank: #3,306,685 in Books - delete
• DeLeon, David. The American as Anarchist: Reflections of Indigenous Radicalism, Chapter: The Beginning of Another Cycle, Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979, p. 117
  • Amazon.com Sales Rank: #2,149,729 in Books - delete
• Brown, Susan Love, The Free Market as Salvation from Government: The Anarcho-Capitalist View, Meanings of the Market: The Free Market in Western Culture, edited by James G. Carrier, Berg/Oxford, 1997, p. 99 (Brown notes that the individualist anarchists "saw themselves as socialists" and rejected capitalism, p. 104)
  • Can't find on amazon.com, possibly because of ridiculously long title, delete until evidence of notability is given.
• Kearney, Richard. Continental Philosophy in the 20th Century, Routledge (UK) (2003), p. 336 * Sargent, Lyman Tower. Extremism in America: A Reader, NYU Press (1995), p. 11
  • Amazon.com Sales Rank: #769,204 in Books - possible keep
• Dahl, Robert Alan. Democracy and Its Critics. Yale University Press (1991), p. 38
  • Amazon.com Sales Rank: #321,909 in Books - keep
• Goodwin, Barbara. Using Political Ideas, Fourth Edition, John Wiley & Sons (1987), p. 137 (Goodwin says, "Although many anarchists today still subscribe to the values of Bakunin and Kropotkin, there are two new, divergent currents of anarchist thinking. One is anarcho-capitalism, a form of libertarian anarchism which demands that the state should be abolished and that private individuals and firms should control social and economic affairs....Their true place is in the group of right-wing libertarians....Many who call themselves anarchists today preserve some of the older doctrines...This preference was evident in the student uprisings of 1968 in France and the USA, which were largely anarchist in spirit and with which many of the libertarian left associate themselves." pp. 137-138)
  • Amazon.com Sales Rank: #699,197 in Books - keep - although reading the quote from it, I see it has been loveily misascibred by whoever wrote this section as a source "stating anarcho-capitalism as a form of anarchism in general", when it says Their true place is in the group of right-wing libertarians.

We've been through this before. The source does indeed say they are right-wing libertarians. But that is not saying they're not anarchists. The source is just saying that anarchists are split between right libertarians and left libertarians, and anarcho-capitalists are in the right libertarian sector. I noticed you deleted the sentence about "libertarian left" from the quote in the references, in the article. That's very sneaky. You're obscuring the point that the source is making. Anarcho-capitalism 01:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The source is in opposite spirit to the claimed attribution. It says ancapism stems from anarchism, but it says it's closer to right-libertarianism than anarchism. As for the deletion, I was cutting the source. I have no idea what is somehow wrong or "sneaky" with the deletion you mentioned. -- infinity0 10:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

It absolutely does not say that it's closer to right-libertarianism than anarchism. It says it IS right-libertarianism AND, it IS anarchism. The book says there is right-libertarian anarchism and left-libertarian anarchism. It says anarcho-capitalism's true place is not in the left libertarian wing but in the right libertarian wing of anarchism.Anarcho-capitalism 12:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

We have indeed been through this before. The source is a very general one, arguably a tertiary source, and doesn't appear to be clear enough for there to be any consensus about the author's actual position. It should be deleted. The alternative is one or another sort of OR. Libertatia 14:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Good day, y'all. I will be deleting the ones marked "delete". -- infinity0 12:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Ahh looks like I was generous and left 9 in. Still, much better than having 30, with some of them (eg. the last one) being mis-attributed to be in favour of the said view. -- infinity0 12:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Keeping sources based on book sales doesn't make any sense to me. Usually, the more scholarly a book or article the lower are the sales. And, again, the last source was not "mis-attibuted." The source is just saying some anarchists are right libertarians and some anarchists are left libertarians. Anarcho-capitalists are right libertarians. I think why you didn't understand this is you already have the preconceived opinion that right libertarians aren't anarchists. So when you hear "their true place is in the group of right-wing libertarians" you're thinking that that is a denial that they're anarchists. But, being a right libertarian and an anarchist is not mutually exclusive. The source certainly doesn't consider them mutually exclusive. Anarcho-capitalism 01:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Cutting spam is a good thing. -- infinity0 02:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I also see you added something from Anarchist FAQ, which is simply an online thing. I don't think that's a permissible source. You give a quote from it "As an added bonus, some genuine individualist anarchists appeared, refuting the claim that "anarcho"-capitalism was merely a form of "updated" individualist anarchism." I've found that FAQ to be very unreliable and even dishonest. Who are these "genuine" individualist anarchists that say anarcho-capitalism is not a newer individualist form of anarchism? It doesn't list anyone. I strongly believe that they're just making this up. This is why we have rules for what is admissible as a source on Wikipedia. This FAQ just isn't going to cut it.Anarcho-capitalism 01:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

It's permissible. See my own RfAr. -- infinity0 02:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Show me exactly where it says it's permissible.Anarcho-capitalism 02:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Look what I found: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. By insisting that only facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by a reputable publisher may be published in Wikipedia, the no-original-research and verifiability policies reinforce one another." [3] That FAQ is not published by a reputable publisher because it's not published at all.Anarcho-capitalism 02:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

A source doesn't have to be print-published to be notable. It's hosted on most major anarchist websites, everybody knows about it. You shouldn't attack things ("they made it up") you don't know anything about; besides, I could say the same for your essays and rantings. -- infinity0 02:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Besides, all major anarchist websites are reputable publishers. -- infinity0 02:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but that won't do it. Anarchist websites are definitely not "reputable publishers."Anarcho-capitalism 02:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, thanks for pointing me to your RfAr. I searched for it and look what I found. You're a convicted edit warrior and on probation. You just violated your probation. The ruling says: "Infinity0 is placed on standard revert parole for one year. He may not perform more than one content revert per page per day and every content revert must be accompanied by discussion on the relevant talk page. Passed 6 to 0 at 11:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)" [4] Anarcho-capitalism 02:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, it looks like you didn't quite violate it. But you should watch yourself.Anarcho-capitalism 02:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Anarchist websites are definitely "reputable publishers". They have a wide following, and people read what they write with interest. They do not lie or make wild accusations, such as you do ("they made it up"). A FAQ which is hosted on the vast majority of them as a collective resource is certainly useful for wikipedia. My arbitrators acknowledge this here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Infinity0/Proposed_decision#An_Anarchist_FAQ and the opposers only oppose the motion because it is irrelevant to my RfAr, not because the point is invalid.

This conversation is weird. The anarchist FAQ is carried on most of the major anarchist web pages and linked from many additional ones. It has been reviewed many times in a huge variety of anarchist publications. The editor has been an invited speaker at anarchist conferences in Britain and Ireland. Sections of it are available in print (I have them at home). In terms of the actual anarchist movement it is probably the most accepted source that exists at the moment in any form. Its rather damaging to wikipedia that a very fringe POV can simply suppress all references to the FAQ AndrewFleming72 14:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

You should stop trying to smear other editors. That has nothing to do with the sources. AFAQ is more well-known and highly regarded than any one of the 30 sources you are preventing me from deleting. It has been cited in published resources - see its page - and it is scheduled to be published in book form this year by AK Press.

As for the sources, I have repeated time and again that they are biased. You answer this with "no they are not". I respond by pointing out the unnotability of these sources, and include MUCH MORE notable sources (Noam Chomsky is more notable than all those other authors put together), and you delete them, and call me the POV-pusher. -- infinity0 10:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with infinity0. Anarcho-capitalism does not appear to be heeding WP:AGF. Whether or not he has been on RFAr before is not relevant to me. I have not read up on this entirely, but it appears that you are using 30 sources as a citation for a small number of points; that is very excessive. I agree that it should be cut down to that infinity0 suggested. If you are arguing about bias, than I suggest you read WP:NPOV and rewrite most of the disputed text. - Zero1328 _Talk? 11:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I found your discussion listed at Third Opinions, but as I'm not in the best position to study this subject throughly, I will leave it listed so that other editors may contribute. Firstly, the sources: should there not be quality rather than quantity? One strong source that is reliable, noteworthy and respected in its field is far more effective than innumerable mediocre sources. Such sources may legitimately be used multiple times if they refer to multiple statements, without weakening the references. Therefore, I support Infinity0's effort to trim them down. However... he/she is not going about it in quite the right way: I have to agree with Anarcho-capitalism's point that quality and reliability of sources cannot be judged according to popularity. If you are in fact using reader's reviews (the more accomplished ones at least) to make these judgements, then that might be more justifiable. Infinity0, your intention is correct, but your method needs improvement in order to win your case. Secondly, civility: both of you have, in different ways, got too close to making this personal. An editor's past misdemeanors are not particularly relevant to a current debate and should certainly not be raised as ammunition. Try not to let them influence your opinion of another editor. Next, sources: online sources are perfectly capable of being notable (for many subjects, they are the primary sources) but they each must be judged on their own merits. Bias must be set aside (as it always should) and any major source may need to be assessed by an expert third party if consensus cannot be reached. I suggest that you seek a suitable third party who can be impartial and knows the subject and its published works, websites and so on. I do not have the necessary knowledge, but if I had to assess the source in question, I would ask whether it is itself capable of bias and whether it is respected, or likely to be respected, by its peers. Adrian M. H. 18:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Infinity0, sources are not spam, and if you whish to delete some of them because they are not high enough on "Amazon.com Sales Rank" then you should apply that criteria to all sources in the article. However, that would probably result with massive reduction of sourced content. Also, bear in mind that plenitude of sources for claim that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism is in accordance with Wikipedia's guideline which states that Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple credible and verifiable sources. Because you and few other editors were constantly disputing that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism, multiple credible and verifiable sources were added to support that claim. -- Vision Thing -- 12:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

30 sources are spam; the claim is just an opinion and you are deleting more notable sources I provide which supports the opposite view. -- infinity0 17:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Which reliable source I've deleted? -- Vision Thing -- 17:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Noam Chomsky source, and AFAQ source. They are both more notable than any one of the obscure, biased, 30 sources, you are preventing me from deleting. -- infinity0 17:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Your reference to Noam Chomsky as an anarchist who rejects anarcho-capitalism as a form of anarchism is original research, as well as some other claims you have added in your last edit. AFAQ is not a reliable source on anything until it gets published. -- Vision Thing -- 18:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Why is it original research, but your 30 sources are not? Why is AFAQ not reliable "until it gets published"? Why are you reverting everything I change and refusing to give any good reasons? The other editors I asked a 3rd opinion for agree that sources should be deleted, and that views should be represented without bias. -- infinity0 18:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

It is original research because Chomsky doesn't say that anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism. Why AFAQ is not a reliable has been explained to you a numerous times. Do you accept Caplan's FAQ as a reliable source? -- Vision Thing -- 20:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Caplan's FAQ is written by one man who is not known for his knowledge of anarchism and has never been peer-reviewed nor published on anything but his own website; AFAQ is written colletively by a group of anarchists and peer reviewed by other anarchists and has been published on infoshop.org and various other anarchist websites. Caplan's FAQ is an obscure representation of one non-anarchist man's ideas; AFAQ has been praised by various leading anarchist figures. There's not the vaguest similarity between them. ~ Switch (✉✍☺) 03:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The Anarchist FAQ has been published - or at least several sections of it have. I bought sections of A at the London anarchist bookfare at least five years ago and have them on my shelf at home. I understand the anarchist publisher AK press is publishing it as a multi-volume book. Its certainly the case that is an international collaboration involving a wide range of anarchists and has been subject to pretty intense post publication 'peer review' including numerous reviews in printed anarchist publications. I understand some minority currents don't like it but this is often the case with other seminal publications and shouldn't rule it out for inclusion AndrewFleming72 15:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Currently AFAQ is sourced to a website. If you have information about publisher, you are free to add it. Until then we can't assess its reliability. -- Vision Thing -- 20:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I really have no idea why you are arguing with my version. It is far more balanced than the 30 sources, and represents a range of views. -- infinity0 17:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, as an addition, the PDF from Oxford University (link below) doesn't even mention anarcho-capitalism.

The 30 sources are biased. You say they are "credible" and "verifiable". What do you even mean by those words, what, that those sources represent general opinion? Far from it. They are minor and have been selected to support this one claim that "most scholars think anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism". Are 30 sources "most scholars"? Can you claim that these 30 sources represent the general population of scholars? No, because (and I have said this before) they are not a random sample. The adjectives "credible" and "verifiable" are irrelevant concepts here; the key issue is bias. -- infinity0 18:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Where in the article do you see any claim about what "most scholars" think? -- Vision Thing -- 20:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Third Opinion, while again leaving this listed for others to comment on. Something useful might be to check some of the world's top universities suggested literature on the subject. Oxford for example, offered the course "Ideologies and Political Traditions in Modern Europe", for which the literature can be found on page 10 of this page. Do of course read any books before adding them, and check multiple lists as they're subject to personal and regional bias. Comparing these lists for like ten universities should do to give a good impression on which books are considered the standard of the field. --User:Krator (t c) 20:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. Since User:Anarcho-capitalism has not yet commented, I will be re-adding my new sources, but not deleting the excess ones, until he comments further. I see no problem with either of my sources; Noam Chomsky is well-known and respected in this subject area, and so is AFAQ. AFAQ is to be published very soon, and anyone so interested can read about the scope, extent, and notability of it in its article An Anarchist FAQ. -- infinity0 12:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, I believe my wording is a good compromise for describing the current situation. Comments requested. -- infinity0 12:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Third Opinion. 2 3rd opinions have already been listed here - let me add mine as well. 30 Sources for the small number of points seems excessive. Infinity seems to have a good point about the perspective (POV) of even published scholars in a given field -- representing only one side of a scholarly debate, no matter how you source it, is still POV. If there are reputable scholars on the other side of the fence, they must be represented as well. Follow Krator's bibliographic advice, it makes good sense. I am removing this from the 3rd Op. list. -- Pastordavid 17:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

FYI, per the user page, anarcho-capitalism is a sockpuppet and is indef blocked, so no need to wait for comment/reply from that account. -- Pastordavid 18:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The source spam needs to be weeded because the person who submitted most of it did it under bad faith and has been banned by Wikipedia for a year. It's too bad that Wikipedia's inaction on antisocial *ssholes like this person has driven many of us away from Wikipedia participation. I'm limiting my participation on Wikipedia in the future to defensive editing of entries that concern my personal projects. Chuck0 19:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

So is there a consensus on deleting the source spam? Personally I think the whole line should be axed, since 30 citations of vague support (does anyone even know what the pages cited actually say?) do not an academic consensus make. If we want to play the popularity arms-race, I think its unequivocal who would win, and I'm sure the "anarcho"-capitalists wouldn't like it. SiberioS 19:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it's safe to say yes. The person originally opposing the deletion was a sockpuppet, who appears to have been editing in bias. - Zero1328 _Talk? 03:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

MFD comments requested

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Anarcho-capitalism. Comments requested. -- infinity0 01:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Globalization

The current Issues/Globalization subsection reads:

All anarchists oppose the use of coercion related to international trade, as carried out through institutions such as the World Bank, World Trade Organization, G8 and World Economic Forum. Some anarchists see such coercion as neoliberal globalization. Groups such as Reclaim the Streets, were among the instigators of the so-called anti-globalization movement. The Carnival Against Capitalism on 18 June 1999 is generally regarded as the first of the major anti-globalization protests. Anarchists, such as the WOMBLES, often played a major role in planning, organising and participating in the subsequent protests. The protests tended to be organised on anarchist direct action principles with a general tolerance for a range of different activities ranging from those who engage in tactical frivolity to the black blocs. Other market anarchists and anarcho-capitalists see the worldwide expansion of the division of labor through trade as a boon, and oppose the regulation and cartelization imposed by the World Bank, WTO, etc. Many also object to fiat money issued by central banks and resulting debasement of money and confiscation of wealth.

Perhaps we should tackle the issues in here? e.g.

• Opposition to border controls (immigration quotas, historically import tarriffs, etc.)
• Opposition to intellectual property (with Spooner dissenting)
• Opposition to interest, theft, and charging people for their rulers' debts
• Opposition to structural adjustment
• Various environmental issues

I would also separate the currency section (one line right now) from the globalization section. Jacob Haller 01:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Template

Someone has removed Black anarchism from the template again. i don't know how to fix it. Blockader 15:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Easy: If it is part of the template itself, go to the template page and revert it in the history. If it is data that was added to the infobox table in this article, edit the article and re-add it. All this assumes that the entry should be there. If it was removed with good reason, then don't just revert it; discuss it with the editor who removed it. Drop me a message if you need my help. Adrian M. H. 22:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

By the way: i changed a the sentance about ecofeminism being a metaphor for natural destruction to (roughly): the exploitation of nature is analagous to social exploitation. I think this is more accurate, as metaphor isn't quite the right word.--Turkeyplucker 18:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe for the sake of proper organization and maintaining a politically neutral article, anarchism 'without adjitives' should be at the top of the portal, as opposed to Christian and Capitalist. A reader should be able to understand the basic idea of anarchism before she or he is told of the different schools of thought within anarchism.

Nepstad 10:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

source spam

I have deleted the source spam according to the consensus reached above. Anyone who is watching the page, please respect it and watch for attempts to break from it. -- infinity0 19:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't notice that you deleted any sources which claim that anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism. I guess that such sources are not "spam"? -- Vision Thing -- 11:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I left in a balance of sources and reworded the sentence for NPOV. Previously it was 30 sources all supporting one view. -- infinity0 15:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

No, you didn't. You left intact all sources which claim that anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism. -- Vision Thing -- 19:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

This is wrong. If you actually just look at all the sources I put in, there is a mixture. -- infinity0 15:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I looked at the edit you made and you haven't deleted not even one source which claims that anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism. Only sources you deleted were those claiming that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism. -- Vision Thing -- 15:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course. That's because there was an inbalance to begin with. Might I remind you that multiple other editors agree with the balanced version of sources I present above. -- infinity0 12:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Such arbitrary deletion of sources is not acceptable. If you really want to cut "source spam" you need to delete sources proportionally. -- Vision Thing -- 13:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

They are not arbitrary; they have been accepted by all other editors. Your second sentence is logically flawed, because for biased sources it is necessary to delete sources disproportionately. -- infinity0 11:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

And I guess only those sources supporting view that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism are biased, while those supporting view that anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism are unbiased?

Also, I noticed that you keep inserting AFAQ and Chomsky as a source for claim that anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism. AFAQ is an online FAQ and it is not reliable as a source. If it is really going to be published this year, then its published form can be used as a source. As for Chomsky, you use his claim that the terms "libertarian socialism" and "anarchism" are interchangeable. That is a prime example of original research and why is that prohibited is best viewed from this claim by Chomsky: Now, there is another strain of anarchism which is concerned only with, which really gives no weight to notions like equality, solidarity, and so on. That's the right-wing anarchism; and that's an extreme form of authoritarianism as far as I can see. It's perfectly obvious that under the formulations of someone like, say, Murray Rothbard, you will get such inequalities of power that it would be like living under Gengis Khan or something like that. [5] So, although critical of it, Chomsky sees Rothbard's anarchism as a form of the right-wing anarchism. -- Vision Thing -- 11:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Infoshop.org is a reputable publisher for the topic of anarchism. This is enough credition for AFAQ to be included on wikipedia. It's clear what Chomsky really means. He sees right-wing anarchism as "fake" (ie. authoritarian) anarchism. -- infinity0 19:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, right. Chomsky is not saying what he is saying but something completely different. As for infoshop, we have debated issue of their reliability many times before, and in all discussions conclusion was always the same, they are not reliable, and as a consequence they were removed. Also, if I remember correctly, you always claimed that AFAQ is going to be published this year by AK Press. Did they changed their mind and decided that AFAQ isn't reliable enough for publishing? -- Vision Thing -- 18:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The reliability comes from the FAQ, its continual criticism and refinement, etc. It doesn't go away because Infoshop, among other places, hosts copies of the work. We can return to primary sources when discussing each school, but what do you propose when discussing their relative sizes, or general attitudes within the anarchist milieu? Jacob Haller 20:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

We should use secondary sources which address those issues, as it is normally done in other Wikipedia articles. -- Vision Thing -- 13:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Many other articles cite extremely speculative, completely unsupported, web essays. An Anarchist FAQ is one of the most widely accepted, if not the most widely accepted, description of social anarchist thought. I can't see its exclusion as a consistent application of the rules, but an arbitrary application thereof. Jacob Haller 20:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't fully agree with you, but maybe we can compromise on this by using AFAQ as a source while stating that it is written by social anarchists. -- Vision Thing -- 18:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

There was a consensus reached on this matter previously, it appears to me that you have not read it. Looking at your initial reply, you don't appear to know why it's being deleted. (#Culling_the_source-spam) - Zero1328 _Talk? 11:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I know why they are being deleted, I object to deletion of only pro-anarcho-capitalist sources. -- Vision Thing -- 11:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

If you know why they are being deleted, then you should have no reason to object at all. Those thirty "pro-anarcho-capitalist sources" you object to were added by a pro-anarcho-capitalist, one that has been known for inserting pro-anarcho-capitalist bias, and banned indefinitely for creating nearly fifty accounts purely to insert bias. - Zero1328 _Talk? 07:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I have personally added many of those sources. Also, on infinity's request, all sources were verified. -- Vision Thing -- 18:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Saying that you personally added many of the sources does not rule out that they were also added by an individual who used a now banned account. That issue aside, a large number of those sources have been thrown out for being misrepresented in the text. That wiki editors haven't gotten around to checking all of them yet doesn't speak to their overall reliability, the fact that so many have been found unreliable[6], [7], [8], [9], [10] does. Etcetc 07:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

In this discussion I agreed that fourth source shouldn't be used, while you agreed that first and third are valid sources. I didn't object to your removal of Sheehan's Anarchism from list of sources and last source you mentioned is not used in this article. -- Vision Thing -- 14:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

So what you are saying is that at least 3 of the sources I just mentioned that were added by the same individual who added sources to this page have proven unreliable. Great, then we are in agreement that it is difficult to know the reliability of the sources given their track record and the fact that the individual who put most of them up is a many-times-banned edit warrior. Etcetc 15:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Reliability of sources can be checked by anyone here, under section Sources. -- Vision Thing -- 15:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Yep, if we assume that anarcho-capitalism, who wrote the page you have transplanted to your own userpage, quoted all the sources properly and we find that they actually match the claims in the text. This would be a safe assumption with normal average users like you and I, but unfortunately with an individual who has a propensity for flat out lying all over wikipedia and misrepresenting his identity multiple times in a single day, that is not a safe assumption. Etcetc 15:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I know that I checked many, if not all, of those sources and cited text proved valid, so I'm personally willing to guarantee for their validity. -- Vision Thing -- 18:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I have also added some different viewpoints to the "Capitalism" and "Communism" sections. Feel free to expand. Previously, both sections were a fucking disgrace, being nothing more than excuses for the capitalist side of the argument to push its views about "property == individual liberty". -- infinity0 19:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, I removed the Bakunin quote because he was talking about Marxist Communism. -- infinity0 20:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

That is your personal interpretation and, anyway, it's not relevant. Section talks about communism in general. -- Vision Thing -- 11:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

That's the point, Maxist Communism is not "communism in general". -- infinity0 15:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Then find a source that supports your interpretation. -- Vision Thing -- 19:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Find a source that supports your interpretation then. The Bakunin quote is completely out of context. -- infinity0 15:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no my interpretation there. -- Vision Thing -- 15:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[11] fanatical POV pusher, has reverted many people on various accounts, possible sockpuppet of User:RJII or User:Anarcho-capitalism. Someone please investigate further. -- infinity0 20:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I have restored User:Infinity0's edit, after the mass revert, so that individual sections of it can be addressed. Please do not revert without discussing specifics. Libertatia 20:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

For avoiding mass reverts it is best to discuss controversial changes on talk page first. -- Vision Thing -- 10:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

A number of the changes I've made are uncontroversial, if you disagree with some of them please talk to me on my talk page or here, or feel free to edit them one by one and explain why you disagree with them. Mass reverts as a stick to enforce your own viewpoint is not an acceptable use of wikipedia. Etcetc 00:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. :) -- infinity0 21:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Just a note - the person who reverted my edits is the same banned person as above. See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Billy Ego. -- infinity0 23:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that Vision Thing's series of supposedly content edits is actually a revert. [12] -- infinity0 15:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, Vision Thing, you are only objecting to the sources (which like 5 people above agree with my version and disagree with your version) and the Bakunin quote. What about my other edits, which you are reverting for no reason?? -- infinity0 15:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I explained my edit step by step in edit summaries. Here are my reasons:

• rm unsourced statements
• adding Larry Gambone - I'm also fine with Libertatia's correction
• keeping issues in the Issues section per previous consensus
• restoring sourced text
• this section should be about issues, anarchist communist model is already described in its section
• more correct wording
• sources for the claim

-- Vision Thing -- 16:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

These reasons are spurious. Your series of edits are a revert of all of my edits, including the cutting of the source spam. Your reasons to remove my additions can equally be applied to already-existing content which happens to support your own views. Your removal of "unsourced statements" unbalances the article in terms of POV, and can equally be applied to every unsourced sentence in the whole article. In short, you are being hypocritical, applying your reasoning inconsistently, and only to edits which have been made by me. Please stop this attitude. -- infinity0 12:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:V which states that Material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article. Since I challenged your additions you need to provide sources for it, otherwise you don't have a valid reason for objecting to its removal. -- Vision Thing -- 12:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't get the edits your making at all. Several make the articles a good bit less clear. I also don't get why you are trying to insert a very minority viewpoint as the POV for examining other areas (eg edits in communism section). This article is already too long, opening up every section to a POV driven discussion from every other section makes no sense to me whatsoever no matter how referenced that discussion might become. AndrewFleming72 15:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Please list your specific concerns instead of general remarks. -- Vision Thing -- 20:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Its a general remark because its the general pattern with the huge range of edits you are trying to make at once. While I could break each down individually this would be a very time consuming process for me and of limited value as essentially I'd be making the same general remark again and again. I would suggest that rather than one huge edit you break these down (perhaps on a section by section basis) to make discussion possible. Although as far as I can see your purpose is just to put an anarcho capitalist 'spin' on every section which in my opinion can only have a negative impact on the page as a whole. Looking at the history of this page I see this approach has been a long running feature of the page although from a variety of apparently different accounts some of which have been banned for sock puppeting. This also leaves me disinclined to spend a lot of time explaining in detail where the problems are AndrewFleming72 12:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Please do not remove the link to the "greenanarhy.org" site. This website is mentioned in mainstream channels, both since the wto riots and occasionally associated with the unabomber case, making it relatively well known. It is a website of a magazine with worldwide circulation and it is probably the most well known associated with the green anarchist branch. But most of all, there is a reason of balance while protecting this section from spam. There are websites in that section that are not that all notable, with fairly recent history, and seem to be there for the sake of a POV ideological judgment.Maziotis 21:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I kept looking at VTs summary in his reverts "see talk" in dismay as he has said nothing about a large number of my edits he continues to revert. I suppose he meant the bullet points above, but these address mostly edits made by other editors that he is mass reverting along with my own. Still, the bullets are worth addressing:

Bullet 1) This statement is unsourced because it is a synthesis of previously sourced statements. Some unethical editors are trying to portray the early anarchist individualists as supporting the same kind of "free market" that anarcho-capitalists do. This is blatantly false to anyone who has read their material, as they reject a number of normative capitalist institutions. The fact that they reject those institutions is already sourced, and the synthetic statements are only necessary because someone wants to ignore them and write the text as though they don't exist. Etcetc 06:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It is not a synthesis of previously sourced statements (for example from which sourced statement we can see how individualist used term "free market" differently than it is used today?). Also, more importantly, synthesis is not allowed per WP:OR. -- Vision Thing -- 11:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

You are right, what we should do is go through the text very carefully and each and every time you try to make it sound like the "free market" of the anarcho-capitalists was the same as that of the individualists point out that there is no evidence in the source text that the two uses of the word are being used in the same way. You wanna play POV games with the text and use to your advantage the fact that no one outside of anarcho-capitalism cares enough about it to critique its attempts to overwrite history? Fine, play games, but I'm trying to help write an encyclopedia here. Etcetc 23:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

This encyclopedia has rules as explained in WP:V and WP:OR. -- Vision Thing -- 18:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I understand the rules, thanks. I also understand how you and your meatpuppet friends continue to skirt and blatantly violate the rules whenever it suits your purposes. Etcetc 05:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Bullet 2) The Larry Gambone source does not match the Wendy McElroy one, and the McElroy one is the one clearly being used in the text. If you want two source, quote Gambone, don't pretend that he is saying the same thing as McElroy. Etcetc 06:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Larry Gamone says: Libertarians saw themselves as socialists or even social democrats. (The individualist, Benjamin Tucker even went so far as to call himself a "scientific socialist") The term "socialist" had a much different meaning then - at that time it meant co-operative production. Socialism as collectivism or statism was a later development, largely a result of the hegemony of the German Social Democratic Party. So he, just like Wendy McElroy, says that meaning of the term socialism has changed and that in Tucker's and Proudhon's time it wasn't used to imply collectivism. -- Vision Thing -- 11:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

In other words, Gambone does NOT say way McElroy says, and it was McElroy being used in the text. That is why I removed the Gambone quote, and why I will continue to remove it until the text is changed or he is quoted separately. Etcetc 23:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

How would you formulate what he is saying? -- Vision Thing -- 18:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The individualists use the term socialism to imply co-operative production, rather than collectivism. Etcetc 05:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Bullet 3) This one is funny, because its inconsistent. In the last bullet, #7, VT is clearly trying to bring up the issue of discord between some individualists and some communists in the individualist section, yet when folks try to bring up the controversial nature of anarcho-capitalism in the anarcho-capitalist section, he claims in bullet 3 that it should only be brought up in the issues section. As seems to be a recurring problem with VT, he is trying to have it both ways. Etcetc 06:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

If you look more carefully you will see that my edit in the bullet #7 is in the section Communism, which is placed in the section Issues in Anarchism. -- Vision Thing -- 11:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Yep, my bad. Etcetc 23:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Bullet 4) I have nothing wrong with this text, it only seems a bit in depth for a general review section. The precise differences between particular individualist anarchists can be better dealt with in that article.

Bullet 5) I agree that the text here needs to be pared down a bit, but the VT version seems to remove too much. Etcetc 06:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Everything stated there is true and balanced (sentence says that communism is both supported and opposed by many anarchists). -- Vision Thing -- 11:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Your statement doesn't follow from mine. You removed a great deal of content and are justifying it by saying that the content left over is true and (according to your POV) balanced. Fine and dandy, I think you are removing a bit too much content in the process. Etcetc 23:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Text I removed doesn't address any issues about anarchism and communism. It simply describes anarcho-communist model, which is already described in its section. Why do you think that content I removed is relevant for the section? -- Vision Thing -- 18:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Because a little background into anarcho-communism is part of the illumination into the relationship between anarchism and communism. Not a lot of background, which is why I agree it should be parred down, but more than you've left. Etcetc 05:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Bullet 6) This is the worst one. The line is already qualified just as it should be, "They accepted a labor theory of value, believing that free-market competition would cause non-labor income (profit, rent and interest) to disappear." but VT wants a double qualification "They accepted a labor theory of value, believing that free-market competition would cause what they believed to be non-labor income (profit, rent and interest) to disappear." We already know we are dealing with what they individualists believe, we don't have to be told twice in the same sentence. Is the very idea that people can generate income without labor so horrific that a capitalist has to qualify it twice before letting it go? Etcetc 06:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Qualification "believing" is there only for pro-capitalist part about positive effects of the free market, and is not there for anti-capitalist part. However, maybe rephrasing can address both of our concerns. How about: "They argued that free-market competition would cause disappearance of non-labor income (profit, rent and interest according to a labor theory of value)"?

I like it other than the "according to a labor theory of value bit" its already explained in the text that they believed in a labor theory of value, hammering it into every line serves no purpose. Etcetc 23:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

"According to a labor theory of value" is already in the version to which you are reverting so that can't be an issue here. -- Vision Thing -- 18:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

You asked me how I liked the sample sentence and I told you, the fact that neither version is my ideal might be irrelevant to you, but it doesn't change the preference. Etcetc 05:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Note: You and others have reverted others changes I have made in the meantime. Is there any special objection to those edits? -- Vision Thing -- 11:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I've continued to revert your own mass reversions because your mass revert has continued to undo a number of edits I and others have made that have no bearing on the discussions here, and furthermore continue to revert many edits that you seem to be the only one objecting to. Etcetc 23:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

All text which I have reverted is included in these seven bullets, unless I'm missing something. What else are you disputing? -- Vision Thing -- 18:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

You continue to revert a change that explicates both the similarities and differences between social anarchists and individualist anarchists in favor of text that only focuses on differences. You continue to change text referring to the fluid nature of the term socialism, as it is used differently by different parties, to "contested". Its meaning is first and foremost fluid, it is used differently by different parties both in instances where it is contested and where it is not, so it seems to me that fluid clarifies the situation more. You continue to remove the fact that Spooner was departing from most other individualists when he supported intellectual property. You continue to over-stuff the text with multiple quotes saying the same thing, or sources citing the same fact, in a rather brazen attempt to ram through a particular POV, despite the fact that there was clear consensus against this method earlier. Etcetc 05:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

All those changes are in my seven bullets. However, I will try to come up with compromise version of the article. -- Vision Thing -- 13:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, if you don't agree with all the changes I made try to improve the edit, rather than reverting it. -- Vision Thing -- 13:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

You begin by reverting all of my individual edits en mass, then berate me for reverting it back? Your "compromise" version is just another partial reversion, you've done nothing to try and actually compromise in the text with the exception of the points we've already agreed on. And no, those changes are not all covered by your seven bullets. Etcetc 13:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Then leave those changes where we have reached a comprise and remove the rest, while listing your objections here. -- Vision Thing -- 14:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

That is exactly what I'm trying to do. But since you continue to revert the entire thing, its been hard to make progress. Etcetc 15:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Why has the page on "anarchopedia" been deleted?

Why has the page on the "anarchopedia" site been deleted?

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anarchopedia might help you out there. ~ Switch (✉✍☺) 03:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Christie and the assassination attempt on Franco

What evidence is there that this was a real attempt to assinate Franco? I am not doubting Christie's sincereity has he set out on his ill-fated mission, but I do wonder why je appeared on television with the MI6 agent, Malcolm Muggeridge, who asked him whether it would be acceptable to assassinate a tyrant like Franco the evening before he left Britain. Reading his account of thewhole episode, i am sure I am not the only person to ask myself whether it was not a set up so the Spanish police could arrest Louis Edo. Perhaps thisaddition needs to be reworded.Harrypotter 09:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I have amended the passage so that it reads much better. Of course, Franco's views on racewerequite different from Hitler's. Ater the civil war he had an honour guard drawn from the Moroccan troops who served as a significant part of hos army during the civil war - a far cry from the raciialy manicured SS who served Hitler. Check Regulares for more information about this.Harrypotter 16:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Skinner's News From Nowhere, 1984

In Skinner's essay, News From Nowhere, 1984 he places his utopian (socialist) novel Walden Two as a practical form of (19th century, non-violent) anarchism. If I were to add this notation to this page, where should it go? Is Skinner's Radical Behaviorist Anarchism it's own school? Or is it a subset of "communitarian" or socialist anarchism?

--florkle 18:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it should go in a section with herbert Spencer?Harrypotter 18:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Not sure I see the link. I'll look into it. --florkle 15:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism#19th_century_United_States is where I think Skinner is linking- from Thoreau to Walden Two (a "collective thoreauvian anarchism"?). Maybe it's too insignificant to bother, although there have been many attempts to create a walden two (see Los Horcones & Twin Oaks) ?

--florkle 15:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Malatesta on the interrelationship of different schools of anarchist thought

I'm somewhat uneasy about the current description of anarchism, which implies several not-always-compatible and not-closely-related schools. Malatesta writes:[13]Jacob Haller 21:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

In the anarchist milieu, communism, individualism, collectivism, mutualism and all the intermediate and eclectic programmes are simply the ways considered best for achieving freedom and solidarity in economic life; the ways believed to correspond more closely with justice and freedom for the distribution of the means of production and the products of labour among men.

Current description is good because there are several incompatible and unrelated schools (one obvious example is relation between individualist anarchism and communist anarchism). -- Vision Thing -- 15:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

They are not always compatible, but they are closely related, and I think the intro should reflect this more. Even individualist-anarchism and communist-anarchism have more similarities than differences. -- infinity0 12:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

A number of the schools are closely related or overlap. Perhaps more importantly, a large number of prominent anarchists did not solely identify with one particular tradition over and above the rest, or even recognize tight boundaries between them, and many took bits and pieces from various schools. The entire tradition of "anarchists without adjectives" speaks for itself on this issue. In addition, many historians find it easier to create narratives for their subject matter by creating closed boxes that do not perfectly fit their subjects, this reinforces boundary lines where they were hazy or non-existent in the actual lives of their subject. This can be seen over and over again with the various "individualists" and their diverse viewpoints, as well as many of the more "social" oriented anarchists. I agree that the text should be altered to better represent this fact. Etcetc 06:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

You mean, you agree that sourced text should be altered to better represent your POV? -- Vision Thing -- 11:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

That isn't what I said, but thanks for the indication that you are not worth trying to communicate with here. Etcetc 22:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Bob Black

In Bob Black's article The Libertarian as Conservative I can't find where he claims that anarcho-capitalists shouldn't be called anarchists. Am I missing something? -- Vision Thing -- 13:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

"To my mind a right-wing anarchist is just a minarchist who'd abolish the state to his own satisfaction by calling it something else." So, just to state the obvious, for Black a "right-wing anarchist" is, in fact, a "minarchist" and does not abolish the state. Clearly, not an anarchist. BlackFlag 16:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I have removed Bob Black's article as a source because of the failed verification, and I have removed other sources added by the same editor. If someone can provide appropriate quotes from them, I will add them back. -- Vision Thing -- 20:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

When the Infoshop Library is working again, you can re-establish links to the articles by Black that we have in the library. Chuck0 02:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

I would like to remind everyone that if any suspicious accounts such as User:Crashola, User:Level basis or User:Signatory turn up, on this or any other related pages (eg. Lysander Spooner), they may be reported at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Billy Ego. After you have edited that page, add the line {{Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Billy Ego}} to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Pending. -- infinity0 12:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Libertarian Socialism

I have been extensively sourcing the libertarian socialism article and in the process I have noticed that nearly all of the sources use the term "libertarian socialism" synonymously with anarchism. Its seems to me that it is thus important to note in this article that libertarian socialism is often, though not always, used as a synonym for anarchism. Yet, the article currently only mentions libertarian socialism in the "see also" and "referances" section, and there is no mention of it in the template. I'm trying to think of a good place to put this reference, perhaps in the header or 2nd paragraph of the intro, and also where it might be best placed in the toolbar. Any ideas? Etcetc 20:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I think this raises some curious issues. It may well be that many of the texts which use libertarian socialism as a synonym for anarchism also denote a certain distancing from anarchism. This of course links to the continual tussles between libetraian socialist anarchists and individualists. In many ways the term libertarian socialism was an expression developed by people who wished to advocate a society in which there would be no need of a state, and differentiate themselves from anarchism - which places the struggle against the state as the central issue of the current society. The lib socs contrariwise saw the state being eroded, but in a conflict greatly determined by class struggle than a struggle against the state. Clearly these are very different views, and perhaps only superficially compatable.Harrypotter 16:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Many self-identified libertarian socialists are individualists. The term just distinguishes between rival senses of libertarian. Jacob Haller 17:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Libertarian Socialism is indeed a common synonym. It's more popular in Europe than in the U.S. (where in fact it may be virtually unkown, even among anarchist circles), and represents a continued tie to the rest of the radical left. Post-left anarchists often consciously distance themselves from the term. Vert et Noir^talk 03:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I've definitely always thought of lib soc as synonymous with the worker/class struggle oriented strains of anarchism. Murderbike 06:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It's sometimes used as a less "agressive" term. Over 20 years ago I was involved with an attempt to launch a local anarchist group in Britain. There was an American present who had been deported in the Committee of 100 days and wanted the group to be called "libertarian socialist" rather than "anarchist" because he thought it was less likely to attract hostility. --Peter cohen 08:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Hakim Bey.jpeg

Image:Hakim Bey.jpeg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Collectivist anarchism article needs work

I'm not particularly familiar with the subject. I've gone to Bakunin's works but we can't agree what they mean. Are any other editors more familiar with the subject? Jacob Haller 03:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Perlman and Green Anarchism

I don't know what Maziotis problem is, but the edit removed the false statement that Fredy Perlman was a) French, and b) an anarchist. In Having Little, Being Much: A Chronicle of Fredy Perlman’s Fifty Years by Lorraine Perlman it is made clear that Fredy was not into any -isms. Furthermore by ascribing agency to the considering as the progenitor of green anarchism things are made a lot clearer. Also I resent the implications that I am in anyway sympathetic to green anarchism, even though I respect the work of Fredy Perlman.Harrypotter 21:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

List of anarchist periodicals

To anyone interested, I've created a chronologically organized List of anarchist periodicals that I hope will place anarchist newspapers and magazines in a historical context. Currently, the page is rather US/UK-centric. If you are familiar with the history of anarchist journals, please help flesh-out this new article. Thanks! - N1h1l 17:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I've responded on the talk page for the list with some journals I can remember in Britain and Ireland. Some of these are still going. I suspect that emails to SolFed or the AF might not just turn up the publication dates of their own mags but also potentially yield info on continental groups with whom they exchange issues. Kate Sharpley Librady might also have info from their archive.--Peter cohen 18:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Protected talk page

It is completely unacceptable to protect a talk page. Non-users need to be able to express concerns with the article just as much, if not more, than registered users. Algabal 11:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

It's good in certain cases to semi-protect the talk page, for the exact same reasons as any other pages. However, it looks like this was done in September 2006 (probably for vandalism or something) and was merely forgotten. I'l put a request up for unprotect. - Zero1328 _Talk? 14:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Unprotected :) - Alison ☺ 16:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

individualist anarhcism and anarcho-capitalist section

Firstly, anarcho-capitalism is a form of individualist anarchism is POV. Many individualist anarchists denounce anarcho-capitalism. So I've moved it to its own section.

Secondly, the section is too large and presents unnecessary details which serve only to confuse the reader. It is like a badly written essay. It tells me nothing about the general ideas of anarcho-capitalism. Why is it focusing on specific issues like interest and rent?

Thirdly, why is there 30 sources betwen cited for one view? This is spam and also propaganda, because it makes it seem like it's somehow a fact and not just an opinion.

Fourthly, the "Inidivudalist anarchism in the Untied States" section is a specific issue which should not be in a general article on anarchism.

Fifthly, I am shocked why nobody else is removing these things I have pointed out. They severely unbalance the article, and this is blatantly obvious. Individualist anarchism in the US and anarcho-capitalism in no way represent any significant portion of the anarchist movement, so they should not take up a significant portion of the article. And why is nobody removing the 30-source spam? -- infinity0 12:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, btw, I like the intro. Nice work. :) -- infinity0 12:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

That anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism is not "POV." What does this mean: "Many individualist anarchists denounce anarcho-capitalism." That's circular. You're first assuming that anarcho-capitalists aren't individualist anarchists, then saying that individualist anarchists denounce anarcho-capitalism. But, anarcho-capitalists don't denounce themselves. Anyway, who are these "many individualist anarchists"? You're making that up. The reason there are 30 sources is to head off people like you coming in and saying that anarcho-capitalism is not an individualist form of anarchism. The sources are there. So, I'm restoring. Anarcho-capitalism 13:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The title "Individualist anarchism in the United States" though is kind of strange. I think I can straighten that out.. Anarcho-capitalism 14:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I renamed it "19th century in the United States." The individualist anarchism that originated in the U.S. is historically very important, so it shouldn't be deleted. Anarcho-capitalism 14:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Sourced POV is still POV. Don't misquote or misrepresent me; I did not say that anarcho-capitalism isn't a form of anarchism; I said that anarcho-capitalism is a form of individualist anarchism is POV. You have no proof of your assertion that "anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism is not "POV."". Your sources are all written by people, which means that this is a point of view.

If that's what you mean by "POV" then everything in the article is POV since all the sources are written by people. So what you're saying is ridiculous. Anarcho-capitalism 18:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Secondly, the section is too large. You haven't answered my point above about overweighting. And the information is very very badly worded. It reads like a high school essay, a bunch of random sentences bunched together. It has lots of confusing waffle and space-fillers. I am adding NPOV tags and cleanup tags to both sections. -- infinity0 16:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

"The 30 sources are there to head off people like [me]?" You mean people interested in keeping propaganda crap off the article? If your assertions are so truthful, you wouldn't need 30 sources from random obscure authors to show your point. -- infinity0 16:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

30 sources is more than enough to show that anarcho-capitalism is considered a form of anarchism, and an individualist form. Without those sources people like you would come and and delete anarcho-capitalism with the silly POV-pushing claim that it's not a form of anarchism.Anarcho-capitalism 18:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The above statement is logically wrong. "30 sources" mean absolutely nothing, because those 30 sources are not a random sample, and are therefore unrepresentative of anarchism or general opinion. Why are they not a random sample? Because those 30 sources have been hand-picked and selected by you and other anarcho-capitalist editors. You have neglected to mention any other sources, such as AFAQ and the vast majority of the contemporary modern anarchist movement, which denounce anarcho-capitalism at least as a form of individualist-anarchism, and often as a form of anarchism altogether. -- infinity0 11:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Current consensus is to keep issues at Issues section, so there you will find (few) sources which dispute claim that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism. AFAQ is not there because it is not a reliable source, as well as anarchist websites. Also, when editing keep in mind WP:OR. -- Vision Thing -- 12:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

One more note just for anyone who reads this. Everytime I try to clean up the content and compact it down so it's NOT a bunch of waffle, you or some other anarcho-capitalist reverts it straight back. The content is shit. It doesn't do any benefit to anarcho-capitalism either. Why don't you re-write it so it's more compact and more reader-friendly? -- infinity0 16:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Anarcho-capitalism 18:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Section on anarcho-capitalism is "focusing" on interest because that is differential point between it and other forms of individualist anarchism. Section on "Individualist anarchism in the Untied States" (or section with that content but with different name) is needed because of Tucker, Spooner and explanation of individualist anarchism in general. -- Vision Thing -- 19:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, fair point. However, it seems a bit over-done, and too wordy. The US-ind-anarchism section is just way too long compared to the other sections, and basically, is boring. Could you condense it down? I am going to add clean-up templates and the occasinal inline NPOV marker. Please don't remove them, as they are valid points. -- infinity0 11:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

"anarcho-capitalists would like for all services, including law enforcement and security, to be performed by multiple private providers all competing for business, rather than by a monopolist state agency funded by taxation." - while I agree that ancaps would like to eliminate the state monopolies, it is not at all obvious that they (they all, which is implicit here) would like to have it provided by for-profit businesses. On the contrary, I could cite numerous references, including Hoppe, Rothbard, Childs and even David Friedman that actually advocate some, if not many, services, even as socially vital as helping the poor and disabled to be performed by voluntary non-profit organizations, such as churches, charities and local coops. Scobac 13:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

green anarchism section

"Green-Anarchism is a philosophy that advocates a return to a pre-industrial and usually pre-agricultural society"

I am unsure that green anarchism necessarily implies this. This section seems to me too heavily focused on primitivist perspectives - I think a look at the work of the Australian Graham Purchase (Anarchism and Ecology) and the many eco-anarchists working outside of a primitivist or anti-industry perspective would help to round out this section. I might start working on an edit for this...

That would, imho, be a very welcome addition. Libertatia 20:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

"..advocate a .. return to nomadic hunter-gatherer lifestyles while many green anarchists ... and do not necessarily oppose domestication or agriculture. Key theorists in the former category include Derrick Jensen ..."

In a recent lecture Jensen defined the "civilization" that he opposes as cities (or villages) that are not self-reliant and must import commodities. He did not appear to oppose domestication or agriculture. Is there any reference where he in fact opposes these? Rob_ 20:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

anarchism and authority

The 2nd paragraph states that "anarchism", in its most general meaning, is the belief that all forms of authority are undesirable. Bakunin contradicts this in God and the State. Jacob Haller 02:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Good point. I think sometimes people tend to project anarcho-communist tenets on all of anarchism since anarcho-communism is what most people think of when they think of anarchism. More individualistic types of anarchism don't reject "authority" or "hierarchy" unless it's involuntary. I think it's only the anarcho-communists that want a levelling of everything. Illegal editor 03:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

All rejects hierarchy, in the sense of subordination, like the relation bosses-employees, it´s different with authority that anarchist agre like the specialists one or like contract by honoraria. The soft-propertarian anarchist also agree with that (no gods no masters), there it´s not an anarchist school without an a critic of the property system in capitalism, because its economis and social consecuences. --201.217.118.250 19:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe that you are trying to describe the universal definiton of anarchism, not for only one country. And the political definiton of anarchism (in US, México, Italy, Poland, Argentina, Nigeria, Japan, Australia, Sweden, Indonesia, Russia, Iran, etc, etc, etc) its a movement that propose each person liberty among equals althought voluntary association and cooperation, and that oposse to any kind of bosses. --200.63.240.234 20:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

If you want to insert that kind of definition in the introduction of the article, please find sources for it. Don't change already existing sourced definitions. -- Vision Thing -- 11:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

How about considering Kropotkin's definition (EB 1911)?

Anarchism ... a principle or theory of life and conduct under which society is conceived without [state] government --harmony in such a society being obtained, not be submission to law, or by obedience to any authority, but be 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 [sic] being... If, it is contended, society were organized along 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...

Or we could consider Malatesta's statement above.

In either case, I've encountered various late 19th/early 20th century descriptions and definitions, e.g. Kropotkin's, or Tucker's in Armies that Overlap, which do not consider socialism/anticapitalism part of the definition of anarchism, but do consider it a logical implication of the definition of anarchism. Kropotkin introduces this at the start of his 2nd paragraph. I think it's more informative for the intro to discuss shared anarchist concerns which lead, among other things, to the rejection of actually-existing capitalism, than to include anti-capitalism in the definition, without explanation, or to exclude anti-capitalism from the definition. We can leave whether these concerns exclude some or all forms of "anarcho-capitalism" as an exercise for the reader. Jacob Haller 18:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

It is clear from Kropotkin's essay that he thinks anarchism is the left-wing of the socialist movement, that anarchism is anti-capitalist. To suggest otherwise is to quote out of context. BlackFlag 16:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

One cannot use primary source material to make analytical claims, as is done above here. That constitutes Wikipedia Original Research. Intangible2.0 18:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

It´s ridiculus to change a clear definition, according to political ciencia, hystorical deffinition and universal consensus (if you consider that US it´s not the entire world). Controversial is the doctrine that causes the disputes (regional, little, from another ideology, etc.), not the anarchist mainstream definition. The definition should be contextualized in time and space.

Logo

Hello. I think that the logo should be the one with the lines crossing the circle. Isn't that kind of the idea of the whole thing?

--No please, don´t confuse punk with anarchy. No gods no masters.

Vision Thing's reverts

Looking at Vision Thing's recent revert[14], I'm thinking that this is getting ridiculous. You've removed every single change since your previous revert, even {{toolong}}! This is not constructive at all. I'd really like you to start explaining your reverts, because right now you appear to be simply blindly reverting everything, as if you own the article. If you can't do that, I suggest you take some time off Wikipedia to think about this. - Zero1328 _Talk? 12:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I missed that {{toolong}} tag was added. I wouldn't have removed it otherwise, because I agree that the article is too long. As for other changes, I reverted Full Shunyata's revert which he didn't explained or discussed, anon's additions which are discussed in section above, and infintiy0's edit which is basically a revert to an old version of the Anarcho-capitalism and Capitalism sections. -- Vision Thing -- 13:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Restoring a consensus version, as I noted in the ES. You reverted 12 editors: Jacob Haller, Infinity0, Full Shunyata, ES Sage, Nwe, Van helsing, Jiddisch, 192, Christopher Connor, SmackBot, 75, and Neilbeach. Granted, one of them is a bot and two others are IP editors. Your reasons above accounts for only two of us, one of which amounts to you ignoring consensus, the other involving you accusing someone of a revert, which I can't actually see which version he supposedly reverted to. -- infinity0 13:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

My reverts are usually not "blind" reverts, in them I try to keep good changes. Last time I mostly failed to do that, so I apologize to editors whose constructive changes I reverted. -- Vision Thing -- 13:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

You are senselessly reverting again[15]. All you have done here is added the tag and a few minor word changes; the 9 editors included far more than this. -- infinity0 14:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, this is ridiculous. VT, you have just reverted about 8 editors, and you keep ignoring the consensus made up above by many various people from WP:3O too. -- infinity0 12:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Benjamin Tucker's anarchism is not in anyway "socialist." Reliable sources on this were already presented on the talk page of that article. Intangible2.0 18:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Read Tucker, particularly State Socialism and Anarchism and Armies that Overlap. Even Kropotkin considered Tucker's anarchism a form of socialism, as did Malatesta. Jacob Haller 18:37, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not about me reading Tucker somehow. It is about reliable secondary sources that make this claim about Tucker. Intangible2.0 18:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

If you don't like the primary sources, which are far more reliable than any secondary sources can ever be, then I suppose you will accept some secondary sources. I have Kropotkin's 1911 Encyclopedia Brittanica article handy. Paragraphs 4 & 6 define all anarchists as socialists, and opponents of capitalism, not mentioning Tucker. Kropotkin discusses Tucker much later in the article, emphasizing his egoism more than his economic proposals. Jacob Haller 19:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Peacott, Joe, An Overview of Individualist Anarchist Thought. Jacob Haller 19:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem with using a 100-year-old source, is that it gets out of date, when its subject is a living, breathing thing. Kropotkin was an Anarchist Communist. Anarchism emerged from the left, but it is no longer wholly defined as a part of the political left. Many anarchists do still identify with the left, but not all, and to ignore post-left anarchists is simply asinine. We have modern sources we can use just as well as the older ones. Vert et Noir^talk 20:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

pov tag

I've added a POV tag to the article. The lead does not correctly summarize the main points that should be made about anarchism, recent edits were unsourced, and more importantly, these changes to the lead should be discussed on the talk page first. Intangible2.0 15:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand. It's the same lead that's been there for ages. (I went back 500 edits to check.) Well, except for the claim that the "principal focus" is "the democratisation of society", which is of course ridiculously sectarian. I guess that's what you refer to. I'll delete it forthwith. PhilLiberty 05:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, although I think the bit about involuntary servitude is superfluous. Anyways some stuff has been re-added again, I'm not sure why. Intangible2.0 15:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I added that back in because it belongs there. With Vision Thing's reverts/trashing the whole article is getting screwed up, and vital material kept getting deleted. Jacob Haller 15:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Admittedly, the version with "democratization" was problematic. Jacob Haller 15:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, so the part about anti-capitalism has been changed to anti-state capitalism; what else is there? The intro is OK now IMO. -- infinity0 19:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

sources

Anyone else apart from Vision Thing objecting to these edits? Here is an explanation of my edits:

• edits 1&2: Removal of spam of sources supporting one view
  • Addessing Vision Thing's concerns, AFAQ is frankly the best web resource on anarchism. It's comparable to printed sources, is actually getting printed soon, and has also been cited by printed sources. AFAQ itself is in reality actually a published source - it is published on many many anarchist websites, and also by the Debian GNU/Linux group.
  • Wikipedia article on AFAQ provides plenty of information for the reader about its origins. If you think it is "out of the way", well, so is the note.
• edits 3&4: in these edits no information was deleted, all I did was move the last paragraph into second place, so that the information flows better, in light of edits 1&2.
• edits 5&6: here I have moved some anti-ancap rhetoric away from the capitalist section into the anarcho-capitalist note, because I thought it was taking up too much space in that section, and also these types of anti-ancap arguments was not relevant to the discussion on capitalism.

-- infinity0 19:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the AFAQ is pretty irrelevant. There are plenty of secondary source, many with peer review and professional oversight. Furthermore, the AFAQ has more to do with activism than with academic discussion. And it is hardly cited at all (see Google Scholar). It is easy to self-publish these days, one can even produce books on-demand, and why should one care about what Linux developers think about the AFAQ, they are professional software writers, not polical scientists. Intangible2.0 16:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

First volume of AAFAQ has been delivered to the publisher, AK Press. Libertatia 17:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, OK, well, if you have better sources in mind, feel free to put them in. I was just defending AFAQ against removal. It was the best, most general, source I could find under the circumstances. However, about your "easy to self-publish" point, AFAQ is not primarily "self-published". Many separate, independent, and reputable (for the subject of anarchism) websites have decided to host it because they think it is a good piece of work. -- infinity0 16:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh! Look what I found! An old version of the article with some of these sources in.

However, other scholars do not believe it is a legitimate form of anarchism. [start of reference] Such accounts include:

• Peter Marshall, Demanding the Impossible: History of Anarchism, Fontana Press, 1993
• John Clark, The Anarchist Moment, Black Rose Books, 1984
• Albert Meltzer, Anarchism: Arguments for and Against, AK Press, 2000
• Noam Chomsky, Understanding Power: The Indispensable Chomsky, New Press, 2002
• David Weick, Anarchist Justice, Anarchism: Nomos XIX, ed. J.R. Pennock and J.W. Chapman, New York University Press, 1978.
• Brian Morris, Anthropology and Anarchism, Anarchy: A Journal of Desire Armed 45
• Noam Chomsky, Chomsky on Anarchism, Notes on Anarchism, 2005, AK Press, 126
• Peter Sabatini, Libertarianism: Bogus Anarchy
• Donald Rooum, What is Anarchism? An Introduction, Freedom Press, 1995.
• Bob Black, The Libertarian as Conservative, The Abolition of Work and Other Essays, Loompanics Unlimited, 1986
• Colin Ward, Anarchism: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford University Press, 2004

[end ref]

These were originally inserted by User:Good Intentions [16] and later removed by User:DTC that "failed verification", which basically means that he didn't think they were explicit enough[17]. DTC smells to me like another RJII/BillyEgo sock, but perhaps not. He hasn't edited for many months.

DTC added in more biased sources to the ones already in the article ([18]). User:RJII was the first person to start this: [19] (the editor was a sockpuppet of RJII)

Anyway, shall we add some of these sources in? Or perhaps replace (some of) the existing ones with some of these? -- infinity0 17:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

This needs to be fixed

I have just read this discussion page and I am greatly disheartened by users such as Anarcho-capitalism and Vision Thing who consistently close their eyes to the consensus and make this article a platform for their fairly isolated point of view. I'm not sure if they are trolling or just delluded. It makes me very sad to see this. Anarcho-capitalism's arguments are not logical yet it seems he/she believes they are. How can this be stopped. This article on anarchism is a complete misrepresentation as I'm sure most people here realize. Surely there is a solution. Howabout these people who disagree with the consensus create their own website detailing their beliefs and then that website could be linked to from the Wikipedia article saying something about how these Anarcho-Capitalists consider themselves to be anarchists but generally non-Anarcho-Capitalists completely disagree. That is factual. 125.63.133.176 08:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalism (for the bazillionth time)

Apparently someone thinks that the way to solve our edit conflicts here is just to remove the section on anarcho-capitalism. Much as I disagree with some an-caps, I can see how that particular move can be anything by flagrant POV-pushing. The last time we had anything like a general consensus on the shape of this article, the question of inclusion of the an-cap section had been pretty well dropped. We really don't need to descend into "True Anarchism" edit-wars. Libertatia 17:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

uh..

Just wondering what's up with this... why is it misleading? also it's kinda harsh to call someone a vandal. -- infinity0 16:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

FS's removal

I can udnerstand the reasons behind the removal of this, but I thought there was good information there. (And I myself re-inserted the first sentence, which I thought gave useful information.) Does anyone think likewise? Maybe the removed stuff could be rewritten and re-inserted? -- infinity0 16:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Issues-Capitalism

I suggest dividing this into two sub-sections (at the same level as the current section), one on markets and one on capitalism. Additional concerns:

• Proudhon himself was, in most senses of the term, a market anarchist. Ironically, he's one of the only two people named for non-market anarchists here.
• Of course most individual anarchists can't be considered collectivist anarchists. Why is that passage even there?
• "Private property" invites equivocation. Jacob Haller 17:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I saw that statement and it looks to me like it was just trying to clear up confusion because socialism is considered to be a form of collectivism. If someone calls himself a socialist but is an individaulist, that is confusing. -Operation Spooner

There is something wrong. It won't let me edit that section. Anyone know what the problem is? -Operation Spooner

If the edit buttons don't show up, reload the page; if they do show up, they are screwed up. Click to edit the previous section. Jacob Haller 20:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

You're right. You have to click to edit the previous section to edit the next section. Thanks. I wish someone would fix that. Operation Spooner 19:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Anarcho-Pacifism

Is it possible to not have the term anarcho-pacifism forward here? I haven't followed the history of the page and don't know the reasoning behind having done so in the first place, but there's not a single use of the term "pacifism" in the entire article at this point... and the word "pacifist" is used once in reference to a music group. Suffice it to say, a person looking for information on anarcho-pacifism isn't going to find any such information in this article and is going to waste a lot of time looking for it. I would suggest that either the term be forwarded to the Christian Anarchism article... which at the very least does have a pacifism section, or ideally it should have an article of its own (since not all anarcho-pacifists are Christians)

Go to Anarcho-pacifism. Unless you specify no redirect, the Anarchism page will load with a note saying "redirected from Anarcho-pacifism." Click on the Anarcho-pacifism link there. This time the Anarcho-pacifism page will load. Now you can start the page, mark it as a stub, add some appropriate categories, and so on. Okay? Jacob Haller 06:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

POV tag anarcho-capitalism section

I've added a POV tag to this section. AFAQ is not a reliable source to talk about anarchism in general, and anarcho-capitalism in particular. I'm not sure how anarcho-capitalism is supposed to be a controversial political philosophy? This seems like a WP:OR reading of source material. The first paragraph needs to be cut. Intangible2.0 01:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Capitalism and Marshall

I've removed this bit. See for example The State of Statelessness by John T. Sanders [20], who points out that this is a mere terminological issue. Intangible2.0 01:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

pov / disputed tag

I've added these tags to the capitalism section. The section included unreferenced material, which is original research. Furthermore the claims by Peter Marshall on capitalism also read out individualist anarchism out of the anarchism "movement," and is therefore marginal. Benjamin Tucker for example wanted wealth to be be distributed by market forces, and police functions to be privatized. Intangible2.0 14:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Market forces and privatizisation is not the same thing as capitalism. // Liftarn

Could you define capitalism then, Liftarn? Operation Spooner 14:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Liftarn, the above reference to Sanders rebukes your notion here. Do you have any sources for your argument? Intangible2.0 17:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Libertarianism, or "Anarcho Capitalism"

Just because one tries to use the word "anarcho" in their philosophy, does not make them a part of the anarchist movement. Including "Anarcho-Capitalism" in this article is roughly equivalent to including the Anarchist Pogo Party of Germany here, and purporting it to be a major "school of thought" among anarchists. It's bullshit, and anyone can tell you that. Murray Rothbard was a libertarian who wanted to use a shocking word. All the sources mention libertarian along with, if not instead of, anarchism to describe "anarcho capitalism". The Libertarian template lists it, why the hell must we? Vert et Noir^talk 21:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

"Anarcho-capitalism" is just a word. If Rothbard named it "market anarchism" which is what most people call it, I don't think we'd be having this conversation would we? Operation Spooner 21:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

That first bit is my point; it is just a word. His calling it "anarchism" does not change the fact that it has nothing to do with Anarchism, though it may be a libertarian philosophy. We'd be having the same discussion if someone tried to include "market anarchism" in this article, because it is not anarchism. It's just a word. Plain and simple. Vert et Noir^talk 21:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the stuff on Proudhon should be cut from this article as well?! The reason why anarcho-capitalism is included in this article is because reliable sources support its inclusion. Intangible2.0 22:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it should be. Not a whole lot of Anarchists in the real world read Proudhon anymore. But that's not the point. I'll look into the reliable sources on it. Anarcho-Capitalism is a loaded term, and everyone knows it. It's staring you in the face. Why can't we come together and bring in enough sources and perspective to warrant it's expulsion from the article? Vert et Noir^talk 02:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Reference 83 says, among other things:

Goodwin, Barbara. Using Political Ideas, Fourth Edition, John Wiley & Sons (1987), p. 137 ("Although many anarchists today still subscribe to the values of Bakunin and Kropotkin, there are two new, divergent currents of anarchist thinking. One is anarcho-capitalism, a form of libertarian anarchism… Their true place is in the group of right-wing libertarians… Many who call themselves anarchists today preserve some of the older doctrines" pp. 137-138)

And currently, that's listed as a reason keep the section on this page. If, like Barbara Goodwin, and any sensible person, believes, self-described Anarcho-Capitalists are really right-wing libertarians, is not that reason to remove them to the Libertarian page? Vert et Noir^talk 03:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, have all those little books in the ref. notes which are not available online been verified by several users? Vert et Noir^talk 03:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

"Anarchism is a political philosophy or group of doctrines and attitudes centered on rejection of any form of compulsory government" Anarcho-capitalists explicitly reject ALL forms of compulsory everything, ESPECIALLY government, thus meeting the definition of Anarchism. That's all the reason you need to keep this section on this page.talk 05:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Why would they be excluded for being right-wing libertarians if Bakunin and Kropotkin are left-wing libertarians and included? Operation Spooner 15:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Anarchist FAQ reliability

I can't seem to find any discussion on it, but people have mentioned that the Anarchist FAQ is not a reliable source. Why is this? Vert et Noir^talk 21:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

See WP:V: "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources." Intangible2.0 21:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Our own article, An Anarchist FAQ, describes the work as "an online FAQ written by an international work group of anarchists connected through the internet." It's not published by an individual. It's hosted by Infoshop.org, which is neither a blog nor a personal website. Even if any of these were true, the guideline says "largely." Anyone with any background knowledge on Anarchism, with any connection to the Anarchist movement would think of it a quite a reliable source, at least for Anarchism. Vert et Noir^talk 03:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Therefore there exists a second clause in WP:V: "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." I doubt that will hold for Infoshop; anyways the proof of that lies with the editor who wants to insert material from Infoshop. Intangible2.0 18:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Ian Mackaye would be pretty darned established as an expert in my opinion, and I doubt many people would argue with that. As well, he's had writings published in countless liner notes, and several introductions/forwards. The other "principle contributors" are of good renown as well. Vert et Noir^talk 21:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Volume 1 of AAFAQ is in the hands of the publisher, and perhaps quite soon we can stop having this silly discussion. Libertatia 15:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the discussion will end there. AK Press is not a mainstream publishing house. WP:NPOV still applies. The Faq has not been used much in academic discussion on anarchism, I doubt that will change in the future. Intangible2.0 18:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

For non-anarchism related subjects, your point is valid. However, the subject here is anarchism, so of course an anarchist publisher is appropriate. Your argument would similarly justify deleting many many pro-anarchocapitalist sources from various articles. -- infinity0 20:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The FAQ does not have to be "used much in academic discussion on anarchism". This argument would also justify deletion of probably around all of the sources which are also in there supporting an anarcho-capitalist point of view. You're applying your logic only in a way that supports your own viewpoints.

The FAQ is not hosted by Infoshop.org, it is hosted by hundreds of major anarchist websites, all of them acting independently. -- infinity0 18:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Plenty of those sources are from mainstream (academic) publishers, and include scholars, like John Hospers, who have regularly written about anarchism in academic publications. Intangible2.0 19:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Vert et Noir^talk 21:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Int2, of course that is OK for a source. What you were saying though is the source has to have been discussed/cited ("used") much by other academics, which which does not apply to the vast majority of sources on the page, including AFAQ. (An "internet source" being cited in at least two printed works as serious research, is very impressive though, don't you think?). Even without being published in print form, AFAQ is a good source to go on wikipedia; in fact, it is much better than a lot of sources which *are* printed. Its credentials - being hosted on a lot (I was exaggerating when I said hundreds, but I wouldn't be surprised if the number was 100) of major independent anarchist websites, speaks for itself, TBH. -- infinity0 09:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Talk page cleanup, Archiving

I haven't been around this article to know off-hand how old all the discussions are on this page, or if they're all active. I've found that just archiving judging by the posted dates on conversations generally pisses someone or another off, so I won't be bold here. But this talk page is rather cluttered, and it looks like it's highly deserving of an archiving. Vert et Noir^talk 03:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps could you wait until Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Vision Thing/Evidence is over as that case requires easy access to a discussion on this particular talk page? -- infinity0 18:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course. This is just what I was talking about. It just seems that a lot of these things were inactive, and could use with it soon. I wouldn't be the one to do it, anyway, methinks. Vert et Noir^talk 20:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Fixed edit buttons

I found that, when editing, the Godwin button led to both the Godwin and Proudhon sections, explaining why the edit buttons for all later sections were off by one. The "main" template in the Proudhon section was on the same line as the section header was. I moved the "main" template to its own line and this seems to have corrected the edit button problem. Jacob Haller 08:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)