User talk:BeŻet/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

source

hello, can you help me figure out how to add sources to wiki edits? I am on mobile Iron Capitalist (talk) 19:46, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

@Iron Capitalist: Hi! If your source is a web URL, at minimum you should use <ref>http://example.com</ref>, but ideally you should use the cite web template. If it's a book or something else, you should then also use the appropriate template so that all necessary information is included. Hope this helps! BeŻet (talk) 20:14, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

thanks, I noticed you take care of that page and I appreciate the effort

I have written some content to it (like whole sections) and I would like to know if you want to peer-review it with me, so we save time going straight to discussion instead of editing and erasing the edits

let me know what you think Iron Capitalist (talk) 20:20, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

(also sorry for bothering you, I am kinda new to this) Iron Capitalist (talk) 20:20, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

@Iron Capitalist: Hi, yeah sure, happy to have a look. I take care of that page, but it doesn't mean that I'm the only person allowed to make changes, just to be clear. BeŻet (talk) 11:49, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

here is what I have written so far, I am thinking of adding it as a separated section before “criticism”

the only issue I would have is that I know most of this stuff by heart and discussions I have had with left-anarchists, so I don’t have any source to back the claims made by the ancap critics, despite knowing that they do those, let me know if you can help with that (I can bring the sources for the ancap side for sure)

“ Dispute over Anarchism

There is a dispute over whether ancaps are anarchists or not. Many, if not all, of the anarchist schools do not consider ancaps as true anarchists. Ancaps on the other hand, do not consider the other anarchist schools as true anarchists.

Anarcho-capitalism is, in principle, an ideology centered around consent at it’s core. This makes it reject any type of coercion, being it done by an individual or an authority, and being the free-market and respect to private property the only compatible socioeconomic organizations with it.

Because of it’s principle, ancaps are first capitalists. It is by accident that their principles that all relationships in society should be consented leads to the notion that a government should also be consented (aka, private governance). Because of this, a state would cease to exist, causing the “anarcho” prefix Ancap has (while governing services still exist).

Because of this, it raises the dilemma of _what it means to be anarchist?_ Some anarchist schools do not consider Ancap to be anarchist because it allows hierarchies (the private governance), others says that Ancap is not anarchist because it causes hierarchies by allowing private property of means of production (which to them needs a state to exist and they believe it cannot exist without it). And on the the other hand, ancaps do not consider these other anarchist schools to be anarchists because they would intervene by force in a consented hierarchy.

So ultimately, Ancap is an ideology centered around consent, and by consequence, capitalism, that happens to take consent to such extreme that even governments would also work under the price system. That’s the only thing that can be said for sure. But it still is possible to see ancaps calling themselves anarchists to the point where “anarchist” and “capitalist” becomes interchangeable terms from their point of view.” Iron Capitalist (talk) 20:08, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

@Iron Capitalist: I'm afraid that without sources this won't be accepted, as at the end of the day these are your thoughts, or your interpretation of the topic. It doesn't matter if you are correct or not, Wikipedia simply doesn't allow original research. Moreover, anarchists would quite likely disagree with you that capitalism has anything to do with consent, but this is besides the point. I appreciate that you are trying to contribute to the article, but you would need to provide sources for your addition, otherwise anyone can simply remove it from the article. If you can provide reliable sources for the ancap side though, that would be a great starting point; just make sure you follow the guidelines at WP:SOURCES so that your sources are of good quality (e.g. books, scientific journals, magazines etc.) and not self-published sources (e.g. YouTube videos, blog posts etc.). Thanks! BeŻet (talk) 21:26, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I only don’t have sources for the anarchist side of it, I hoped you would have sources on that since, like you mentioned, they would disagree (from your bio I assume you have more literature on that than I do)

let’s keep talking about it Iron Capitalist (talk) 21:53, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

also, I have the impression that wiki works better with little and incremental edits instead of big ones it seems Iron Capitalist (talk) 21:55, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

@Iron Capitalist: I agree that small incremental changes work best as it is easier to achieve consensus about the changes. In terms of differences between anarchists and anarcho-capitalists, I think the core one is that anarchists believe that nobody would do wage labour if they had pretty much any other option, therefore if the state would stop enforcing the system of private property (that is, private ownership of land and means of production, not personal possessions), capitalism would simply wither away. Anarcho-capitalists on the other hand seem to believe that wage labour would still exist, or even be preferred by people. Another key difference is, at least when comparing anarchism to Rothbard's anarchocapitalism, is that anarchists reject private ownership of land - that is, they don't believe land can be owned by anyone, and instead they believe that it simply "belongs" to people who live or work on it. Meanwhile, Rothbard believes that once land is "homesteaded" by an undefined amount of work, it then "belongs" to that person for all eternity - anarchists don't believe in any of that. The third key difference is law - anarchocapitalists seem to envisage a society with private contracts between individuals, that would somehow be enforced upon uninvolved parties (e.g. a person who hasn't signed a contract is still forced to respect it, likely because of threat of violence from a private police force). Anarchists reject such ideas and want to rely on consensus-based social contracts (and thus achieving a consensus democracy rather than a majoritarian democracy) where decisions need to be worked out and accepted by a community as a whole, and therefore require no state or private enforcement or coercion. I think this is mainly why anarchists would completely disagree with anarchocapitalists regarding consent, as they see all elements of capitalism as coercion. BeŻet (talk) 08:47, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

nice, so if you can do me a favor and find the source for those we would be able to include both sides of the discussion within the same page

I have wrote more sections that I have the sources for, I’ll include those later when I am not busy so you can review them, thank you! Iron Capitalist (talk) 18:52, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@Iron Capitalist:Those are just my loose thoughts really, so I wouldn't include them in the article, but there is plenty of sourced material already in anarchism and capitalism, Issues in anarchism#Capitalism and Anarcho-capitalism#Anarchism, which all discuss the topic in great detail. If you have more sources about the points of view of anarcho-capitalists, it would be great to include them in the anarchism subsection of the anarcho-capitalism article. In that subsection we already present the point of view of Rothbard, and also that of Huemer who categorizes anarcho-capitalism as a variety of anarchism. If you have more, feel free to add. Thanks! BeŻet (talk) 13:18, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

how do you mention users and reply to threads?

hey man, sorry for bothering you with this, I tried to google how to mention someone and reply to threads like you do, but didn’t found exactly what I was looking for

do you mind giving me a quick tutorial on how to mention and reply to a thread in a discussion? thanks! Iron Capitalist (talk) 17:51, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

@Iron Capitalist: no worries at all, you simply write e.g. {{Re|BeŻet}} and that "pings" the user you are replying to. Also if you start a line with a colon : it creates indentation, and the more you use it, the more your text will be indented. People usually indent replies so that it's clear what they are replying to. Hope this helps! BeŻet (talk) 20:38, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Capital accummulation

Without capital accummulation you would not own a computer. Liberty5000 (talk) 19:36, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

@Liberty5000: I'm not sure what is this in reference to, but please read the article on capital accumulation because you seem to be confusing it with personal savings and just owning money in general. BeŻet (talk) 21:08, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm not confusing anything. Without the accumulation of capital goods you would not own a computer. Liberty5000 (talk) 14:12, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

@Liberty5000: I'm still confused about what is your message in reference to, and what is the exact point you are trying to make? Are you saying that without capital accumulation the productive forces wouldn't be developed enough for a computer to be invented and created, or that one has to save money to buy a computer? BeŻet (talk) 17:07, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

You claimed that I supported the accumulation of capital. I do indeed proudly support the accumulation of capital goods.How do you think computers are made? They are made with the help of capital goods. Without capital goods they would not and cannot exist. Also, without property rights, you would not be able to own your computer, though you would be able to use it.Other people would be allowed to take your computer away from you at any time. If you want to live in a civilized world, then capital accumulation and property rights are both indispensable. You may consider yourself a communist, but you do believe in property rights, at least to an extent. Liberty5000 (talk) 17:55, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

@Liberty5000: I'm sorry, but this is some teenage babble. Socialists are against private property, not personal property. Nobody would be "allowed" to "take your computer" from you, because it is your personal possession, something you clearly use, like a tool, clothes, a toothbrush, a bed or a house. Moreover, I still don't think you understand what accumulation of capital is, and when or why does it appear in Marxist critique. The way you describe it makes it sound like something as trivial as the mere fact that things are built using many different components which come from different supply chains. BeŻet (talk) 22:07, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Whether you choose to call it ´´private property´´ or ´´personal property´´ does not matter one bit. This is a mere difference of terminology. You might as well have said: ´´I support private property when it comes to tools, houses and toothbrushes but not when it comes to factories´´ In that case your actual position would not be different at all. Only your terminology would be different. We can imagine a world where there are no property rights at all. I know that this would be absurd but we can still imagine it. I choose to call this hypothetical world pure communist, since ALL property would be owned in common. Why do you put the word allowed in quotation marks? In this hypothetical world without property rights, other people would indeed be allowed to take ´´your´´ computer away from you at any time. As soon as you object to this ´´theft´´ of ´´your´´ computer you become a supporter of property rights, however limited. I don´t know why it is so hard for you to admit that you support property rights, to an extent. I apologize if I come across as rude or combative. It is not my intention. But I do think that you should be more open to the idea that private ownership of the means of production serves the interests of ALL humanity. Liberty5000 (talk) 08:28, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

@Liberty5000: Sure, you can come up with your own definitions and define (incorrectly) communism in the way you described, but don't impose this definition on anyone else. I also don't see the point of arguing that communists or socialists are against property rights when they support many forms of property (personal, common (or the commons), community owned, worker owned, public etc.). You just end up arguing with yourself and tilting at windmills. What we don't support is private ownership of the means of production, which we see as a feudalist relic along with wage labour, and instead want free association of producers. BeŻet (talk) 15:49, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Was Stalin a communist, in your opinion? Liberty5000 (talk) 17:21, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

@Liberty5000: He was a communist who abandoned many key socialist ideas, like the aforementioned free association of producers and soviet democracy as a whole, and contrary to most Marxists believed in socialism in one country. The justification for this was the need to defend the new government first during World War I and the Russian Civil War (and thus adopting "war communism" and an authoritarian command economy), and later during the Cold War from American influence, and following several failed revolutions (e.g. in Germany and Hungary) that took place in Europe. Obviously numerous socialists, including myself, do not think that it was a good strategy overall, as while bringing economic growth and managing to defend the region from aggression it also brought a lot of pain and suffering, and did very little to progress the Soviet Union towards socialism, let alone communism, since it defaulted to state capitalism without any end in sight. BeŻet (talk) 18:05, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

How exactly would your communist system work? Would the workers in each country own the means of production in that particular country? That would be national communism, rather than world communism. Liberty5000 (talk) 20:40, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but these sorts of discussions shouldn't be happening on Talk pages on Wikipedia. Let me just answer this last question for you, and if you want to learn more, just look on Wikipedia for sources. A communist society is the goal of socialists/communists: it's a stateless, classless, moneyless society. It's an ideal that people want to reach, not a "system" that can be implemented. But before that can be achieved, we first need to achieve socialism, which is a society of freely associated producers with worker owned means of production. There have been many attempts at trying to achieve socialism in the last century, however none have succeeded. Democratically elected socialist governments have been toppled down by the United States (via assassinations or coups, see Operation Condor and United States involvement in regime change in Latin America), while the countries which managed to resist the USA were usually Marxist-Leninist states, which are one party states trying to achieve socialism via state capitalism, and which are highly militarized and authoritarian in order to resist foreign intervention. Most socialists and communists believe that socialism cannot be achieved in one state, and therefore we need a world revolution for a lasting change to be achieved, and for socialism to take hold. Now, we have many types of socialists who differ between how socialism can come about (for instance, Marxist-Leninists want to have a vanguard political party which would rule a state, revolutionary socialists who believe change can only be achieved by social revolutions, while social democrats want to achieve socialism via gradual changes within the current system and using parliamentarism etc.) and how, once achieved, would it technically work (whether it would rely on markets or central planning, or a mixture of both). If you want to know more just follow the wiki links I highlighted and that should give you enough information. BeŻet (talk) 21:54, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I didn´t expect that you would be able to answer my question. After all, Marx wasn´t able to either. Have you noticed how little he wrote about the communist society? Liberty5000 (talk) 16:02, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Category:Jewish anarcho-capitalists has been nominated for merging

Category:Jewish anarcho-capitalists has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. User:Namiba 16:19, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 1

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rampart College, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brian Doherty.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:55, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Leninism

What is your critique of Leninism? Comradeka (talk) 02:12, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

@Comradeka: Hi! I have read a lot of Lenin, but it would probably take me a long time to express all my views on Leninism. There is a lot I agree with, but also things I disagree with. For instance, the concept of professional revolutionaries is, to me, a controversial one, because the justification for it as presented by Lenin makes sense, however the practical implications are problematic. The efficiency of democratic centralism is also, to me, questionable. If you are referring to the time Lenin was in power, then of course I am critical of several decisions that were made under his leadership. I could go into more detail, but I'd also like to respect Wikipedia rules regarding treating talk pages as a forum - but hopefully I have given you enough of a reply. With solidarity - BeŻet (talk) 21:03, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Zizek Bibliography: deletion of Russia Today publications

Hello BeŻet,

I write to you, because you are mentioned as a member of the WikiProject Socialism. I'm editing the Zizek bibliography. Here I also mention the op-ed publications on Russia Today. There is a WP editor who holds the opinion, that these edits violate Wikipedia:RSP. I can't see how this is applicable. You can read my argument here. The editor doesn't respond.

If you have an interest in the subject, I would be happy, if you could contribute your opinion. If you don't have an interest, maybe you know someone else who might have?

With kind regards.

--Quin451 (talk) 13:20, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 7

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Alpha Condé, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Institutional Investor.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:53, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

You’ve made at least 4reverts

On the Socialism article, breaking the 3RR rule.

1. [1]
2. [2]
3. [[3]
4. [4]

I’m asking you politely to self revert your latest changes. Volunteer Marek 20:34, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Please learn what counts as a revert. You're pointing out edits that happened uninterrupted. BeŻet (talk) 20:37, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

No I am not.

This is clearly a revert (#1 above)

This revert is "interrupted" by edits I made between 15:16 and 15:30

This revert is "interrupted" by edits I made between 17:46 and 18:35

This revert is "interrupted" by edits made by CJ Griffin at 20:10.

However, I also missed another revert:

This revert was made before the 1st one listed above and subsequently I made an edit at 12:46 which you also reverted.

You made FIVE reverts. Way past the 3RR line. I'm asking you politely to self revert. Volunteer Marek 20:49, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

No, the interruption is to be made by the person you are reverting. I can return the coatrack tag as I didn't see that as a revert (as a compromise), but you have to justify it because at least two people questioned the adequacy of that tag. That makes three reverts now. BeŻet (talk) 21:38, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Volunteer Marek 21:34, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

September 2021

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Socialism. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 22:36, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Chainlink check-in

Hi BeŻet, I just wanted to check if you had seen my response on the Chainlink talk page. I'm happy to go over any additional feedback you may have! A at Chainlink (talk) 18:51, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:12, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello

I writes SpaceX Starship and I'm worried that I might be a bit pro-Musk. Since you are the more neutral person of the matter, what do you think? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:39, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

SPI

I saw your new post at ANI and wondered if you had noticed that I started the report (as it took me a little while to get to it). Just a suggestion to add more evidence in that report if you think that it's a plausible relationship. For the TBAN you may be right, unfortunately the thread has low participation. Phil's activity is also low, maybe others have the impression that it's manageable, or is some type of content dispute only, that it's already being solved, etc... Maybe a subsection to start the TBAN !vote could stimulate it but I'm not sure. —PaleoNeonate – 16:25, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I added some evidence now. BeŻet (talk) 17:08, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed the direct admission, this was "ultimate evidence", thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 18:59, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Discretionary Sanctions Alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the Balkans or Eastern Europe. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. If you have questions, please contact me.

Jahaza (talk) 04:36, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Gonzalo Lira cleanup tag

BeŻet, I have opened a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Gonzalo Lira. Please offer your input there. Thank you. Havradim leaf a message 00:20, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Suspicious IP

Any idea of whom that IP might be a sock? Suspiciously good knowledge of editing here to mask their signature like that. I recently filed a report here against another user Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/666hopedieslast who's been active on both that and the former Patrick Lancaster article. Unsuccessful, but could this other IP (and possibly Dorfpert who I sort of think might be Gonzalo Lira himself, but maybe not). 666hopedieslast has not edited since the SPI, which is usually a good sign they feel they've been blown or will be soon.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:21, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I went ahead and filed a new case against 666hopedieslast [5], feel free to add anything if you want. I'm pretty sure the socking dates from before that username .--Ermenrich (talk) 17:52, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Did you know

Did you know that private ownership of toothbrushes can lead to wage labor? Liberty5000 (talk) 14:19, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't have time to have pointless discussions like this. BeŻet (talk) 14:34, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

How is it pointless? Maybe you just don't want to admit you were wrong. Liberty5000 (talk) 16:34, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on The Grayzone

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page The Grayzone, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 10:22, 8 July 2023 (UTC)