Talk:Anarchism/Archive 9

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

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

→

I declare this thread to no longer be controversial.

=p its pointless fighting over this...

Anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron

I have gone through and cleaned out copious amounts of anarcho-capitalist bullshit in this article. The article still mentions "anarcho-capitalism" in a section at the end, but anarcho-capitalism will not be treated on equal footing with true anarchism. That would be ridiculous.

The article continues to require refinement by true anarchists.

-- Spleeman 11:04, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Please do not delete information from the article. The view of typical anarchists towards anarcho-capitalism is already explained in the text; it does not need to be pushed on it. We do not take a position on who "true" anarchists are. V V 11:26, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It's interesting how many new left-a'ists have been showing up on this article lately. I assume someone's recruiting them. While this kind of seems like bad form, all in all, anything that brings in new people is probably a good thing. Welcome to Wikipedia, guys! Hopefully, you will make some constructive contributions. - Nat Kraus e 13:28, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

My guess is that someone simply posted to an anarchist mailing list "Hey, check out what this Wikipedia thing says about anarchism". I think it's a great way of attracting experts, even if it does tend to draw people with an agenda. AdamRetchless 13:48, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Well, it takes a little while to get used to the idea that we should have all this bullshit. Let's face it, most people think "anarcho-capitalism" is bullshit, so I included that fact...NPOV is an essential policy, though. --Tothebarricades.tk 17:20, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

If you want to speak broadly, I can't help but point out that "most people" think anarchism in general is pretty bad....Snowspinner 17:35, Jun 23, 2004 (UTC)

The right-wing brigade has long since been recruiting to wikipedia and calling on one another to silence contrary viewpoints. It is not disturbing to see actual anarchists contributing to the anarchist page for once, it was disturbing when previously the status of the page was dictated by groups of people who A) knew little of anarchism but had their own political axe to grind with it and B) hordes of anarcho-capitalists who insist that -any- basis of comparison (historical, etymological, philosophical, etc) that happened to put their ideology in something other than a favorable light was not appropriate for wikipedia, that the only relevant comparisons were ones selected specifically for the purpose of making ac appear legitimate. Kev 06:24, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Worse than bullshit, its a synonym for terrorist. Perhaps even worse, since terrorists usually intend some sort of orderly result eventually, but the stereotypical black-clad madbomber seeks only disorder for disorders sake (Theodore Kaczynski, anyone? He's the first contemporary anarchist I became aware of, long before I heard of Noam Chomsky). Sam [Spade] 18:23, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? I think you should read up on what anarchists really think about things...unfortunately, that kind of sentiment is popular, and for that reason I wish the "anarchist" label, not the idea, would be dropped. --Tothebarricades.tk 19:32, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

This is not a NPOV issue! It is an issue of historical fact. The truth is that so-called "anarcho-capitalism" is a very, very new development that has little if anything in common with traditional anarchism. Anarchism had a rich history and had already developed a great diversity of ideas by the time "anarcho-capitalism" showed up. Including anarcho-capitalist views as a counterpoint in almost every paragraph actually covers up a lot of that history and diversity; the fullness of traditional left anarchism is left out. For example, the term "libertarian socialists" is frequently used to describe all left anarchists, but many left anarchists do not consider themselves "libertarian socialists." Essentially, there are already too many "anarchisms" (which do share common beliefs) to include this new development of "anarcho-capitalism", as an equally relevant form of anarchism.

This is not to say "anarcho-capitalism" should not be included at all, only that it should not be treated as it is currently on equal footing with traditional left anarchism. The truth is that the majority of anarchists reject "anarcho-capitalism" completely as a form of anarchism. Thus this is not a NPOV issue (I'm not promoting an "agenda"), it's simply an issue of analyzing actual trends, historical and current, within anarchism.

You can call yourself whatever you want, but that does not necessarily make you what you call yourself, or give you the right to be called what you want. The example of "anarcho-fascism" has been given. Let me give another: I can change my name to Kunta Kinte. Would that then give me the right to attend Alex Haley's family reunions, or to collect royalties off Roots? Certainly not. Likewise, "anarcho-capitalists" may call themselves "anarchists", but that fact alone cannot be the deciding factor as to what we call them. To make that decision, we must look deeper, into actual historical fact: that is true NPOV, not "presenting both sides" of an argument but bypassing arguments entirely and presenting the truth. (Calling "anarcho-capitalists" anarchists when the majority of anarchists object is the actual violation of NPOV, as it is taking a stand with the anarcho-capitalsts in ther battle for acceptance within anarchism.)

An example of how a similar problem was dealt with in a much more satisfactory way can be found on the Christianity page. Various sects which stray(ed) from orthodox Christianity are mentioned, but no attempt is made to present them as equally legitimate forms of Christianity. In particular, Mormonism has in recent years promoted itself as a "Christian" church. To some, it may very well deserve that distinction. But to the majority of Christians, Mormonism is still too controversial to be included within Christianity. The authors of the Christianity article are not violating NPOV or revealing an anti-Mormom agenda by limiting the Mormom viewpoints presented in the article. They are simply acknowledging history, and, I might add, the opinion of experts: Christians. They realize that the proper place for information of Mormonism is on the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints page. Likewise, the appropriate place for info on "anarcho-capitalism" is on its page. This will allow us to have the maximum accuracy and fairness in regards to both "anarcho-capitalism" and traditional anarchism.

As it stands, this article is extremely inaccurate, not to mention confusing. The inclusion of anarcho-capitalist viewpoints at every turn has convoluted the presentation of the arguments for anarchism. Anarchists and "anarcho-capitalists" do not share a world view, they don't think the same. Thus, trying to create a general definition of anarchism or to explain its "fundamental tenets" becomes impossible due to the disparity in reasoning. Trying to connect the two philosophically will always be a disaster because they're more like opposites than variations on a theme. If I were someone who didn't know anything about anarchism and I read the article, I would probably be confused as hell, and would be full of mistruths to boot.

I'm changing it again because it needs to be changed. The sad thing is that even when the explicit mentions of anarcho-capitalism are removed, the article is so full of anarcho-capitalist reasoning that it makes no sense.

-- Spleeman 22:55, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Deletion of information is very, very rarely an advancement of NPOV. Snowspinner 00:19, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)

That's your opinion. And your credibility is called into question by your making comments like "'most people' think anarchism in general is pretty bad." Spleeman 00:26, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I think you'd be pretty hard pressed to argue that most people are anarchists, no matter how sympathetic to anarchism you may be. Snowspinner 01:16, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)

LOL. I would never argue such a thing. Believe me, I know full well that most people are not anarchists. I was merely trying to point out that your statement makes you appear biased against anarchism, just as much or more so than I may be towards it. (Making a childish statement such as "'most people' think anarchism in general is pretty bad" contributes nothing.) Perhaps it would be better to say you are simply biased as to the argument over "anarcho-capitalism's" inclusion as part of anarchism. I respect what appears to be your principled stance on NPOV; however, I think you interpret NPOV incorrectly. I will continue to change this article to be accurate. Spleeman 01:39, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Bottom line is, the phrase exists, ergo it needs to be mentioned in the article. Although, maybe it could only be mentioned in one section labeled "anarcho-capitalism." To mention throughout the article is, I agree, rather silly considering the obscurity of the ideology. --Tothebarricades.tk 02:59, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Exactly, and that is what I have advocated doing from the beginning! Sadly, some people on this site, for whatever reasons, insist upon a version of the article in which "anarcho-capitalist" viewpoints are expressed throughout. What I have promoted as an alternative to this situation is to mention and explain briefly anarcho-capitalism in the "Modern Anarchisms" section, in order to place it in the proper historical context. Then, to discuss the differences between anarcho-capitalism and traditional anarchism in a separate section. So I am willing to make compromises on this, but the other side seems unwilling to do so. Spleeman 03:13, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'm with you. One section for anarcho-capitalism, the rest of the article can deal with left anarchisms (they are plenty of different left anarchist sects, too...) --Tothebarricades.tk 04:51, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

My opposition to removing information from this article because you do not personally like anarcho-capitalism is surpassed only by my opposition to the violation of the three-revert rule that has gone on. Snowspinner 05:06, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)

Dear Revert Warriors: I haven't deleted "half" of the article. I've deleted a few references to anarcho-capitalism, but kept the bulk of info on the A-caps in another section. My objection is not (and has never been) to the inclusion of "anarcho-capitalism" in the article, but rather to the way in which anarcho-capitalism is made to permeate the entire article in your version, in essence, "giving it equal footing." Anarcho-capitalism is still obscure and controversial; they may be loud on the internet, but that does not make them as much an equally legitimate form of anarchism as, say, anarcho-syndicalism, or individualist anarchism, etc. See again my comparison to Mormonism's treatment on the Christianity page. Why won't you accept a version that treats anarcho-capitalism as a separate issue? I have to change it, because your version is a violation of accuracy and NPOV. And BTW, why won't you at least leave the "controversial" heading up? (The fact that this revert war is taking place proves it's controversial.)

Snowspinner: it's not about my likes and dislikes, it's about accuracy. I want to see anarcho-capitalism fairly treated as much as anyone, but preferably in its own section. If I saw blatantly opinionated or inaccurate statements about anarcho-capitalism, I'd remove them. But likewise, allowing the anarcho-capitalist viewpoint to permeate the article on Anarchism actually skews people's perceptions of left-anarchism. It denies historical realities and prevents the diversity of left-anarchisms from being explored. Having a separate "libertarian socialism" page for left-anarchism is not enough because many (most?) "left-anarchists" do not identify as "libertarian socialists". A large number in fact identify with "anarchism without adjectives." If we pretend on this site that "anarchism without adjectives" includes anarcho-capitalism, then we risk confusing people as to what the majority of anarchists actually believe. This is why I think your stance, however well-intentioned, is a violation of NPOV. BTW, I've only technically reverted once. The other times I edited the article, and if you had read it, you would have noticed some discrepancies between the versions. but, of course, you didn't read it: you just reverted it without thinking.

Finally, everyone: would you consider this alternative proposal:

the "Libertarian socialism" page is maintained as is, with its focus on the libertarian socialist/anarcho-communist end of the anarchist spectrum;
the "Anarchism" page
- concerns the left-anarchist conception of "anarchism without adjectives" or
- becomes a disambiguation page pointing to all the various anarchistic philosophies, including "anarcho-capitalism" or
- a fusion of these two
the "Anarcho-capitalism" page is maintained as is
a separate page is used for the debate between anarcho-capitalism and traditional anarchism (this would take the place of the current "Anarcho-capitalist" section of the "Anarchism" page)

??? -- Spleeman 05:38, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

My proposed solution (it's pretty simple)

Please stop edit-warring, I don't think it's necessary in this case (not that it's ever necessary, but I can think of cases where it might seem a lot closer to necessary). To summarize my conclusions above, what I propose is that the left- and right-anarchist persuasions should be separated into two articles. They don't really have that much in common. The anarchism article should be little more than a disambiguation page linking to articles on specific varieties. As for the names of the pages, clearly we already have a good article on anarcho-capitalism, so we can keep that. The left-anarchism page can be called whatever its redactors prefer: merged with libertarian socialism, or a new page under left-anarchism, anarcho-socialism, anarchism (socialist), or whatever they prefer.

I think Spleeman's comparison to the issue of Christianity and Mormonism is mostly valid. However, I think the final division this case calls for something slightly different. We ought to name articles in the way that will be most informative and least confusing for the general reader. In the case of Christianity, we can say with some certainty that a reader who goes to that page will very probably be doing so in search of information on orthodox trinitarian Christians, rather than on Mormons. It is far from obvious that the average reader will have one sense or another of anarchism in mind when they visit this article. In case of doubt, we should definitely disambiguate.

According to my plan, most of the text of this article should be removed elsewhere, but let's do it in an orderly fashion after achieving consensus. - Nat Kraus e 05:44, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I hadn't read Spleeman's most recent comment before posting the above, but I think our proposed solutions are pretty compatible. - Nat Kraus e 05:50, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yes, they are. And, for the most part, I agree with your proposal. I would say "Anarchism" should become a disambiguation page between left-anarchism and anarcho-capitalism. The "libertarian socialism" page would remain as is, and separate (but linked to) from the left-anarchism page. Here's the trouble with naming the left-anarchism page, however: there are some who identify with the historical anarchist tradition (what we've taken to calling "left-anarchism") who in fact identify as "post-left". This is why I'm still thinking the "Anarchism" page should be the page about "anarchism without adjectives", including this "post-left", or poststructuralist, tendency, but not including anarcho-capitalism, which would be on its own page. Perhaps we could place something like a "disambiguation box" at the top of the article to direct eager anarcho-capitalists to the "Anarcho-capitalism" page. :) -- Spleeman 06:06, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I don't like the disambiguation idea. Becuase then you can get it divided into anarcho-socialism, anarcho-syndicalism, etc...they have all common threads except for anarcho-capitalism. One section on the Anarchism page dedicated to anarcho-capitalism, for and against, would be fine. --Tothebarricades.tk 20:12, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I support this only if other strands of anarchism are going to be similarly split up. Snowspinner 20:47, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)

Why? As he pointed out, the other strands of anarchism all have "common threads except for anarcho-capitalism." We're talking about cleavages here. There's a much bigger cleavage, in fact, a huge chasm, between anarcho-capitalism and left-anarchism which, by definition, does not exist between the various strains of left-anarchism. Spleeman 21:07, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

What strains are you thinking of? I see a need to break them into three articles: left (which would subsume syndacalism, green-anarchism, and anarchafeminism), right, and individualist. There are clearly ties between both of the first two and the individualists, although the degree of the ties and the fidelity of their interpretations are debatable (and voluminously debated). And then there are the "anarchists with adjective" -- I don't see how they can sensibly described as belonging to one persuasion more than to another. - Nat Kraus e 05:23, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

History repeating itself

Just like to point out that the current proposals to separate the text on this page into different articles and leave this page up for the purposes of disambugation has already been done, at least once and I think twice. The result was decried so loudly by people who felt it made for a bad article that they worked tirelessly to stick all the different pages back in to make this a super-page once again. Just look at the history, almost all the subjects on this page were once separate pages. As to the actual content of the article, I for the most part agree with Spleeman's assertions (they mirror many of my own very closely), but I don't think a revert war does anyone any good, nor do I think it is wise to stir up the right-wing edit warriors by deleting anarcho-capitalist text regardless of how misleading it is. Kev 06:24, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The broken up articles were a mess of poorly organized articles that largely did not have distinct topics, and that no one was ever going to search on. There are plenty of ways this page could be broken up, but articles like "Anarchism and sex" were not useful divisions.

Furthermore, I object strenuously to the conduct of people on this article. Simply saying "I am open to compromise" while repeating the same edit over and over again does not make compromise. The anarcho-capitalist sections should not be relegated off to a sideshow, any more than left anarchism should be. If this were an article on the history of anarchism, that would be one thing. As it stands now, though, it's an article on anarchism in general. And, quite frankly, anarcho-capitalism is a pretty substantive movement, particularly in the form of groups like Rand's Objectivists, and/or the Libertarian party.

I think there's plenty of work to be done on this article. But I wish people would approach the work from a perspective other than "I must rid the article of anarcho-capitalism" or "I must show how anarcho-capitalism is not true anarchism." If people want to try reorganizing the article, that would be one thing. But merely reorganizing one viewpoint in a deletionist manner is not helpful. Either all strands of anarchism need to be broken into separate sections (Or separate articles, for all I care, with this being a disambiguation page), or the article needs to stay as it is. Personally, I would support a nice detailed section on schools of anarchist thought, with the various specific issue sections explaining the debates within anarchist thought on matters. (i.e. "left anarchists think X, anarcho-capitalists think Y, some anarchists also think Z." I think that's helpful in giving a picture of anarchism as a whole. But I'm open to attempts to reorganize.

What I'm not open to is revert warriors trying to shape this article to better describe their personal anarchist philosophies. Snowspinner 06:39, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)

I'm not arguing for or against the splitting up of this page, I could honestly care less one way or the other. I'm merely pointing out that this attempt is a reversal of a previous trend, which itself was a reversal of a previous trend. In other words, lots of work by lots of people is being thrown to the wayside each time this happens for reasons that never seem all that compelling anyway (the article is messy, the article is barren, the article is too long, the article is too short). Snow, I respect that you generally seem to want to help solve disputes on wikipedia, but I question if your knowledge of this subject matter is sufficient to warrant the repetition of your personal opinion on the matter. You say that anarcho-capitalism is a "pretty substantive movement" in the form of Rand's Objectivists and the Libertarian party. What?!? Are you aware that Rand and a number of prominent Objectivists repeatedly denounced anarchism as anti-thetical to their movement, or that the split between statist Libertarians and anti-statist liberals (i.e. anarcho-capitalists) is so huge that they denounce one another as often as they work with each other? Here you conflate what are in fact competing ideologies in order to make it sound like AC is far more substantive than it is, but all you do in the process is reveal a lack of sufficient knowledge concerning exactly what ACs, the Libertarian party, and Objectivists in general stand for.

Finally, I think it is important to implore you that if you want people to stop revert wars, you should not engage in reverts yourself. Sticking to the three revert rule, as you have done, is better than not, but it would be far better to avoid reverts altogether by putting forth the effort to edit the text or waiting until the revert warriors have moved on. Telling people to stop reverting while you yourself are in the process of reverting the article helps nothing. I'm extremely tempted to jump in and counter the VV dictation machine, but I refuse to play his game anymore and I would sugget you stay out of the revert game yourself if you want to see the reverts end. Kev 07:00, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I feel like you're making the mistake of assuming I'm an anarcho-capitalist. I'm not, particularly. Nor am I unaware that both Rand and the Libertarian party are wary of the label anarchist - just as wary as many left anarchists are of anarcho-capitalism. It's an uneasy relationship. The article should describe that. But the relationship is there - plenty of people accuse Rand of being an anarcho-capitalist, regardless of her denials of that fact, for instance. And plenty of people accuse the Libertarians of that. I mean, I think the umbrella label "anarchism" is a problematic one in a lot of ways - particularly in how so many groups simultaneously want to claim the label and avoid the label. I think the article needs to make the dissent and controversy surrounding the word itself clear. And any evidence I've offered in this debate should be taken as evidence of exactly how unclear the word is. Snowspinner 07:10, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)

First, I do not assume you are an anarcho-capitalist, your knowledge of the subject does not merit such an assumption. The Libertarian Party and most Objectivists are statists, openly and without shame. The fact that they believe in a reduced state does not change the fact that they believe in a state. Statists, for fairly obvious reasons, cannot be rationally refered to as anarchists. As such, claiming that the Libertarian party represents the supposely sizable numbers of ac's based merely on some "uneasy relationship" members of that party have with ac's is ridiculous. It would be like claiming that there are currently millions of libertarian socialists because during the Spanish Revolution both libertarian socialists and marxists shot at the same enemy for a brief period of time. Furthermore, libertarian socialists are often accused of being state communists in diguise, and many claim that Marxist would lead to "anarchy in the streets". Would you interpret this "uneasy relationship" and these various criticisms to mean that many marxists are in fact one and the same as libertarian socialists, and thus that libertarian socialism is one of the largest ideologies in modern history? You see why this logic doesn't work, right? But if it doesn't work for libertarian socialists, why are you trying to apply it to anarcho-capitalism merely to make it look like a much larger movement than it actually is?

The fact that people of all sorts are accused of being anarchists is not evidence towards the merit of any claim for the inclusion or exclusion of an ideology on this page. Throughout history "anarchist" has often been used as a derogatory word, well before it was adopted as a serious political ideal. If we counted insults and hostile interpretations as evidence then we would have to start inserting qualifiers for anarcho-democrats, anarcho-fascists, and anarcho-republicans, because subscribers to each of these ideologies have been refered to as anarchists in a derogatory fashion at some point in history by a second party with an axe to grind against them. And if you are seriously suggesting that we open ourselves to even the most vague and misleading characterization of anarchism to be included on this page just because some idiot somewhere is making some claim about it, then I have to say wikipedia would be doomed, because all words would soon lose all meaning. Kev 10:50, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

"Nor am I unaware that both Rand and the Libertarian party are wary of the label anarchist - just as wary as many left anarchists are of anarcho-capitalism." That analogy is absurd.

"I mean, I think the umbrella label "anarchism" is a problematic one in a lot of ways - particularly in how so many groups simultaneously want to claim the label and avoid the label." Are you actually suggesting we include groups, such as Libertarians, who don't want to be called anarchists in this article? Are you really that nuts? Where is you NPOV? Eeeek! Spleeman 07:40, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

"'I must rid the article of anarcho-capitalism' or 'I must show how anarcho-capitalism is not true anarchism.'" No one is really advocating this. What is being advocated is an abandonment of the anarcho-capitalist/left-anarchist debate entirely, in favor of an honest attempt at accuracy.

Note that "anarcho-capitalism" is rarely referred to as "capitalist anarchism" or even "anarchist capitalism." Why? Because even the "anarcho-capitalists", in their use of that term, admit that "anarcho-capitalism" is more a variation on capitalism than on anarchism. If there is a place where anarcho-capitalist views deserve exploration, it is on the "Capitalism" page.

This is not really accurate. The term "market anarchism" has a lot of currency, particularly among the proponents themselves. I would say that "anarcho-capitalism" is a slight misnomer, because capitalism is a secondary part of the theory -- it is the probable outcome of allowing property and market exchange, but it is not mandatory. - Nat Kraus e 05:23, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

As I pointed out previosuly, there are subsections of traditional anarchism that identify as "post-left". How do you propose to accurately, thoroughly, and efficiently explain the views of these anarchists, and those of the rest of the wide range of traditional anarchists, if you are constantly inserting totally contradictory anarcho-capitalist views?

"Anarcho-capitalism is a pretty substantive movement, particularly in the form of groups like Rand's Objectivists, and/or the Libertarian party." LOL. Rand was a minarchist, and openly criticized anarcho-capitalism! Once again, you prove you are no expert on anarchism. Anarcho-capitalism is not a substantive movement by any means. Off the internet, there is pretty much zero visible anarcho-capitalist activity. Think for a moment if you heard on the news "there was a gathering of anarchists". Would you assume left-anarchists or anarcho-capitalists?

I have to say that I don't recall ever hearing of such a gathering, so your point is lost on me. - Nat Kraus e 05:23, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Keeping anarcho-capitalist views in a separate section is not meanspirited or POV as you imply; i.e., it's not relegating anarcho-capitalism "to a sideshow." Saying that would be like a polyamorist anarchist arguing that the "sexual relations" section is not enough and that polyamorist views should be presented throughout the article. Same goes for anarcho-primitivists. Within anarchism, primtivism is a much more substantial movement than anarcho-capitalism (plus, its actually accepted by most left-anarchists as a legitimate strain of anarchism, while anarcho-capitalism is not). Finally, your whole premise that "the anarcho-capitalist sections should not be relegated off to a sideshow, any more than left anarchism should be" is ridiculous for obvious reasons.

Yeah, right, those anarcho-primitivists are always making the nightly news. - Nat Kraus e 05:23, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

---

In the battle between A-cap and left-A, the article has drifted towards defining anarchism as "opposed to government." Yet the opening parapgraph still states that anarchism is opposed to "imposed social hierarchy." My version says "including capitalism and the state", while the A-cap influenced version says "including the state." Neither of these clauses are necessary. "Imposed social hierarchy" is enough. Traditional anarchism has defined an-archy not as the absence of government, but as the absence of unnatural authority (a defintion derived from the word's Greek roots). This is why the way anarcho-capitalism is included in Snowspinner's version is so problematic, because anarcho-capitalists do not claim to oppose all social hierarchy. Some have even claimed slavery is okay, as long as it is entered into voluntarily, and not imposed by force or fraud. In any case, defining anarchism as being opposed simply to "government" or "the state" is inaccurate and should be avoided. -- Spleeman 07:31, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

This is kind of interesting. What constitutes imposed social hierarchy? I suspect that A-C's would not think that capitalist relations are "imposed", therefore perhaps any anarchist could agree with this definition - Nat Kraus e 05:23, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

"Anarchism is a generic term describing various political philosophies and social movements that advocate the elimination of the state." Bullshit. Are we going to start getting our information for articles from Webster's instead of true experts? Anarchism (even anarcho-capitalism) has always been about much more than anti-statism. It's amazing to me how this article keeps getting worse and worse by the minute. These people are out of control! And what's worse, they know nothing about anarchism! Yay! This site is a joke. Spleeman 11:21, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

This is why this is a semantic argument. Who gets to do define "anarchism"? Do we go with the dictionary, or do we define it as used by the small number of people who self-described with the term between 1840 and 1950? - Nat Kraus e 05:23, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Revisions to current article

This article is too long according to Wiki regulations (one more reason to limit the amount of anarcho-capitalist info). As part of a solution to this, could "Examples of 'successful' anarchies" be moved to its own page?

The article is not too long - those regulations apply to individual sections, not to the article at large. (As the warning makes clear.) We don't have any sections anywhere near 32K. Snowspinner 06:39, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)

Request for a truce

I request an immediate cessation of editing of this page — in effect a truce. However, I am aware that the Mighty Forces of Anarcho-Capitalism, with their allies the Blind Knights of Reversion, will not cease their crusade until the intolerant left-anarchist horde is smashed. So my next step will be to ask that the page be protected, and to seek mediation. Spleeman 11:48, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Very convenient to propose a truce right after reverting. I have restored the last stable version. Major article rewrites should be agreed upon, not taken as the default. V V 08:27, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hmmm...no one else seemed to have a problem with that version being up during the truce. I can see you're trying to restart the edit war in order to halt meaningful discussion, however, so I'm not going to revert. -- Spleeman 08:43, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

No one else? I'm sure Kevehs did not, but for some reason I thought I was also part of this disagreement. And, I find your accusation that my goal is to halt meaningful discussion merely amusing. I scarcely notice personal attacks anymore; they are part of the background noise on anarchism talk pages. I shall repeat, however, that it is incumbent on those seeking a major rewrite to make the case for it. I am open to many possible approaches, but naked propagandizing is not one of them. V V 08:56, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Agree. Let's have a truce for a while and talk things out. By the way, I daresay that none of the people you are edit warring with are actually anarcho-capitalists. - Nat Kraus e 12:07, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I don't think most of them are anarcho-capitalists either. As I've said before, I think they are principled but misguided believers in NPOV. In their quest to be "fair" to anarcho-capitalism, they have forgotten the true meaning and purpose of NPOV.

Read the NPOV policy, people! It's not as simple as presenting all sides of an argument as equal. What we're trying to do is present the facts. The way you'd have us do it, the Evolution article would have Creationist views presented in every paragraph to keep it "balanced." Note that instead, "Creationism" is given its own section: hint, hint. Please check out the following from the Wikipedia NPOV statement:

"Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views. We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by only a small minority of people deserved as much attention as a majority view. That may be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. If we are to represent the dispute fairly, we should present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties."

If you're not an expert on anarchism, don't jump in and start demanding anarcho-capitalistm be given "equal time". It only shows how little you understand and are aware of modern anarchism. Anarcho-capitalism deserves to be treated fairly, but separately; fairness doesn't mean we pretend that anarcho-capitalism is as substantial a movement as traditional anarchism. BTW, I still haven't seen you address my question as to why, by your method, primitivists, for example, should not also get "equal time" with mainstream (and I use that word relatively) anarchism? -- Spleeman 21:33, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I think your example would be more applicable if we were talking about anarchism and anti-anarchistic views, instead of about different schools of anarchist thought. Snowspinner 21:54, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)

Well, left- and right-anarchism are anti-anarchistic views, from the perspective of the other. - Nat Kraus e 05:23, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Which shows how completely unopen you are to seeing things in a different light. You've got your twisted definition of NPOV and you're stickin' to it. No amount of persuasion, even the NPOV policy statement itself, can change your mind. I can see that now. Still, I feel I must point out that your statement — "I think your example would be more applicable if we were talking about anarchism and anti-anarchistic views, instead of about different schools of anarchist thought" — is unreasonable. Read the quote again:

"Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views. We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by only a small minority of people deserved as much attention as a majority view. That may be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. If we are to represent the dispute fairly, we should present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties."

It says, simply, "minority views". It doesn't say anything about "anti-" views. And if you'll look at it in context, you'll see it can be applied just as easily to debates within a philosophy as to debates between two opposing philosophies. The quote applies perfectly to our situation because anarcho-capitalists are a "minority". Furthermore, anarcho-capitalism is an "anti-" left-anarchist viewpoint. Treating anarcho-capitalism and traditional "left-anarchism" as merely "different schools of anarchist thought" hides the fact that these are actually two very different philosophies that actively oppose each other's ideas.

"To represent a dispute as if a view held by only a small minority of people deserved as much attention as a majority view...may be misleading as to the shape of the dispute" sounds a lot like what I said earlier:

"...allowing the anarcho-capitalist viewpoint to permeate the article on Anarchism actually skews people's perceptions of left-anarchism. It denies historical realities and prevents the diversity of left-anarchisms from being explored.... If we pretend on this site that 'anarchism without adjectives' includes anarcho-capitalism, then we risk confusing people as to what the majority of anarchists actually believe."

Finally, I would like to close with a quote from the illustrious Sam Spade, as found on the Anal sex talk page: "Encyclopedias are not about what people want to be called, but rather what is technically correct. Sam Spade 19:29, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)".

-- Spleeman 23:31, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I don't think that it is relevant whether left-anarchism or A-C is more substantial than the other, because I think it's clear that there is no imbalance on the order of what we see between orthodox Christianity and Mormonism. This is especially true if you look at it from the perspective of the general public. The global influence of Mormonism is small (but growing); the influence of the catholic-orthodox Christianity is enormous. Therefore, it makes sense to have the Christianity article concern the latter. The influence of both varieties of anarchism is close to zero. Therefore, to me, it seems that it would be most informative to use this page to send readers to another one specifically about one or the other. Frankly, however, I don't see this as a major sticking point. For goodness sake, it's not like the rights to the word "anarchist" are some kind of prize worth fighting over.

Just because I'm curious, however, what is your documentation for the claim that left-anarchism is presently more substantial than A-C? - Nat Kraus e 05:23, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

First off, I disagree that "the influence of both varieties of anarchism is close to zero." Small, yes, but "close to zero"? No. Then there's your assertion that "the global influence of Mormonism is small". Where's your documentation for that?

"What is your documentation for the claim that left-anarchism is presently more substantial than A-C?" In the U.S.: Food Not Bombs; IWW (growing); the presence of black blocs in almost all major street demonstrations; the anti-globalization movement; anarchist federations; intentional communities and anarchist communes; infoshops; zines; publishing houses; yes, even websites; left-anarchism's influence on the Green movement, or within the punk subculture, or on groups such as the ELF; and more, of course. Elsewhere: Zapatistas; Landless Workers' Movement (Brazil), the anti-poll tax campaign in England in the 1980s (initiated by anarchists); left-anarchist organizations throughout Europe; militant action in places such as Greece; and I know I'm missing lots of stuff. This is not to mention historically how important left-anarchism has been. Must I mention the Spanish Revolution?

By contrast, there is virtually no anarcho-capitalist activity outside the internet that I know of. Spleeman 19:21, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

From The Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1910

The following can be found in The Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1910 edition:

"ANARCHISM (from the Gr., contrary to authority), the name given to a principle or theory of life and conduct under which society is conceived without government - harmony in such a society being obtained, not by submission to law, or by obedience to any authority, but by free agreements concluded between the various groups...such a society would represent nothing immutable. On the contrary - as is seen in organic life at large - harmony would (it is contended) result from an ever-changing adjustment and readjustment of equilibrium between the multitudes of forces and influences, and this adjustment would be the easier to obtain as none of the forces would enjoy a special protection from the state.

"If, it is contended, society were organized on these principles, man would not be limited in the free exercise of his powers in productive work by a capitalist monopoly, maintained by the state; nor would he be limited in the exercise of his will by a fear of punishment, or by obedience towards individuals or metaphysical entities, which both lead to depression of initiative and servility of mind." He would be guided in his actions by his own understanding, which necessarily would bear the impression of a free action and reaction between his own self and the ethical conceptions of his surroundings. Man would thus be enabled to obtain the full development of all his faculties, intellectual, artistic and moral, without being hampered by overwork for the monopolists, or by the servility and inertia of mind of the great number. He would thus be able to reach full individualization, which is not possible either under the present system of individualism, or under any system of state socialism in the so-called Volkstaat (popular state)."

http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/kropotkin/britanniaanarchy.html

Notes:

The Greek roots an, and archy, are given, and shown to mean "contrary to authority", not just contrary to the state.
Abolition of the state, in fact, is not presented as the end in itself, but as the means to achieving a free society (one free of oppression in all its forms).
The state is opposed because it "maintains" a "capitalist monopoly". This is in line with Malatesta's view of the state as an instrument of class oppression:

"In all times and in all places, whatever may be the name of that the government takes, whatever has been its origin, or its organization, its essential function is always that of oppressing and exploiting the masses, and of defending the oppressors and exploiters."

In typical left-anarchist fashion, positive and negative conceptions of liberty are seen not as conflicting, but as two parts of a whole. Positive liberty (a concept rejected by anarcho-capitalists) is emphasized: "Man would thus be enabled to obtain the full development of all his faculties, intellectual, artistic and moral."
"Fear of punishment" and "obedience towards individuals" are decried regardless of whether they are voluntary or involuntary because they "lead to depression of initiative and servility of mind."

Malatesta, by the way, was an advocate of "anarchism without adjectives." Spleeman

I've lost track. Webster is a bad source on anarchism, but the Encyclopedia Britannica are the real experts? Snowspinner 04:37, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)

Well let's see: one is an encyclopedia and one is a dictionary. Wikipedia is supposed to be an...? Anyway, what I meant by my comment about Webster's was simply that we should avoid simplistic or popular notions of anarchism and try instead to flesh out what anarchism really means, and has meant historcally, as a political philosophy. I included the passage from Britannica as an example of how one encyclopedia had dealt with anarchism in the past, and also to illuminate some of the ideological and philosophical differences between anarchism and anarcho-capitalism that make it difficult (if not downright impossible) to describe the two as being part of the same philosophy.

Instead of always trying to be clever, perhaps you should actually read others' comments before responding to them. My criticism of Webster's is that they are overly simplistic in their defining anarchism as mere anti-statism, because "Anarchism (even anarcho-capitalism) has always been about much more." I never said anything to imply that Britannica are the "true experts"; however, I would put forward that their entry does a far better job of explaining the "much more" about anarchism than any dictionary. Spleeman

Any expert can be interesting, rarely are they definitive. The above is from 1910. I'd be curious to see what it would have said in 1850 or in 1990. - Nat Kraus e 05:23, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Certainly. The 1910 entry was written by Kropotkin, BTW. Spleeman

What I'm trying to solve

Here is an example of how inaccurate this page is in representing left-anarchist views:

"Mikhail Bakunin saw a need to...overthrow the ruling class as a means to dissolve the state."

As I stated above, most left-anarchists do not see "abolition of the state...as the end in itself, but as the means to achieving a free society". Bakunin saw abolition of the state as a means to "overthrow the ruling class", not the other way around.

This is only one example of the way in which anarcho-capitalist logic has permeated this article, confusing left-anarchist views. And this is why I think the two philosophies should be treated separately, so that both can be portrayed as accurately and neutrally as possible. Spleeman 05:28, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Save the Anarcho-fascism page!

Some ignorant individuals have been claiming that there is no evidence that this form of anarchism exists and are now insisting that this page be deleted. This is almost as ridiculous as suggesting that anarcho-capitalism is in an extreme minority compared to other forms of anarchism, where is the evidence?!? I don't know of any census having been taken, so how could they possibly know this? Anyway, I supplied the evidence they asked for, but I'm afraid it may not be enough. Who knows, they might start resorting to that old "no true scotsman" fallacy!

I felt so horribly bad that I had to delete the sentence on national anarchism that someone had put on this page because they included an external link in the text, so I went to all the trouble to create a page detailing the legitimate arguments of anarcho-fascists everywhere and this is the kind of thanks I get. Please, anarcho-capitalist sympathizers, you must know how this feels to be treated like a minority movement when clearly we are not. I mean, I'm not even an anarcho-fascist myself, I'm just sympathetic to their movement. Come to my aid and vote to keep this page immediately! And I'm specifically refering to Nat Krause, Sam Spade, and VV here, I often see you guys cluster about to help each other in other cases, so this calls for more right-wing bridage action. Kev 12:19, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Don't be silly. — Chameleon 12:33, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

An amusing parody, Kev, although it would be nice if you could attempt to make your point with out defacing the encyclopedia. You do raise an interesting point, though. If we are supposed to give the mainstream viewpoint the most attention, how do we ever really know which viewpoint is more mainstream than another? How do we measure that? I don't know. However, the fact remains that, however much Kev may have zinged the rest of us, he has done nothing to actually address the question of how he knows that one variety of anarchism is more popular or more relevant than another. Furthermore, as I argued above, the answer to that question is almost certainly irrelevant.

By the way, so far this has only happened twice, but already I am getting sick of the claim that I tend to cluster together with Spade and VV to help them. As far as I know, they don't even really cluster together with each other very much, although they sometimes engage in similar behavior on different pages. Please provide your evidence -- this, at least, you should be able to document, if it's true. - Nat Kraus e 14:39, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

This encyclopedia is currently being defaced by people not knowledgable enough on the political theory of anarchism to accurately represent it, how is this any different than the anarcho-fascism page? I chose that particular label because it is a genuine one. Yes, no shit, there are now people who call themselves anarcho-fascists. True, I don't know all the ins and outs of their philosophy, but this certainly never stopped the anarcho-capitalist apologists from editing these pages. My question to you is simple, how do you -know- that anarcho-fascism is not more popular or relevant than any other form? That is currently the main reason that people are voting to delete the article, that it is not relevant or popular, but there has been no census and no proof, a google search demonstrates very little in this regard.

And yet, somehow, we all seem to know that anarcho-fascism is not a big player. How do we know this? Anarcho-capitalists have long since inflated their numbers, using similar tactics to the one Snowspinner accidentally stuck himself in above. I agree with the dilemma posed by your question above, and that is precisely why the acceptance of an article or interpretation into wikipedia should not be based on our perceptions of the popularity of a given ideology, but rather merit of the claims being made. But that gives us yet another problem, because I was careful to qualify most of the claims made about anarcho-fascism, making them very difficult to disprove. The same is true of the claims on the anarcho-capitalism page. How does one disprove that anarcho-capitalists "draw inspiration" from individualist anarchists? One can't, frankly. How does one demonstrate that the emphasis being placed on individualism as the co-source of anarcho-capitalism is faulty? Again, just like my own claim on the synthesis between platonic philosophy and anarcho-capitalism to produce anarcho-fascism, one can't. Yet for months now partisan people have used these same tactics to push their edits of that page (and now this one). Yet I am defacing wikipedia just because I use the same tactics to explicate a philosophy I'm about as well versed on as they are in anarchism?

Of course it is impossible to demonstrate the claim that you intentionally cluster with VV and Sam Spade (along with a couple other users, RickK for example shows up quite often), but I can show a very high incidence of such behavior, along with invites to come "help" on given pages. There is for example your comment that you were glad to have VV aboard on the neofeudalism page, one in which you and VV and Sam are all present, and I have trouble believing that the presence of 172 is coincidence. Which brings us to the 172 crusade, much of which is difficult to document given the disappear nature of polls, but I doubt you will deny that you made comments on several of those pages along with VV and Sam. During that whole incident Sam Spade visited the user pages of the whole clique and invited them to join. The are of course these pages, the anarchism and anarcho-capitalism that all three of you have edited a good deal and pushed a similar message throughout. In fact, Sam Spade even went so far as to speculate with VV that I required a [RfC] page due to my unwillingness to let VVs reverts stand (though they long since have) and my "abusive" language in response to VVs amazing combination of wilfull ignorance and condescention, or there is your jumping into the middle of the war between VV and 172 (one of so very many) over at Origins.

But I don't think you are an intentional contributor to this little cabal, so there are of course far more examples of the dynamic-duo (VV and Sam), especially when 172 is anywhere nearbly, in the form of Anti-French sentiment, the stuff with Danny, the Augusto Pinochet debacle, a bit of collaboration on the Saddam Hussein disaster, and their interesting collaboration over at Hindutva.

And honestly, I don't have the time to point out the many more examples. But I don't suggest this is a personal thing, it is a political thing. You just happen to have the "right" views for VV and Sam so often. I'm going to assume that this is not sufficient evidence for you. What exactly would you require, blatant admission by all parties, or that someone spend 30 or more hours collecting the links that make this event clear? Even if you want to suggest a coincidence of edits in some cases, the consistent bullying of 172 and tagging along by Sam Spade seems almost undeniable. Kev 23:11, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I also demand some documentation of said clustering, and would request of Nat some clarification of which "behavior" of mine is similar to anothers? I find this all a bit ominous and accusatory. Sam [Spade] 22:58, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

You demand something of me? I'll provide for your demands the day you stop trolling these pages Sam. Kev 23:11, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

This is not the place for your bizarre rantings. Sam [Spade] 01:08, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Seriously! Everyone knows the correct place for bizarre rantings is on the "Anarcho-capitalist critique of left-anarchism" page, Kev! Spleeman 00:49, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Bizarre indeed. What in God's name is he even going on about it? I hope he took some pleasure in penning that aimless tirade, as any readers of it are almost surely wholly stumped. V V 08:59, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

As always, you two do far more to demonstrate my points then I ever could. Thanks! Kev 11:18, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yawn. V V 22:01, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Now what the hell is anarcho-fascism, I've never even heard of that. Anarchism and fascism are polar opposites. Maybe just redirect it to idiocy. --Tothebarricades.tk 17:28, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Interestingly, for over a hundred years, the vast majority of anarchists saw anarchism and capitalism as "polar opposites"...hmmm. Anyway, while it is obvious that the "Anarcho-fascism" page is little more than an elaborate joke deisgned to make a point, and will likely be deleted some time in the immediate future, it does make a point.

There is an idea floating around called "national anarchism". What would happen if national anarchists came to this site, and, using the internet to amplify their otherwise infinitesimally small influence, declared, "we are anarchists too", and demanded not to be "relegated off to a side show" (Snowspinner 06:39, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC))? What would we do? What would we say? Using the defintion of neutral point of view that some in this discussion have put forward, we would be powerless to do anything at all, save for cave into their demands!

This is pretty much the same question I've been asking now for a while now, that no one has answered: why shouldn't anarcho-primitivist views be stated next to more traditional anarchist views in every sentence and paragraph, such as has been done with anarcho-capitalism? Anarcho-primitivism is a substantial movement within modern anarchism (see (1.), below). And if anyone can lay claim to a tradition that is "new (and yet very old, even ancient)", it is the anarcho-primitivists, who draw inspiration from pre-agricultural hunter-gatherers. Yet we see no one advocating doing this kind of shit: "One common use of the English word anarchy is 'a state of lawlessness or political disorder', otherwise known as anomie. This use of the word implies a broad definition: usually, any situation where there is no internationally recognized government is considered anarchy. For anarcho-primitivsts, this affirms their belief that language is alienating". "But that's just ridiculous!" one might say. Hmmmmm...............

"Yeah, right, those anarcho-primitivists are always making the nightly news." (Nat Krause 05:23, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)). Wait, and anarcho-capitalists are? Actually, green anarchists and anarcho-primitivists did receive a great deal of mainstream media attention after the Seattle protests in 1999. And then of course, there was the fucking Unabomber. Did you miss that? Also, the local newspaper in Eugene, Oregon did a "bests" list that named "anarchists" (anarcho-primitivists, that is) as the "best hope for Eugene". Finally, as I pointed out, at least anarcho-primitvism is "accepted by most left-anarchists as a legitimate strain of anarchism, while anarcho-capitalism is not". -- Spleeman 07:25, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Nat was more than a tad unlucky with his choice of words. I mean honestly, could there be a more primitivist oriented organization than the E.L.F.? Talk about making the nightly news all the time, they do. Kev 11:52, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Responses to Nat Krause

"What strains are you thinking of? I see a need to break them into three articles: left (which would subsume syndacalism, green-anarchism, and anarchafeminism), right, and individualist. There are clearly ties between both of the first two and the individualists, although the degree of the ties and the fidelity of their interpretations are debatable (and voluminously debated). And then there are the 'anarchists with adjective' -- I don't see how they can sensibly described as belonging to one persuasion more than to another." (Nat Krause 05:23, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)).

Firstly, you "don't see how ["anarchists without adjectives"] can [be] sensibly described as belonging to one persuasion more than to another" apparently because you know nothing about anarchism.

Next, the common tenet that unites "left-anarchists" and individualists but excludes, by definition, anarcho-capitalists, is opposition to authority in all forms, including capitalism. The individualist anarchists were opposed to capitalism; yes, they proposed a variety of alternatives, including market-oriented ones, and no, I don't deny the right of anarcho-capitalists to "draw inspiration" from the individualists (it makes sense for them to do so), but this does not change the fact that the individualists remain clearly within the traditional anarchist camp, which is defined by anti-capitalism. If you look back at history, the individualists worked with and published articles by left-anarchists; they all considered themselves as part of one movement of "anarchism without adjectives".

Even so, I would see nothing terribly objectionable about your proposed split into left, individualist, and right, were it not for the case of "post-left" anarchists that I have mentioned previously. The preponderance of evidence is that a single anarchist movement exists, and has existed since the 19th century, which is united in its opposition to both capitalism and the state. The anarcho-capitalist movement did not diverge from this movement, but rather, from classical liberalism. While it is certainly true that anarcho-capitalists have drawn inspiration and ideas from traditional anarchism, especially its individualist tendency, they are related to the historical anarchist movement only in their opposition to the state. Unlike some, I don't deny for a minute their right to call themselves anarchists, but again:

"Encyclopedias are not about what people want to be called, but rather what is technically correct." (Sam Spade 19:29, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC), Talk:Anal sex).

"This is why this is a semantic argument. Who gets to do define 'anarchism'? Do we go with the dictionary, or do we define it as used by the small number of people who self-described with the term between 1840 and 1950?" (Nat Krause 05:23, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)).

Yep, because this "small" number of people still happens to be the overwhelming majority within anarchism. I refer you again to the NPOV statement:

"Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views. We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by only a small minority of people deserved as much attention as a majority view. That may be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. If we are to represent the dispute fairly, we should present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties." -- Spleeman 07:25, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The problem goes beyond post-left. As you mentioned yourself, there is a long tradition of anarchist-without-adjectives which consisted of anti-capitalist folk like Voltairine de Cleyre and Malatesta. The idea that this tradition would include a capitalist off-shoot is ridiculous given the positions of its adherents and their belief in what anarchism meant, yet it does not necessarily belong under libertarian socialism or individualism. Furthermore, the current tendency in many articles to distinguish between "left-anarchism" and individualism is no more accurate, given that folks like Tucker considered themselves socialist, putting them firmly on the left by our standards today. I think most of this can be resolved with careful use of terms by people knowledgable in the field and a precise delineation of how the definition of anarchism changes when it is used by different groups. More on that below. Kev 21:04, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I know the problem goes beyond "post-left". I was even about to mention Voltairine de Cleyre in my post. Good points. I agree with pretty much everything you just said. Spleeman 22:21, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

How to evaluate which is the minority viewpoint

Let's evaluate which is the minority viewpoint. Number of revolutions involving large scale libertarian socialist style mobilisations: seven plus (1900 onwards). Number of revolutions involving large scale anarcho-capitalist style mobilisations: zero. Anarcho-capitalism has little political relevance outside of the USA. Is there a formal anarcho-capitalist faction within the (rather popular frontist in a liberal kind of way) US Libertarian Party? If so, is there a membership estimate we could compare to any of the major North American libertarian socialist-style organisations? Fifelfoo 14:47, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yep. :) -- Spleeman 22:23, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

see libertarian party or free state project. Sam [Spade] 02:05, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thanks Sam. I think internationally we can award victory to the libertarian socilaists in terms of numbers, historical influence and size of current political movements. Do people agree?

As far as the US, there are a number of problems. The US libertarian socialist type movements are fairly disunited and spread across a number of activst campaigns, additionally they have high membership requirements (regular payments / membership, high activist commitments, illegalism). In comparison the US anarcho-capitalist movement is incubated within a much larger "Libertarian" movement around the USLP: ie, rather than an activist movement, a parliamentary movement. This is a bit like apples and oranges, different strategies &tc. The best way to evaluate committed strenght would be to compare activist numbers to activist numbers?

The site Sam listed, free state project, shows 5000 participants. More difficult to get an idea of how many /activists/ there given the low current requirements. The USLP shows 1600 candidates in recent elections and 200,000 registered voters. AFAIR US registered voters are something like party members who preselect candidates in the Westminster system, but without the obligation of formal paid membership of the political party? If we consider the 1600 candidates (times three perhaps, to account for non-candidate activists in low and high density areas) as a good /idea/ of the USLP activist base, and then consider that anarcho-capitalism is a minor stream within the USLP, we might be looking at 400-800 anarcho-capitalists tops? Does this sound like a good estimate? I think the US militant Animal Rights anarchists alone might be bigger than that :). Willing to hear other attempts to estimate the balance of forces within the US. Fifelfoo 05:09, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

A matter of definition

I think all of this is really about how each group is defining the word "anarchism". So the solution is simple, the main page details the history of meaning for the word itself, and as that meaning branches it links to the articles relevant to it. While arguably no two anarchists today hold the exact same definition of anarchism, it is fairly uncontroversial that the word "anarchism" originated to mean something different from the word "anarchy" that predated it. So this should be mentioned and a quick link provided to shove folks interested in that word to the anarchy page rather than the anarchism page, thus clearing up the endless qualifiers and counter-examples that plague this page from people who mistake the "anarchy" for "anarchism". Then we can relate that Proudhon meant the word "anarchism" to mean something along the lines of freedom from coercion and authoritative hierarchy, and that this particular use of the word held more or less the same for both the individualists and the communists who soon followed him. Thus uniting this disparate groups of mutualism, individualism, and communism under a general banner. The exact interpretation of this definition might have changed from one faction to another, but there were always mutual signs as to the application {i.e. anti-statism, anti-capitalism, etc).

Then anarcho-capitalism arrives and uses a different set of definitions. They call the "free market" something different than the individualists did, a market free from government interferance, rather than one free from arguably exploitative relations like usury, rent, and wage. They have their own unique definition of the "state", as a monopoly on the use of force, something which again sets them apart from many previous traditions anarchist and not. And finally, they hold a different definition of "anarchism", which for them is about a particular rejection of domination in the form of the state, rather than a rejection of the various social institutions which led other anarchists to reject both the state and capital amongst other institutions.

It seems to me that if we are to split this article into multiple parts (*sigh* again) then this method would be the most accurate and balanced way of presenting the differences in interpretation and definition that are present before we lead readers into their respective ghettos- er, pages. It does not marginalize the anarcho-capitalists, as no one will be claiming ownership of the word or including some forms of anarchism on the main page while excluding anarcho-capitalism, and I don't see why they would object to holding a different set of definitions and interpretations (they often insist this themselves), and it avoids their tendency to glaze over the differences between anarcho-capitalism and ideologies like individualism or anarchism-without-adjectives. Furthermore, it gives a good foundation to explain why primitivism is generally accepted by the other factions when anarcho-capitalism is not, and prepares us for the inevitable arrival of a national-anarchist page. Rather than simply sitting back and watching as the fascists intentionally mislead and disrupt while claiming fair representation under NPOV, we can simply acknowledge that they use a different set of definitions and interpretations when claiming the title "anarchism" and push them off into their own page just as we are doing to ourselves.

I should note that my personal preference is for the minimalist "disambiguation" page we once had. V V 22:02, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Truce violations

Sam Spade: in case you are not aware, there is currently a truce. Please do not revert or make other major edits during the truce. Also, the article you keep wanting this page to link to is controversial. You need to leave a comment on the talk page explaining why we should link to this article, since its neutrality and accuracy are disputed. We already have an entire section on this page about the debate between anarchism and anarcho-capitalism; the extra link hardly seems necessary.

I would point out that truces are not binding, nor should they be used as ways to bully users into accepting your preferred version of an article. I took the truce as an end to that particular revert war - not as a moritorium on editing the article as a whole, which is something that should only occur when someone protects the page, which has not been done. Snowspinner 05:11, Jun 27, 2004 (UTC)

Truce

Since the truce is not being used to defuse an edit war so much as to keep the page on Spleeman's preferred version, and since, furthermore, Spleeman has taken to calling other users "motherfuckers" on their talk page and telling them to "kiss his ass," which does not make me think that he's editing in good faith, I am going to resume reverting his attempts to delete information from this article until some form of consensus is reached. Snowspinner 05:51, Jun 27, 2004 (UTC)

"The truce is not being used to defuse an edit war so much as to keep the page on Spleeman's preferred version." Actually, this is blatantly untrue. VV made this accusation previously and I allowed his revert to stand:

"Very convenient to propose a truce right after reverting. I have restored the last stable version. Major article rewrites should be agreed upon, not taken as the default." (VV 08:27, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC))

"Hmmm...no one else seemed to have a problem with that version being up during the truce. I can see you're trying to restart the edit war in order to halt meaningful discussion, however, so I'm not going to revert." (Spleeman 08:43, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC))

I am still interested in promoting "meaningful discussion". However, I am not interested in leaving silly, prudish, condescending remarks on other people's talk pages:

"Do not make abusive edit summaries. Do not use foul language." (Sam Spade 02:03, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC))

I do not consider the word "shit" to be abusive or foul. Nor do I consider it Sam's place to tell me what words I should or should not use. So I am not backing down from what I wrote on Sam's talk page:

"Kiss my anarcho-commie ass, motherfucker." (Spleeman 04:10, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC))

Snowspinner: The only difference between my last revert and yours is one paragraph, added by Sam Spade:

"Anarcho-capitalism is a view which regards all forms of government as unnecessary and harmful, including, and characteristically, in matters of justice and self-defense. It synthesizes certain ideas from the tradition of classical liberalism (see libertarianism) and arguably from individualist anarchism as well, and stands in opposition to Left-anarchism."

This paragraph is completely new and was not even in your version from 04:07, 24 Jun 2004, for example. You are referring to my last revert as an "[attempt] to delete information", when in reality it was simply an effort to prevent Sam from adding yet another new paragraph about anarcho-capitalism without even attempting to explain why he was doing this on the talk page.

So please, in the future, take time to read the talk pages and examine the edit history before assuming who's right and who's wrong. I am reverting back to the version before Sam's new addition. This is not an attempt to "delete information", but rather to salvage the truce and prevent Sam from taking advantage of it. If you revert again, I will request protection for the page. -- Spleeman 06:43, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Coup

I reject the new dictator, and recommend he review wikipedia:truce Sam [Spade] 07:12, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Nice choice of terms, given that you so loved VV, the "old" dictator. But this little spat is meaningless. There seems to be pretty broad support for this initiative to reform the page, in case you didn't notice. Given that all the info you have added in recent days is copied word for word from the anarcho-capitalism page (adding nothing at all to the informative content of wikipedia), it will be lost when all this information is moved into separate pages and your additions thus become redundant. Kev 19:18, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Oh please, Sam. You just don't like it that someone is standing up to your anarcho-capitalist crusade. Spleeman 22:05, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Actually, Sam seems to be more of an anti-intellectual evangelical Christian, who sees everyone who doesn't beleive in God, nationalism, or private-property as being his enemy. Since left anarchists don't really care for all three, he's been especially viseral to them. millerc 22:39, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yep, I made my comment below about him being "right-wing, pro-capitalist, and anti-left" without reading this first. I agree with your interpretation. Although he has identified himself as an anarcho-capitalist (see below) I think he's more of an A-cap sympathizer. BTW, he also trolls LGBTQI-related pages and changes them to fit his moral viewpoints. And he's a racist: "Primitive man is also backwards, diseased and superstitious, having many obvious drawbacks which incline most indigenous people to embrace the modern life." (Sam Spade 17:48, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC))

I can't speak for Sam, but what I don't like is that your user page declares your intent to edit pages to fit your POV, that you're referring to other users as "motherfuckers," that you engaged in a five-revert revert war, and that you are discouraging attempts to expand and work on this page through reference to a "truce" which, I should note, I was skeptical of from the start particularly as it seemed to be being used to protect your preferred version of the page, but which I was willing to let go through at the time in good faith. My good faith is pretty much used up now. Snowspinner 22:11, Jun 27, 2004 (UTC)

I don't mind the "crusade" part, but I am no kind of anarchist (maybe I'm an anarcho-facist?). I'm more an imperialist, which is kinda opposite and stuff... ;) Sam [Spade] 22:11, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

"From what I read of anarcho-capitalism, I am one." Your words. Not mine. Imperialism and capitalism go hand-in-hand. Spleeman 22:40, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC) By the way, I don't really think you're a true, die-hard anarcho-capitalist, but I do think you're right-wing, pro-capitalist, and anti-left. -- Spleeman 23:10, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)