Talk:Anarchism

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Should you wish to make any substantial changes; Before making any such substantial changes, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue. While making any such changes, please include an accurate and concise description of your edit in the "Edit summary" field-box. Shortly after making any such changes, please also carefully describe the reason(s) for any such changes on the discussion-page. (This message should only be placed on talk pages.)

Read this first!

Useful policy/guideline references

• Maintain a neutral point of view
• No original research, please
• Material must be verifiable
• Citations should reference reputable sources
• Lastly, please be civil to each other --AaronS 16:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

What are primary, secondary, and tertiary sources?

• A primary source: "A primary source is any piece of information that is used for constructing history as an artifact of its times. These often include works created by someone who witnessed first-hand or was part of the historical events that are being described, but can also include physical objects like coins, journal entries, letters, or newspaper articles."
• A secondary source: "Secondary sources are texts based on primary sources, and involve generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation. In the study of history, secondary sources are those writings which were not penned contemporaneously with the events in question."
• A tertiary source: "Where a primary source presents material from a first-hand witness to a phenomenon, and a secondary source provides commentary, analysis and criticism of primary sources, a tertiary source is a selection and compilation of primary and secondary sources. While the distinction between primary source and secondary source is essential in historiography, the distinction between these sources of evidence and tertiary sources is more peripheral." --AaronS 16:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Proposed source standards

Because this is a contentious topic, I propose that no biased sources be used; I also propose that primary sources should be avoided, and that secondary sources should be preferred. This is because "[s]econdary sources often are subjected to peer review, are well documented, and are often produced through institutions where methodological accuracy is important to the future of the author's career and reputation. A primary source like a journal entry, at best, only reflects one person's take on events, which may or may not be truthful, accurate, or complete. Historians subject both primary and secondary sources to a high level of scrutiny." (see primary source). While primary sources are often used by experts and historians, none of us are experts and historians; and, if we are, then we should reference our own reputably published works. --AaronS 16:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Talk archives & Open Tasks

• Talk:Anarchism/Archives - List of archives.
• Template:AnarchismOpenTask - List of open tasks.

Unprotection

I've requested that the article (but not the template) be unprotected.[1] Hogeye 17:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, now that editing is up again, be sure to stay civil and avoid edit wars.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 23:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Avoid edit wars? A likely story. Straight away Hogeye and RJII have re-introduced all the elements that they know have caused most dispute: Hogeye's pet chart of influences; the division into 'individualist' and 'collectivist' schools; the controversial intro para on dictionary definitions; major section on anarcho-capitalism in the middle of the page; liberal anarchism etc.... however much we go over the same points, these two are unwilling to give an inch. There have been edit wars in the past on all these points, and there will be again. They wear down the latest enthusiastic anti-capitalist arrivals, but sure enough more will come along soon and it'll start up all over again. In short, no progress at all, and if the page needed protection before the need hasn't gone away. Perhaps a permanent NPOV dispute tag would be the honest approach, as this is a permanent NPOV dispute.Bengalski 11:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Click go the shears, comrades, click click click

As promised in Talk:Anarchism/Archive32 I'm pruning back the sections. The entire article is too long. Everyone wants their own tendency full featured and explored. This is not the purpose of a head page. Regardless of the composition and selection of sections, all sections must be much smaller. Expect other sections to receive similar treatment to what Individualism, Anarchism at Work and Anarchosyndicalism received. Fifelfoo 01:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Right on; I had the same idea, as you can see. I think you already had a shorter version of Individualist Anarchism. I looked for your shorter version in Archives but couldn't find it, so I'll leave that to you. ... Good, you've already done it. And anarcho-syndicalism, too! Hogeye 01:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Photos

What photos should be included? IMO we need photos for Proudhon and Rothbard. Both are more noteworthy than Hakim Bey. Hogeye 03:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind Warren being there instead of Tucker. Warren is historically important, as he started the whole native American movement. It depends on what kind of presentation you want to have. RJII 03:34, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Concurr on Bey. A Goldman / Berkman group shot would be good. A CNT-FAI group should would be excellent (one of the CNT-FAI trucks full of militia from 36/7 would be great). Less dead white men, more group shots. 19th century line drawings should be available too. Fifelfoo 04:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

If you want something recent, I took this photograph when I was in Barcelona a couple of years ago, or how about this photograph of CNT collectivised workers? - FrancisTyers 11:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Francis! Fifelfoo 11:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

individualist anarchism

The labor-value individualism is the most signficant, but that is not the only kind of individualist anarchism. I don't like that Stirner is not included in the individualist anarchism section. Proudhon probably belongs there as well. I'll play around with it. RJII 03:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Sectarianism

Social anarchism's opposition to anarcho-capitalism isn't sectarian. Opposition based on fundamental differences is not sectarian: they lack a shared basis for agreement. Fifelfoo 04:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Sectarianism in no way implies that there are no fundamental differences. Besides, there are fundamental similarities, too: opposition to the State. Hogeye 04:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Anarchism

I'm happy to see the Anarchism article back open for business. Ya'll can always use me for reference. I'm an old version of the Anarchism article. :) Look at me: Anarchism 04:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Bullet list for Issues

I've pared down each issue to one paragraph. My intention is to make a bullet list like I did for Contemporary (now Other branches and offshoots), making the TOC smaller. Any objection to that? Hogeye 04:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Historical vs Schools structure

Either way is acceptable to me, but if we are going back to a Schools structure with anarcho-capitalism under individualist anarchism, then it's only logical to be consistent and put 2.3 The International thru 2.8 The fight against fascism under collectivist anarchism. Otherwise we should go back to having a Contemporary section. Hogeye 05:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

A Contemporary section seems crazy to me. The original types of anarchism are still contemporary --plenty of anarcho-commmunist groups around, for example. We would have to repeat the sections twice ..once above the line and once below. It can still have an historical narrative without such a section. RJII 05:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't see that the schools in History would need to be repeated, since they were already covered. I do see your logic. What if "Contemporary" were changed to "Newer Schools," "Recent Conceptions of Anarchism" or some such? I think you're opening up a whole can of worms by significantly changing the structure of the article, and wrecking the historical order, without consensus among the other editors. And that's from me, who as you know is anything but shy about making changes! I fear you're pretty much guaranteeing a new edit war. Think about it. Hogeye 05:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

When is there not an edit war in this article? No matter what one does there is an edit war. Anyway, what is the cutoff time period for a "newer school." And, would anarcho-capitalism be there? I wouldn't agree that that's a "newer school." I'm not sure of the point of such a dilineation. RJII 05:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Post WWII? I would say that, even though there were earlier isolated individuals like Molinari and Herbert, that the anarcho-capitalist school started with Rothbard's writings. Hogeye 06:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Fine if you have some kind of time frame in mind. But isn't that going to cause edit warring too? I thought most of the anti-AC people wanted anarcho-capitalism under the individualist anarchism section. RJII 06:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

But, I would say it's more historical the other way. Anarcho-capitalism developed in parallel with labor-value individualist anarchism. It's not like it all of a sudden spontaneously arose from nothing. RJII 06:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

As you know that's highly disputed. I have left AC in but moved it forward in time. And incorporated yr 'liberal anarchism' into ancapism section - these liberals are only claimed to be anarchist forebears by the ancaps, so putting them in as their own section in the 19th century is very POV. I personally am fine with taking out the historical/contemporary divide - we can then just have one timeline for the whole thing. But, as was discussed ad infinitum before, I'm certainly not the only editor who's very much against splitting it into individualism vs collectivism meta-schools.Bengalski 13:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, cool - you convinced me. Actually, the article is looking pretty good now. Hogeye 06:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Max Stirner - Egoist or Anarchist?

Frankly, I don't consider Stirner to be an anarchist, strictly speaking. He's kind of like Godwin - a very influential precursor. Two points:

• Stirner did not consider himself an anarchist. He considered himself an egoist.
• Stirner offered no anarchist theory. To him, the State was just one mental "spook" example out of many.

I suggest we put Stirner in the Precursor/Origins section. Hogeye 06:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

But there's plenty of sources that say he is an individualist anarchist. Also, how about the European Stirnerite individualist anarchists? That's individualist anarchism too --it's just not the American form of individualist anarchism. RJII 06:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I suspect we have an American individualist section due to the much more social nature of non-US individualisms. See Japan where Egoism and Syndicalism were considered compatible by leaders of the day (Bowen Raddeker, Hecate, 2005). Australian individualism was much more social than US individualism, it was effectively a form of social anarchism which focused its activist efforts on rationalism, humanism and militant atheism. My deeper suspicion is that these currently lie within US anarchism too, and we're seeing a retconning of US individualism into Rothbard's catagories: a solipsistic error.Fifelfoo 06:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Weighting

Although it's perhaps a symptom of growing up in a very environmental area (and a half hour from Zerzan), but green and primitivist anarchism seem extremely minimized in the new arrangement. I'd consider it worth at least as much space as anarcho-capitalism is getting, being one of the most active trends in anarchism today. Anarchism without adjectives seems severely underplayed as well, because as far as I can tell that's how most anarchists identify today. Many are even unaware of the existence of factions. Of course that relates more to anarchists than anarchist theory, but it's hardly something to overlook. Sarge Baldy 08:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Your experience is geographically limited. Look at the CGT (Spain) stats, their 70 year historical record as anarchists, versus their volume of coverage of their subject. As far as the an-caps go, the only way to seek redress is to demand satisfaction of them, examine their edit history and conclude if you have the ability to be awake often enough to out-edit them. Examine the article history for their habits. The entire article is about 50k (down from the 90s). The aim should be to achieve something in the 30s or 40s.Fifelfoo 10:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'd agree exact weighting is pretty impossible, and anarcho-syndicalism does seem to get a lot of weight as the article is. I think putting the green and primitivist sub-sections together (as they are pretty related) and giving them a moderate amount of space in the main body would not be unfair. Sarge Baldy 19:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree - Green/Eco anarchism, like anarcho-capitalism, is one of the newer forms of anarchism, which shouldn't be denigrated by the traditionalists. I think it should have a section, say, just before "Religious Anarchism" in this version of the article. It should cover Green-a, Eco-a, and Primitivist-a. I invite you to organize it that way. Hogeye 17:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I think the best spot is probably below "Anarchism and feminism" in the current version. And actually, I think the article is working out pretty well. Sarge Baldy 19:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

"Dictionary" note

This is a good example of an appeal to authority fallacy. Particularly when you consider there is no good reason to see a dictionary as a viable authority at defining a philosophy they undoubtably are not interested in. Citing definitions by early anarchists is equally problematic, particularly when you ignore constant remarks that anarchism is a form of socialism. The best source comes from secondary sources, including modern anarchists and political scientists who have made it a point to map these philosophies out. I'm willing to agree to disagree on the point, but the current notice is pushing a contested POV. Sarge Baldy 08:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

A dictionary is an extraordinarily good source for a definition. The reason is that the definitions they present are the result of a lot of research on how the term is used by educated people, including "modern anarchists and political scientists." So instead of us having to conduct a huge amount of research compiling hundreds of usages and finding a commonality (which would be something akin to "original research"), the researchers have already done this for us. The dictionary IS exactly the secondary source that you want for this kind of dispute. The dictionary definitions of anarchism present what the word is most often understood to mean among educated people --and that's exactly the kind of definition we should have to head the article. It's the most NPOV way to do it. (Look at the definitions of anarchism that head the anarchism article on other contemporary encyclopedias --they could have come straight out of any of the various dictionaries out there).RJII 15:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

proudhon

Begalski, do you have a source for this assertion: "it should be noted that in later works Proudhon modified his ideas on property" ? As far as I can tell, his positions on property did not change in any important way. Do you have a secondary source that says they did actually change? RJII 16:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

critics of anarchism

Hey I know you'll all be pleased that someone's finally made everything far less POV by including some opening remarks about what ctitics of anarchims say - particularly the Petit bourgeois one which Marxists like so much.Harrypotter 19:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it's pretty POV to rework half the introductory paragraph to work in criticism. Also, many of these points of criticism actually come from anarchists: the thesis of L. Susan Brown's best known work is that anarchist communism is essentially individualist and built out of liberalism; Saul Newman's best know work is almost strictly a critique of anarchism, showing it both as an extension of liberalism and also agreeing strongly with Stirner that revolution enevitably results in a new state (points which all have my complete agreement). Sarge Baldy 20:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not at all against discussing criticisms of anarchism in the article - actually I think it's only right, as no one can deny anarchism is much abused and criticised from many sides. I'm not sure the way this has been done is very informative however - if I was coming to this ignorant of the subject Harrypotter's comments would make little sense to me - 'petit bourgeois' - what does that mean? (need to at least mention this comes from marxism, and point to sources); 'socially maladjusted' just sounds like a slander - who said this, and why? See Sterner - where, what , why? And I would think actually the most common criticisms of anarchists is that they are smelly judeo/slavic bomb-throwing terrorists (19th-early 20th century) or macdonalds-window-smashing middle class yobs with silly haircuts (contemporary). Should we stick some of that in? If so, how do we make this a serious part of the introduction that actually informs and points to useful information and debate? And does it actually belong in the intro? Or perhaps just a brief pointer to discussion of criticisms further down the page? Should there maybe be a special section on criticism of anarchism, or should we just try to be more balanced in presentation of existing sections, if they're not at present?Bengalski 21:01, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Right. I think it needs to be sourced information (who is criticizing?) and probably placed in a special section rather than in the introduction. It's actually kind of embarassing not to have a "criticism" section on one of the most controversial political philosophies in existence. Sarge Baldy 21:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Briefly looking at pages on other major political ideologies (eg. socialism, liberalism, conservatism) that seems to be the most common wikipedia approach. (Not that this means it's necessarily the right one or that we should follow it.) I.e., the intro section presents some kind of summary of the self-professed 'philosophy' or ideals of the movement, and maybe some key history; there are dedicated sections on critique later on. Even the fascism article doesn't open with criticisms, though the intro discusses the common use of the term as a pejorative.Bengalski 21:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

That makes sense, since it's hard to criticize something before you've adequately explained it. I would think the best place is near the bottom, or possibly above "cultural phenomena". Sarge Baldy 21:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Well I've done just that - the criticisms need sourcing, though. Or I'm thinking maybe to avoid making the page massive again we could direct to a page just for details of criticisms and counters. Perhaps Harrypotter will help. AaronS I guess this is why you've put up the NPOV tags - good if you could put a note on the talk page when you do so. If you feel strongly that we shouldn't discuss the criticisms until they're sourced then I won't object if you take them down for now. But I don't think you can argue it is POV to mention that people criticise anarchism. They certainly do, and we need to deal with it not ignore it.Bengalski 18:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about the "tacit authoritarianism" point. Post-anarchists, at least, have critiqued rather than criticized anarchism, not as an attempt to reject it but so as to refine fundamental faults. I don't know about the Situationists. I'm also not sure how widespread the Marxist criticisms mentioned are. It might be nice to get into the historical criticisms posited by Marx, Lenin, et. al towards anarchism (such as that you need to give the weak power to reshape society before you can abandon government). Sarge Baldy 21:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Re-titled "anarchism at work" section

The section name has always bugged me. It looks like it's trying to be "clever" by making a pun on "at work" (which can mean "in the workplace" or "in practice"). It just seems unprofessional in an encyclopedia. MrVoluntarist 02:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I've always felt the same way, good edit. The Ungovernable Force 05:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Moving towards Featurable status

In order to reclaim featured article status there's a number of projects which we need to do

Notes and citations

A few reminders here. Remember that we're not searching out for minority view-points in order to cook the article. The Taoism stuff is only notable because of a) Its a non-western claim b) Its so damn early c) Its made by leftists and rightists. With mainline citations we need to make sure they come from

1. Primary sources: the authors themselves, or newspapers / diaries of the day etc.
2. Credible commentators: this means someone with a Research Doctorate or Masters in a social science or history. It could also be from a monograph published from an academic press (OUP) or a credible peer reviewed journal specialising in social science or history

Secondly, as regards notes, the {{ref|refname}} {{note|refname}} system is a bit clunky. We'll have to watch note ordering as new and old notes come and go. Fifelfoo 05:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I just want to add, I think it was a great idea to go through and put a marker where someone needs to put a citation. That should speed up the process, and everyone should put one of these markers in if they think something needs citation, but can't currently find one. MrVoluntarist 05:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to say that Fifelfoo is doing a pretty good job --he seems dedicated to NPOV. RJII 05:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Academic qualifications don't make credibility. The publication requirements are a better indicator.Bengalski 11:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Agree that the ordering is a bit clunky, my apologies. My preference would be to have them in the form of {{ref|<author><date>([a-z])}}, where author and date are obvious and a-z is for if there are two from the same author in the same year. Obviously this isn't always possible as some sources come without an author. There are also a number of dead links in the Reference section, I didn't remove them, but they are likely to need to be removed or replaced. You can tell them because they don't have a description, only a number. - FrancisTyers 17:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Anarcho-communism is not anarchism?!!!

Communism is about everyone being the same and equal in most forms. Anarchism is about individuality and non-conforming. Although some anarchists may be rebelling against the different social groups, they still dont actually want them to conform to one becuase if that happened, the anarchists wouldnt have a cause.

Sure, just footnoting the quotes would be fine, and maybe keeping the "pseudo-anarchism" quote because that's from the most noted individualist and it's an extremely short quote. RJII 06:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I actually thought Appleton's was better, as it summarised the anti-communist nature, didn't involve cheap arguing through repetition or attempts to fiat reality, and expressed the propertarian interests of the 19thc individualists. Unfortunately the front page isn't the appropriate venue for detailed criticism of tendencies. Non-propertarian opposition to anarcho-communism (anti-communal stuff) from non-US individualists isn't as cogent. Fifelfoo 06:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Ungovernable, it's an historically important fact that individualist anarchists opposed anarcho-communism, and believed private property was necessary for true liberty (as they still believe today). RJII 06:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

"TheUngovernableForce" is deleting sourced information. also, i'm not sure if someone "ungovernable" should be working on Wikipedia. Wikipedia has rules. One of them is NPOV.

I don't appreciate your patronizing edit summary. BTW, as I have pointed out numerous times, civility is also one of those rules, but you seem to be quite "ungovernable" in that respect. And I'm deleting sourced info b/c someone can find a source for anything, and as I said earlier, anarcho-communism is not the school of thought that is constantly having its anarchist credentials called into question. This seems like a distraction from the real issue we are trying to work out. Anyway, I won't do anything else with it until more people comment. The Ungovernable Force 06:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Obviously anarchists have criticised each others' ideas in different areas, and where this is particularly notable as here it should be mentioned. But RJII's claim is very strong - it's not saying just that the US individualists opposed the idea of communism within anarchism, but that they (all of them? a general consensus?) believed communist anarchism was not anarchism, and was even the enemy of anarchism. Is that right? Was there never any co-operation or overlap between any of the two groups?Bengalski 11:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that RJII may have an exclusionary definition of "19th century American individualist anarchist," such that any American anarchist in the 19th century who was individualist, but was for collective property forms, is excluded from the specific definition "19th century American individualist anarchist". However, RJII is right that there was a very specific anti-collective property trend in the individualism in the US in the 19th century. Maybe its time to include weasil words like "some" "many" or "a tendency within"

There aren't any American individualists who were for "collective property forms" --they wouldn't be called individualists if they did. What makes them individualist anarchists is they believe individualism in person and property. It was inconceivable to them that you could be truly free while not having private property --freedom and individual ownership of the product of labor are inseparable. RJII 14:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

RJII your point is well made with a general statement that some anarchists, eg. americans x y and z, thought communism was incompatible with anarchism, with maybe one representative quote - pick your favourite. Three quotes in the text is overkill. I think you can see if we're to stick in three quotes to support every point in the page the thing'll quadruple in size.Bengalski 21:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind just one quote, but I do mind the deletion of additional sources for the claim. As you can see, someone comes along and deletes the sources except one, and in doing so, deletes evidence that it was a position of several individualists. Then, the text gets changed to say that Benjamin Tucker thought it was fake anarchism. Then, if it's noted that this was the position of several of them, someone asks for sources. I put in sources and then someone comes along and says it's too many sources and only leaves one or two. This continues ad infinitum. People like Infinity need to stop deleting sources. RJII 21:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Books

I didn't think this was going to be necessary, but do we really need a huge list of books in this article? It is long enough already, I took care to produce a list from the major schools in the article and then moved the rest out to list of anarchist books. It seems someone has readded many and split them into specious "anarcho-socialist" (isn't this a neologism?) and "anarcho-capitalist" sections. I have reverted back to my version for the time being, I would welcome constructive discussion here. - FrancisTyers 17:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Hogeye added them. Your list is more concise, I think it's better, tho you could start a separate article with them all on. Infinity0 ^talk 17:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at list of anarchist books ;) - FrancisTyers 17:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Ahhhhhh... :D Infinity0 ^talk 17:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay. I changed the Rothbard book to a relevant one about anarcho-capitalism, rather than the economic treatise. Hogeye 18:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I like the idea of a very short list as well (mostly because it helps to ensure a safe weighting). But perhaps we should mention The Dispossessed or The Monkey Wrench Gang as a representation of anarchism in literature? Sarge Baldy 20:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be reasonable to add a couple of fictional books relating to Anarchism, it might also be worth mentioning a couple of the most popular books that are histories or overviews of the subject. I think Woodcock and Marshall are pretty popular, but you can probably find the most popular ones on Amazon or something. - FrancisTyers 20:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. I think it's important not to limit ourselves to the works of the philosophers and theorists themselves. Clearly there's other important books related to the topic that should be touched on. Sarge Baldy 03:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Infinity deleting sources

Infinity, you need to stop deleting sources. You're becoming increasingly destructive on Wikipedia. RJII 20:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

RJII, I sorted the fricking sources. Shut up and stop being difficult just because I listed your article for deletion. Infinity0 ^talk

That's another sign of your destructiveness. You've put up individualist anarchism and anarcho-capitalism for deletion for totally bogus reasons. It's another sign of you wanting to censor information. RJII 20:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Argumentum ad hominem is a logical fallacy. Infinity0 ^talk 20:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not ad hominem. It's not to prove that validity of any argument other than that you have a habit of censorship, and I'm requesting that you stop censoring things and deleting sources. RJII 21:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

NPOV is censorship? Get outta here. Infinity0 ^talk 21:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Deleting sources because you don't like what they say is POV. RJII 21:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Adding sources because you like what they say is equally (if not more) POV. Sarge Baldy 03:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm adding sources because they're being requested. Then Infinity comes along and deletes them along with the claims. I add back the claim without the sources and sources are requested. I add the sources then he deletes the claims and sources. It's absurd. Maybe he's upset that there are so many links about individualist anarchism and anarcho-capitalism, but that's the way it's going to be if those are the sections that are the subject of the most dispute. RJII 03:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

If that was the case, why did I leave at least one in in each section? Infinity0 ^talk 21:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Because you don't want too much information released. And, so that you could ask for sources for claims that you deleted the sources for, then delete the claims and sources when they're added to the article --as you've been doing. RJII 23:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Right, except I only asked for a source once, and I've only deleted sources which don't add new information. RJII, stop making up crap about me being a "censor". You're the one that has suppressed all mention of anarchism's left-wing links. Infinity0 ^talk 23:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Cooperation vs Competition

RJII added competition to the list of things anarchists want a society built upon. I know I am not alone in not considering competition to be a major part of my ideal future society, and to add competition without qualifications as to which anarchists support that is a bad idea, especially since it also said we wanted cooperation, which is contradictory and will confuse most people unfamiliar with anarachism (and some who are familiar). As such I removed both until we can work this out. The Ungovernable Force 03:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Individualist anarchists tend to be big on competition. For instance, Voltairine de Cleyre: "Miss Goldman is a communist; I am an individualist. She wishes to destroy the right of property, I wish to assert it. I make my war upon privilege and authority, whereby the right of property, the true right in that which is proper to the individual, is annihilated. She believes that co-operation would entirely supplant competition; I hold that competition in one form or another will always exist, and that it is highly desirable it should." Benjamin Tucker was also a firm proponent of competition. He believe competition was what could reduce profit to make prices accord with labor-value. RJII 03:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

So say that some individualists support it, because not all anarchists do (and I can cite that if you want) The Ungovernable Force 03:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC).

That's fine. I know that collectivist anarchists don't like competition. Apparently, the only thing all anarchists agree on is opposition to the State. RJII 03:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I was pretty sure that a variety of individualists agreed that cooperation was valuable, the mutual meeting of like-minded individuals for the purposes of mutual benefit etc. Similarly there is a strain within anarchism which says that competition is a good and natural impulse (for an example, Le Guin is big on friendly competition in Dispossessed). I'm not hep up about including "competition" in the list at all. Its not nearly as important as other issues. Like getting the article size down to 40kb, having copyright acceptable images for the major points, and having apposite and appropriate citation. Fifelfoo 04:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Anarchism in India

Is there any record of anarchist activity in India?Can anyone of the contributors enlighten me on this? sumal 11:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Anarchist "tree"

This clearly violate's Wikipedia's policy regarding original research, and is also disupted. I don't think I'm the only one who sees it simply an attempt to legitimize anarcho-capitalism's place within anarchism. Sarge Baldy 21:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalism's place within anarchism is already legitimized. All the chart does is show what influenced what. Everybody who has researched it knows that Tucker and Spooner influenced Rothbard. RJII 21:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

And you don't see yourself as POV? Clearly it is not a settled matter, as evidenced by it's clearly contentious relation to anarchism. Too often you exhibit symptoms of an MPOV, which is worrisome. Sarge Baldy 21:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not "settled" but it's legitimized. It's not settled that individualist anarchism is true anarchism. It's not settled that anarcho-communism is true anarchism. Whether it's settled or not is beside the point. If some notable historians and political scientists say something is anarchism, then it needs to be in the article. That's all it takes to "legitimize" something as anarchism. RJII 21:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

If you take any arrow pair in the article and say "X influenced Y", it is well-documented and well-sourced on Wikipedia. The article puts these Wikipedia-acceptable facts into graph form. That's it. If it was claiming which philosophy grew out of which other one, then you'd have a case. MrVoluntarist 00:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I shouldn't have to point out that you have yet to provide the names and quotations of any "notable" historians and political scientists, or any non-originally researched reliable sources to back up your claims. --AaronS 22:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Right, because you keep re-constraining the request to the point where you couldn't do the same for socialist forms of anarchism. MrVoluntarist 00:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Give sources to Aaron at your own risk. He finds some twisted way to dismiss every one. Or, if he does find one acceptable, he demands another to back it up, ad infinitum. It's fruitless and ridulcous. RJII 01:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

MrVoluntarist and RJII, I ask that you try to assume good faith. My requests have been reasonable. So far, RJII has only provided original research and two main sources -- where do you see 'infinity'? -- Ralph Raico and Carl Levy. Levy's source has already been shown to not back up many of the claims made, here. Raico's neutrality is questionable. So, are you going to produce everything, or are you just going to continue to attack me personally contrary to Wikipedia guidelines and policies? I would truly appreciate if the both of you tried to keep the discussion civil. Thanks! --AaronS 02:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I did assume good faith with you. It's just that I'm convinced now that you're not acting in good faith. You won't accept sources no matter how credible they are. It appears to me that you have no genuine interest in bringing information to light, but rather, the reverse. RJII 03:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you were initially immediately very hostile or uncivil towards me. Please provide here a list of sources that you think that I've ignored, "no matter how credible they are." Honestly, I would like to know. Thanks. --AaronS 04:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC) Furthermore, even if you do believe that I'm acting in bad faith (I would like some evidence of that), that does not give you the right to treat me uncivilly. If you have a problem with me, I would be happy to talk to you about it. --AaronS 04:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Please list sources disputing any of the links on the tree. So far, the only argument against the tree seems to be the old braindead POV anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism claim. Weak. Hogeye 14:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that when you make an unsourced positive claim, the burden of proof is on you, not anybody else. --AaronS 15:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

What exactly is the claim that you'd like sourced? Hogeye 15:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Note: Both of the images are up for deletion at Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion. - FrancisTyers 15:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Please respond to this directly relevant statement I made: If you take any arrow pair in the article and say "X influenced Y", it is well-documented and well-sourced on Wikipedia. The article puts these Wikipedia-acceptable facts into graph form. That's it. If it was claiming which philosophy grew out of which other one, then you'd have a case. MrVoluntarist 23:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

The (main) issue isn't whether Hogeye's right or wrong, or well sourced, on any particular connection eg. that Nietzsche influenced Rothbard. The issue is one of whether this link is relevant to anarchism, or more generally whether its relevance is strong enough that it fits with NPOV 'weighting'. If we were to put in every accurate chain of influence that applies to any notable anarchist thinker we would have a monkey puzzle tree of a million names. You would also have many non-anarchists as prominent nodes, Marx just one of them. To get something manageable we have to trim down to a few names, and it is the selection of these names and links that is controversial original research. Hogeye's choice is plainly POV. But in fact I think it is so inherently controversial that even without the ancapism issue we would probably never find consensus on a tree of ten or even a hundred names from the editors of this page. Things are just more complicated than that, and I don't see that such a tree serves any useful purpose.Bengalski 09:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I love how when people are shown to be wrong, they switch arguments and claiming that that was their argument all along. First it was "the tree is OR!". Now it's "the tree is irrelevant"! Let's pick a story and go with it. MrVoluntarist 16:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

The chart is clearly relevant to anarchism. You write, "To get something manageable we have to trim down to a few names, and it is the selection of these names and links that is controversial original research.," but that could be said of the whole article or any given section. Yet we all know who most of the big names are, and/or the representative opinions anyway. You're going to have to come up with a better excuse than the lame "original research" charge. Hogeye 15:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

The idea as I understand it is on the whole article or any given section we try to achieve a) 'NPOV'; b) hopefully some consensus. Your chart is very far from either.Bengalski 18:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

The problem I have with the chart is that we can't modify it. I basically agree with the content but there are some things I would change. If a flow-chart function were available in Wikipedia so we call all modify it that would be great. As it stands now, it has to be taken down and modified for each editor's input and Hogeye is apparently the only one with the authority to do that. I appreciate his efforts and I like the chart, but I can't see it working out in the long run for these reasons. But, I could be wrong. RJII 18:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Hogeye, the current tree is better. But I think you should:

• Move Rudolf Rocker so he's not directly below Kropotkin.

I don't understand where you'd like Rocker moved. Are you suggesting omitting his name? Are you suggesting that there is another derivation of anarcho-communism that derives from standard Kropotkinian ancomm? Hogeye 18:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

A-com exists apart from A-synd. Infinity0 ^talk 18:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

• Remove Ricardo as he didn't have any social political theories.

But Ricardo was Marx's main source for his exploitation theory. The exploitation theory, of course, is crucial to anarcho-commie ideology. Hogeye 18:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

No, he was the LTOV-exploitation theory. It's not a crucial aspect of it. Infinity0 ^talk 18:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

• Remove Nietzsche, he didn't contribute anything major to a-capitalism.

But Nietzsche influenced Rand, who influenced Rothbard. (And Nietzsche was warmed-over Stirnerism.) Hogeye 18:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Hegel influenced Marx but he shouldn't be there. Infinity0 ^talk 18:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Infinity0 ^talk 18:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, why not edit the file on wikipedia instead of uploading to a new name?? Infinity0 ^talk 18:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Image:AnarchismTree04.jpg
, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion.

To re-iterate my comments on Hogeye's talk page, my primary complaints are; 1. the use of the word "Socialist Anarchism" in '03 and 2. the undue weight given to anarcho-capitalism. - FrancisTyers 18:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, Hogeye, I agree with FrancisTyers. Gustave de Molinari is a very minor thinker and shouldn't be in that huge box. Infinity0 ^talk 18:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

The current chart doesn't use the term "anarcho-socialism." I can't say much about weight - that is totally subjective. Judging by something objective, like google hits, anarcho-capitalism is more significant than e.g. anarcho-syndicalism. Certainly both should be included in the chart. Molinari was very influential, and should be included as an influence on Rothbard. Hogeye 18:54, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Google hits is a horrible indicator of notability. Or are you really trying to say that the O RLY owl [2] is more notable than say trade unionism in India [3]? - FrancisTyers 18:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

The chart makes it look like Stirner was a capitalist, doens't it? Also I might change "socialist" to "collectivist" to preempt complaints that some of the individualists called themselves socialists. I have an idea --how about putting everything on the right under one big heading --individualism? RJII 18:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

No, that's POV. Leftists think capitalism is very UN-individualist. Infinity0 ^talk 19:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Communism is in opposition to individualism --the complaint about capitalism is exactly that it is individualistic --individual property, self-interest, etc. RJII 19:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

No, the complaint about capitalism is that it exploits workers - many people making profit for a few - ie. NOT individual but elitist. Infinity0 ^talk 19:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

The reason they can make a profit is because property is individualized --in other words, private (individual) property exists. Communists don't want private property. They want collective property. What communist is going to claim capitalism is not individualist? Of course it's individualist. It's economic individualism to the extreme. RJII 19:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

No, RJII. Capitalism is individualist for the few owners, and oppressive for the non-owners. It's economic individualism to the extreme, for an extreme few. Infinity0 ^talk 16:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Let me just state for the record I'm against the very idea of tree. It was so nice we had a break from edit warring for a day or two.Bengalski 20:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I am, too. The very idea is specious, especially considering the biases of the editors, here. It's also overly simplistic. --AaronS 16:55, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Hogeye has been blocked for 24 hours for violating the 3RR by inserting the tree over three times within a 24 hour period. Not by me I might add. I don't use my administrator powers on articles I edit for content. I did however report the violation to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR. - FrancisTyers 20:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Well he doesn't seem to have paid much attention to the block - he's almost certainly 24.248.212.133.Bengalski 08:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

An administrator has blocked this anonymous user. - FrancisTyers 11:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Anarchism in India

Is there any record of anarchist activity in India?Can anyone of the contributors enlighten me on this? sumal 11:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

A google search bought up this list of books. I'm pretty sure Peter Marshall covers India in Demanding the Impossible, but I don't have it with me at the moment. - FrancisTyers 11:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, seems to have been an anarcho-primitivist gathering in India not long ago [4]. - N1h1l 17:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Hogeye and 3RR

Hogeye, it appears that you have violated Wikipedia policy in breaking the WP:3RR. I know that, in the past, you and RJII have stated that you have no problem with edit wars, and will happily create them; however, we try to avoid them as much as possible, and they certainly go against what Wikipedia is about. I am simply going to caution you this time, and ask that you please review the three revert rule policy. One more revert, and I'm going to request that an administrator review what is going on, here. I hate to be harsh, but you're being very disruptive, in my opinion. Thanks. --AaronS 15:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

That's a little ironic for an "anarchism" article --calling in the police (authority). RJII 15:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

You've made that claim many times before, but this isn't anarchy, it's Wikipedia. And you agreed to abide by certain rules when you decided to participate. --AaronS 15:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. It's not anarchy. There are no "true anarchists" who would bring in authority. You know, people say the same thing about nations, such as "You agree to abide by the rules if you live here. If you don't like it you can leave." Is that something a "true anarchist" would say? I doubt it. RJII 15:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually I have heard ancaps use that exact reasoning, but then it was something "If you don't like your boss you can get another job". // Liftarn

What does that have to do with anything? --AaronS 15:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Now you're lying about me again. When have I said that I'm happy to create edit wars? RJII 15:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

It's all in your RfC and RfA cases. I'm not lying one bit, and never have lied about you. Please stop accusing me of dishonesty, it's tasteless. --AaronS 15:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Cite it then. When have I ever said I'm happy to create edit war? Your sleazy dishonest tactics are reprehensible. RJII 15:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

My, my, what a mouth you have. It was in one of your former RfCs, I believe. It's kind of hard to find, but I'm sure that you know where it is. Could you provide me links to them? Thanks. Also, again, please be civil. It's incendiary to refer to fellow editors as "sleazy" and "dishonest". --AaronS 15:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm responding to your dishonesty. Lying about another editor is "incendiary" and "uncivil." You've started the fire, but you don't want to burn it do you? RJII 15:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Pardon me, but that's just cheesy. What was that RfC or RfA that was never resolved, sort of left hanging? It was that one, I believe. Do you have a link to it, or are you going to make me find it myself? If you choose the latter, I'm not going to be able to respond for a while, because I've got better things to do. But, I will eventually. --AaronS 15:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

There was an RFA against me based on a claim that I didn't source something I said in Talk (not something I posted in an article). It was absurd and full of lies, so of course the administrators closed the case. RJII 15:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Great, do you have the link? I don't remember the administrators closing the case. I'm assuming that you're not talking about the one that is currently open on you. --AaronS 15:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

No I don't have the link. Go find it yourself. RJII 15:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Was that the one with User:Slrubenstein? Infinity0 ^talk 17:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Will do. You'll just have to wait, then, unfortunately. --AaronS 16:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Let's do wait then. In the meantime don't initiate any assaults on me than you can't back up. Your continual attempts to start fights with me is "uncivil." And, the use of dishonesty in doing it is downright sleazy. I remind of the policy: be civil. RJII 16:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Come now, RJII, I have never tried to start conflict with you. You eagerly create and seek out conflict, it seems. By the way, it wasn't too hard to find, so you might be interested remembering these incidents: [5], "So what if there is going to be warring on what the common dictionary definitions represent? At least it narrows it down greatly. I see nothing wrong with fine tuning it through edit warring, or even eternal conflict" [6], "Exactly, edit warring is fun" [7], "Reverting Badly written POV again. You want an edit war, you have one" [8]. Now, I don't expect an apology from you for calling me a liar, but let's just let the evidence speak for itself. --AaronS 16:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

By the way, that RfA was not rejected by the administrators, and the case was only closed because it seemed as if the problem had been resolved. Apparently it hasn't: RJII v. Firebug. --AaronS 16:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. You lied. I did not say I enjoyed starting edit wars. I said that there is nothing wrong with eternal edit warring --it's preferable than stability (which assumes infallibility). And, sure, battling is enjoyable. But, I have never said that I enjoy starting edit wars or intentionally start edit wars. That's patently false. You owe me an apology (as if your apoligies are worth anything anymore). RJII 16:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll just let this thread speak for itself. --AaronS 16:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Let's do. It's a great example of hypocrisy. RJII 16:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

RfAr of a main editor of this article

There is currently a request for arbitration open for a main editor of this article, RJII. I encourage anybody who believes that RJII has violated Wikipedia policy to speak up; or, conversely, speak on his behalf if you believe that this RfA is unjust. I know that many editors of this article have had problems with RJII, and that a few support him, so I think that it is important that we all know about this.

• Here is the proposed decision (with votes): [9]
• Here is where you can add your own evidence (for or against): [10]

Just providing information. --AaronS 17:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Good luck. I doubt very few here are petty and vindictive enough to be interested. RJII 17:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

You must be pretty pissed off if you went through 3 versions of that bitter one-liner over the span of 20 minutes. That's why we have Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. Take a look at it.--AaronS 23:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm a perfectionist with my wording. I always revise. Every sentence is tailored for maximum effect. RJII 23:32, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

If that were true, how could you possibly attach your name to statements like "You've started the fire, but you don't want to burn it do you?" I think that that line is stolen from this. ;) --AaronS 23:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

That should say "burn in it". And, it was a play on your statement about "incendiary" remarks. But, no, I never saw that movie. It figures that that's your idea of cinema. It tells me a lot about what I'm dealing with. Now, run along. I'm done dealing with you. RJII 03:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

The model anarchist you are aren't you? Trying to get someone banned from Wikipedia by goading him on with insults and lies so that he can attack you back so you can accuse him of being "uncivil," all for the purpose of censoring his edits. Great job, man. How about if we start an arbitration case against you? RJII 17:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I said that I was interested in anarchism, not that I was an anarchist. Go ahead and start a case on me, if that will make you happy. I don't think that you'll find much evidence of insults and lies on my part. Also, your reaction is strange, considering that I posted this to give your supporters an opportunity to respond, as well. --AaronS 17:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Come on. We all know why you advertised that. Don't insult our intelligence. You're hoping to help foment a mob attack on RJII to get him banned. Good luck! RJII 17:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Question: why do you often refer to yourself in the third person? Anyway, you can insinuate anything you want about me. It doesn't bother me, and, if you want to talk about intelligence, well, I think that most people can distinguish between bitter insinuations and clear and straightforward evidence. --AaronS 17:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Most people who come here are civil. I can't say the same for you. There are many who I have disagreements with here who I respect very much. They treat me civily and I reciprocate. Why can't you be more civilized? RJII 17:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't play that "you're the only problem" game with me. It seems that you just turn everybody's concerns about you into a conspiracy and then accuse them of the same things. That's false. If you can find any occasion where I have treated you uncivilly in the recent past (or in the not-so-recent past that I haven't apologized for), then, by all means, show me. Or do you just accuse others of lying and sleaze? --AaronS 18:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

You are the only problem in this article. Everyone else is pretty civil and honest (actually there is one other person that's not, but I'm not going to name names). As evidence of your uncivility and dishonesty one only need to consult the record of how many times you've apoligized. But, I'm telling you now that there have been one too many apologies. I'm not accepting them anymore. They're insincere. As soon as you apologize for one thing, you proceed with another attack. I don't trust you, and I don't respect you. RJII 18:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

You don't have to name names, we all know who you're talking about--me! I for one am honored to be considered uncivil and dishonest by you, because it shows I must be doing something right. You can keep up this poor innocent victim role all you want, but no one buys it. The Ungovernable Force 07:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I've never heard of an apology as being uncivil. That's a bizarre perspective, in my opinion. Now, do you actually have any evidence of bad faith on my part, or are you just blowing smoke? --AaronS 00:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC) Oh, and for the record, I think that I've only apologized to you three or four times. You have never apologized to me. Now, if you think that three or four times is a reprehensible track record, that's fine. I'm not going to let you turn this around on me, though. This isn't about me. It's about you. --AaronS 00:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

No, it's about you and your harrassment of me. You've apoligized three or four times yes. But, no more. It's not sincere because you continue to attack me. I'm not accepting any more apologies. I'm not going to apoligize to you for anything. I'll I'm doing is calling you out on what you're doing. Stop your attacks and you won't have to apologize anymore. RJII 02:18, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Holy shit dude, how many RfAr cases have you been through?? Infinity0 ^talk 17:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

One, and it was dropped because it was nonsense. This is the second. It will also be dropped. RJII 17:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that makes two RfArs and one RfC. --AaronS 17:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Both cases have been initiated because they want to censor RJII --to keep him from editing Wikipedia because the sourced information he's providing conflicts with their POV --the "uncivility" claims and other such nonsense are just a convenient tool to help accomplish that. By the way, the RFC is nothing but a forum for the accusers and nitpickers to make fools of themselves. RJII 17:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

You should realise though, that most of the "sourced" information you enter ARE POV themselves, since they come from people. You might not like it, but it is your responsibility too to bring in conflicting sources. NPOV isn't about gathering contributors together and mashing all their POVs into one hopefully NPOV article. Infinity0 ^talk 17:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not my responsibility to bring in conflicting sources. It's not my responsibility to edit Wikipedia, period. If you think there are conflicting sources to be found, then you find them, and add them to the articles. That's how Wikipedia works. RJII 18:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but when you edit Wikipedia, you're supposed to present a neutral point of view. You're writing an encyclopaedia article. You need conflicting sources, especially when requested. --AaronS 18:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

As I said, NPOV isn't about gathering contributors together and mashing all their POVs into one hopefully NPOV article. All users have a responsibility for NPOV. If you only enter in right-wing sources, and you know that there are no left-wing sources, you shouldn't just think "Oh well, it's not my responsibility, somebody else should do it" and be done with it, since you KNOW that the article is now POV. Also, what did you mean by It's not my responsibility to edit Wikipedia, period.??? Infinity0 ^talk 18:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

"It's not my responsibility to edit Wikipedia, period." In other words, I can pack up and fly back to New York if I wish. I don't have to be here. I don't have a responsibility to write anything in the articles whatsoever. I add sources that I find. If I haven't found sources that are conflicting, oh well. I can't add sources that I don't know exist. If you know of conflicting sources, then add them in. It's not my responsibility. RJII 18:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

You haven't "found" them... right. Yes, I know you don't have to edit this, but if you edit it, you have the responsibilty of NPOV, or at least try to be. Infinity0 ^talk 19:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I always do. There's nothing I respect more than the NPOV policy. RJII 19:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

The request for arbitration is frivolous. Ignore it. Hogeye 16:18, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Anarchist communism and Labor Theory of Value

I thought RJII would find this interesting, as he tends to give the opinion that most anarchists support a labor theory of value. This is a passage from Alexander Berkman, describing anarchist communism, in his work ABC of Anarchism:

"But why not give each according to the value of his work?" you ask.

Because there is no way by which value can be measured. That is the difference between value and price. Value is what a thing is worth, while price is what it can be sold or bought for in the market. What a thing is worth no one really can tell. Political economists generally claim that the value of a commodity is the amount of labour required to produce it, of "socially necessary labour," as Marx says. But evidently it is not a just standard of measurement. Suppose the carpenter worked three hours to make a kitchen chair, while the surgeon took only half an hour to perform an operation that saved your life. If the amount of labour used determines value, then the chair is worth more than your life. Obvious nonsense, of course. Even if you should count in the years of study and practice the surgeon needed to make him capable of performing the operation, how are you going to decide what "an hour of operating" is worth? The carpenter and mason also had to be trained before they could do their work properly, but you don't figure in those years of apprenticeship when you contract for some work with them. Besides, there is also to be considered the particular ability and aptitude that every worker, writer, artist or physician must exercise in his labours. That is a purely individual, personal factor. How are you going to estimate its value?

That is why value cannot be determined. The same thing may be worth a lot to one person while it is worth nothing or very little to another. It may be worth much or little even to the same person, at different times. A diamond, a painting, or a book may be worth a great deal to one man and very little to another. A loaf of bread will be worth a great deal to you when you are hungry, and much less when you are not. Therefore the real value of a thing cannot be ascertained; it is an unknown quantity.

But the price is easily found out. If there are five loaves of bread to be had and ten persons want to get a loaf each, the price of bread will rise. If there are ten loaves and only five buyers, then it will fall. Price depends on supply and demand.

The exchange of commodities by means of prices leads to profit making, to taking advantage and exploitation; in short, to some form of capitalism. If you do away with profits, you cannot have any price system, nor any system of wages or payment. That means that exchange must be according to value. But as value is uncertain or not ascertainable, exchange must consequently be free, without "equal" value, since such does not exist. In other words, labour and its products must be exchanged without price, without profit, freely, according to necessity. This logically leads to ownership in common and to joint use. Which is a sensible, just, and equitable system, and is known as Communism.

Sarge Baldy 01:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't say that most anarchists support the labor theory of value. I say the American individualist anarchists are into the labor theory of value. The communists want to abolish exchange value altogether. The labor theory of value is irrelevant for the communists since property, trade, and money is abolished. RJII 02:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, you made yourself a little confusing with comments such as "Simply because anarchists in the past have adhered to the labor theory of value doesn't mean you have to do so to be an anarchist." [11] Sarge Baldy 02:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, understood. RJII 03:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

RJ, it is more accurate to say that anarcho-socialists generally hold an exploitation theory. (As opposed to "labor theory of value.") While many base their exploitation theory on the LTV, some base it on e.g. an unequal bargaining position argument. Berkman's "argument" is confused. He admits that something "may be worth much or little even to the same person, at different times," but then he inconsistently assumes without reason that, somehow, profit is bad and should be avoided. After saying that there is no fixed value ("cannot be ascertained; it is an unknown quantity"), he, contradicting himself, claims that "exchange must be according to value." What a dumbshit! Hogeye 15:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Just because something is unpredictable doesn't mean nothing is affected by it. Exchange IS due to people's perceptions of value. Infinity0 ^talk 18:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms of anarchism

The essay Harrypotter's linked too is an interesting read, and raises issues that would be worth going into if we develop a more detailed page on criticisms. The stuff about Green Anarchist I knew, though all the details of changes of editorship and infighting etc. - which perhaps he should have gone into - send me to sleep. I've never bothered to read much by Black or Zerzan, so the anti-semitic quotes were new to me, though I'm not altogether surprised. But I don't see what evidence he's actually got against Rocker - in fact the author goes so far to say Rocker never perpetrated the racist bile of his mentor Bakunin. So it seems Rocker is just being slandered by association, because he shares other of Bakunin's ideas and (non-racist) language. Therefore I'm not sure there are grounds in this for mentioning Rocker specifically in the page as a suspect racist anarchist.

My general thought on all this - there are dodgy people and dodgy ideas floating around with them in any political movement/grouping/ideology whatever you call it. I would think you could find racists, or people who've gone over to fascism, from any political group under the sun. So fringe characters like Black or some who've been associated with Green Anarchist doesn't make me think there's something rotten at the core of anarchism. Proudhon and Bakunin as 'founding fathers' are more troubling, but the article very much fails to demonstrate the links from their racism to the way central anarchist ideas have developed thereafter, as the weakness of the bit on Rocker shows. The claim is - P and B had some nasty ideas, they were the daddies of anarchism, so anarchism's nasty. But that needs some argument, which this essay doesn't provide.Bengalski 20:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC) Reading that passage about Black more closely, and trying to find more on the web (unfortunately 'anarchism after leftism' doesn't seem to be online), it looks like Black's maybe being maligned as well. The quote could equally just be pointing out Bakunin's anti-semitism and ridiculing Bookchin for supporting him.Bengalski 09:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I like the criticism section. I appreciate Harrypotter's efforts. I foresee this becoming a very large section so that an offshoot article will need to be created. I'm interested in seeing anarchism subject to intense rational scrutiny. RJII 20:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm surprised there is no Criticisms of Anarchism yet :) - FrancisTyers 20:38, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I think your quote from Yarros should go there - if we start using the section on this page to go into how some thinkers think these criticisms only apply to one type of anarchism etc. it will quickly become very large. I mean it won't be hard to find people criticising individualist anarchism as utopian also and then someone will feel they have to stick those in against your quote etc. etc. And as for ancapism - google it and very the first page gives you articles arguing it's impossible.Bengalski 20:52, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Just providing the quote here to so it can be recorded in the archive, as I haven't seen it on any web pages out there and someone has already edited to an abbreviated form: "The anarchists, as anarchists, work directly, not for a perfect social state, but for a perfect political system. A perfect social state is a state totally free from sin or crime of folly; a perfect political system is merely a system in which justice is observed, in which nothing is punished but crime and nobody coerced but invaders." -Victor Yarros, Liberty VII 1/2/1892

You can always just Wikiquote things. Otherwise someone will just put up an unsourced cut version they found off the internet later. Sarge Baldy 21:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand your point here when you edited out the note about private defense: "this point seems loaded and circular, because you basically assume a liberal conception of human nature and then say it's effectively countered by liberal anarchism." What do you mean? RJII 21:34, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I mean that you basically assume a liberal worldview in which things will collapse without active controls, and then say liberal anarchism effectively counters this. Many other anarchists do not see crime as inherently "natural", but as a result of inequalities, which they do attempt to counter. Sarge Baldy 21:38, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'll look for a source on that then. RJII 21:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

One that comes immediately to mind is from Emma Goldman: "Crime is naught but misdirected energy. So long as every institution of today, economic, political, social, and moral, conspires to misdirect human energy into wrong channels; so long as most people are out of place doing the things they hate to do, living a life they loathe to live, crime will be inevitable, and all the laws on the statutes can only increase, but never do away with, crime." Sarge Baldy 21:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

That and also a) 'collectivist' anarchists might also have communal social controls, eg. most 'social' anarchists are happy with the idea of organising workers' militias to fight fascists or other aggressors; b) I think you'll find the majority of social/political thinkers also believe private defence forces to be unfeasible (have a look at those essays on the first page of googling anarcho-capitalism, or e.g., Hogeye's favourite book by Nozick).Bengalski 21:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, I was a bit surprised at first to hear about private defense, even in relation to anarcho-capitalism. I actually came to anarchism through libertarian capitalism and anarcho-capitalism, and even then I was staunchly opposed to police forces. I effectively saw stealing as a natural balancing force for capitalism and disproportionate wealth, and a welcome one. I didn't read any Rothbard or even any libertarians though, so I don't know how common those sort of ideas are among those groups. Sarge Baldy 21:52, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

The reply to the claim from anarchists that criminality is not human nature is, then why do governments exist? They exist because criminal-minded humans created them (according to an anarchist point of view). Crime and virtue are both natural to humans. The question is, how are you going to defend yourself from the criminals? RJII 21:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes that's the question. I'd give you my view but that'd be original research. Seriously, these are the kinds of issues we should be investigating - properly sourced, without original research of course - on Criticisms of Anarchism. But I will say I think your PDAs are vulnerable to just the same kind of criticism - what's to stop them using their power of organised violence to turn themselves back into governments? If you accept the usual liberal view of human nature, it'd certainly be in their rational interest to do so. Why wouldn't you have 'criminals' controlling the PDAs? I've seen you and Hogeye arguing competition between rival PDAs would stop any one emerging as a monopoly - but I haven't seen any good arguments, though praps we're talking the kind of oligopoly of rather nasty violence you usually get in most non-state-gang-controlled areas. So, as Plato might have said, who's going to defend us against the defence associations?Bengalski 22:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever argued that there is not a danger of one emerging as a coercive monopoly. I do think that is a possibility. But, that's exactly what the anarcho-capitalists oppose --the emerging of large-scale coercive monopoly --a State. It looks to me like you have two choices --have voluntarily funded competing defense providers and hope it doesn't happen, or don't have private defense of liberty and just let a State emerge uncontested and impose itself on everyone. Take your pick. Or, if you're willing to be a minarchist, you can set up a forcefully-funded limited government with a strong Constitution, and separation of powers to prevent absolute tyranny, as a "necessary evil" --commit a small evil to defend against a larger evil. But, even with this latter choice you're hoping that corruption doesn't set in expanding the scope of the government, and also you hope that a more powerful, and more evil, government doesn't invade. RJII 22:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

The other point I made - I don't think any 'social' anarchists would just 'let a state emerge uncontested'. Thus in Spain (I know it's a cliche but ...) anarchists organised militias against aggressors. As I see it a key belief was that such use of violence must not become professionalised - we don't want to give the opportunity to anyone to be in a position to have special access to the means of violence, as you would have with a professional PDA. Violence is then something that may be engaged in reluctantly and with force distributed as equally as possible amongst communities. Just as anarchist organisations recognise sometimes the need for bureaucratic positions, but try to rotate positions and build in recall sanctions etc. Some questions are then - 1) are these kinds of organisations strong enough to be effective - eg. the Marxist critique of anarchism in the Spanish civil war is the militias just weren't an effective fighting force; 2) does a 'structureless' tyranny develop anyway? I think these are both important criticisms, and I'm not sure can be refuted with theory alone.Bengalski 23:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

"[The Indians] had separated into so many little societies. This practice results from the circumstance of their having never submitted themselves to any laws, any coercive power, any shadow of government. Their only controls are their manners, and that moral sense of right and wrong, which, like the sense of tasting and feeling in every man, makes a part of his nature. An offence against these is punished by contempt, by exclusion from society, or, where the case is serious, as that of murder, by the individuals whom it concerns. Imperfect as this species of coercion may seem, crimes are very rare among them; insomuch that were it made a question, whether no law, as among the savage Americans, or too much law, as among the civilised Europeans, submits man to the greatest evil, one who has seen both conditions of existence would pronounce it to be the last; and that the sheep are happier of themselves, than under care of the wolves. It will be said, the great societies cannot exist without government. The savages, therefore, break them into small ones." -Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia. RJII 23:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. A modern take on the same idea - that decentralised non-state 'coercion' can work but only small groups - and with a touch of game theory too, is Michael Taylor 'Community, Anarchy, and Liberty' [[12]]. The classic anarchist example to the size problem is, as you know from Proudhon, federalism.Bengalski 23:23, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Rocker makes his position very clear in Nationalism and Culture, perhaps summarised by the last paragraph of the book, where he envisages an anarchist revolution amongst Europeans then being spread out amongst colonial peoples. Rocker was a very strong anti-fascist, learning yiddish and was very active amongst Jewish workers in Germany and London. Yet his book Nationalism and Culture, perhaps the most significant work he rwote (it's about 500 pages long) talks about the European orbit of culture, dwells on teh glories of ancient Greek culture, but glossing over the fact it was based on slavery. In many ways he takes forward Bakunin's "United States of Europe" (see Federalism, Socialism and Anti-Theologism 1867), sharing a viewpoint rooted in an unstated white supremacism, albeit cultural rather than biological. Just as biological racism has been discredited over the last fifty years, cultural aspects, particularly around questions of assimilation and eurocentrism have become more central to anti-racist critiques.

In this context,I also think we should locate the origins of anarchism in the development of European political thought which arose following the French Revolution, along with communism. The retrojection of anarchism before that is more a mythic approach to origins. I think the piece about Louis-Armand, Baron de Lahontan is important (just as the work of Lewis Morgan was to influence Marx and Engels), and indeed there is an argument that Thomas More's Utopia was modelled on Yucatan. No matter how inspirational some anarchists may have found pre-anarchist movements/philosophies, this does not make them anarchist. Outside Europe, the spread of anarchism (and marxism) poses all sorts of questions as regards being forms of modernism linked to notions of unilinear progress which has been critiqued (not always satisfactorily) by post modernism, and are sometimes considered as being harbinger of eurocentrism. (PS written before I read last post - edit conflict) Harrypotter 23:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Anarch and Anarchism

I have started a page on Anarch, and feel we need to make it clear that Max Stirner was not an anarchist, but I am going to bed now so that will have to wait. Harrypotter 00:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

You're not the only one. See Max Stirner - Egoist or Anarchist? above. If an anarchist is someone who asserts the state should be abolished, then Stirner was not an anarchist. He did influence a bunch of anarchists, though.

That problem is, there are plenty of sources that say he was an anarchist. RJII 03:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Right. I don't think we can explicitly deny him the term. Although I do think it's problematic that he himself did not use the term, and made a number of criticisms of anarchism, which interestingly enough have been echoed by the post-anarchists. Sarge Baldy 03:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, to what extent do we go privelege self-description see "The very word anarchism originated as a term of abuse first used during against the working class sans-culottes during the French Revolution". In many respects Ernst Jünger descrition of an Anarch captures the nuance between what Stirner was into and what a self-described anarchist is about. It would also be useful to rewrite the section on Max Stirner's Egoism including the difference between Anarch and Anarchist, and working in some stuff about Sovereignty of the individual, and some of the Aleister Crowley stuff such as "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law" and work it through with Chaos magic which could also be linked to a section on Anarchism and Freemasonry?Harrypotter 15:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Stirner and chaos magic?? My view on all this is this is a page about anarchism, and what we need to say about any particular thinker/actor concerns their contribution/influence on anarchists. That's why I'm no too bothered by Bakunin's anti-semitism for example - because I'm not convinced that it found its way into the development of later anarchist thought. Equally why I'm not so bothered if Proudhon became a liberal/statist/proprietarian/whatever (if he did) - the point for me is the part of his thought and life that influenced anarchism, the rest is relevant on the PJProudhon page but not here. So what's relevant about Sterner is: his notable influence on many anarchists, the fact he was considered by many anarchists to be an anarchist, and yes the fact that he himself wouldn't have gone along with it. Whether ACrowley mixed any slogans or ideas from Stirner (did he? it seems so long since I last conjured up any demons) into his wacky stew is beside the point. (Unless you've got some evidence for a grand masonic conspiracy linking anarchism with the golden dawn etc., and of course P2 - which would be interesting to see.)Bengalski 16:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, check out the Black thorn manifesto and CHAOS: THE BROADSHEETS OF ONTOLOGICAL ANARCHISM by Hakim Bey who once graced the anarchism page. This may not be a strand of anarchism that you profess, but I have certainly met several anarchists in London who groove on Crowley. As regards freemasonry, this is clearly very significant (I saw a full page article in a major contemporary Belgian anarchist paper calling on men and women to join the masons. Also check Masonry and the Labour Movement which includes a nice AIT Masonic graphic (Is it copyright?). If the article was contemporay anarchism I might agree with your suggestion that it should be limited to how various thinkers and actors have influenced modern anarchists. But as it is simply on anarchism, then we should be considering how anarchism as a historical phenomenon has influenced society in general, rather than people who have adopted a specific point of view. No doubt many other anarchists like you are happy to forget about problems with Bakunin and Proudhon, and such an outlook would be quiteappropraite in an anarchist encyclopedia. However, as we are aiming to create something which is NPOV, it is not a matter of simply trying to create something which balances the views of 57 varieties of anarchism, but enables interested reader to get a broader view of how anarchism developed as a historical phenomenon, warts and all.

One final comment on magic, Starhawk played an influential role in the anti-G8 convergence in Stirling last summer, also try "" which has stuff about Theodore Reuss see 'The Gnosis of Anarchy'. Harrypotter 20:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I once met some anarchists in London who believe the Church of England to be the ideal model of anarchist organisation. Note also the high presence of masons in the C of E.Bengalski 11:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. This article shouldn't be a hagiography of anarchism, but reveal it's ugly side as well --including the bloodthirsty behavior of the Spanish Anarchists who burned churches, killed priests, and other innocents, confiscated money, all in the name of an anarchist paradise. RJII 21:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

If the article mentions what the Anarchists did to the priests, it should mention what the priests (and Catholic Church) did to the people. Although to be honest this could be a separate article in itself :) - FrancisTyers 00:56, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Bookchin?

I just noticed Murray Bookchin is strangely absent from this page. Perhaps social ecology should be worked in? Sarge Baldy 03:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Definitely. Also should have something on parecon.Bengalski 08:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Anabaptists

MrVoluntarist misunderstood my suggested policy for citing sources for this page. He removed a quote by Bertrand Russell regarding the Anabaptists, with the following helpful and civil (see irony) explanation: "rm biased, non-secondary source as per User:AaronS's standard." The Russell quote regarding the Anabaptists is the perfect kind of source. It is from a neutral observer, and it is published in a well-known book by a major publishing company -- the kind of book that one might find on a university course materials list. Russell, as far as I know, does not have any motivation for likening Anabaptists to anti-statists or anarchists other than his own academic interest. Contrast this source to sources like the Ludwig von Mises Institute or Lew Rockwell, which are clearly much more biased and issue-oriented. --AaronS 00:56, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Russell was a socialist. You've rejected sources because the author promoted capitalism. You're rejected books published by reputable publishers. By your standard, he is not neutral. He is also not a secondary source, but a primary one. A secondary source would compile the opinions of people like Russell. MrVoluntarist 01:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

And I don't know why you're saying I was unhelpful or uncivil. I stated the specific reason why that was removed -- biased and not secondary. You can then refer to your own standard. That was helpful, succint, and non-insulting. Having your feelings hurt because your standard was used against you is not the same as incivility. MrVoluntarist 01:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

From the Wikipedia entry on Bertrand Russell: "Continuing a family tradition in political affairs, he was a prominent liberal as well as a socialist and anti-war activist for most of his long life. Millions looked up to Russell as a prophet of the creative and rational life; at the same time, his stances on many topics were extremely controversial." Controversial =/= mainstream, neutral source. MrVoluntarist 01:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

You said:

• "You've rejected sources because the author promoted capitalism." Oh, really? When?

Raico, the journal citations I gave you. MrVoluntarist 01:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Just two? Now, was it because Raico is a capitalist, or was it because the source was published by the partisan Ludwig von Mises Institute? As for the journal citations, I do remember them, but I don't remember the full citations. Could you supply them again? --AaronS 01:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

There were three journal citations, so that makes four. Since I don't mind delay tactics and convenient selective forgetfulness, here they are: Sutter, Daniel. (1995). "Asymmetric Power Relations and Cooperation in Anarchy." Southern Economic Journal Vol. 61, No. 3 (January): pp. 602–13. NEXT: Hirshleifer, Jack. (1995). "Anarchy and Its Breakdown." The Journal of Political Economy Vol. 103, No. 1 (February): pp. 26–52. NEXT: Mueller, Dennis C. (1988). "Anarchy, the Market, and the State." Southern Economic Journal Vol. 54, No. 4 (April): pp. 821–30. MrVoluntarist 02:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Delay tactics? Convenient selective forgetfulness? Tell me, do you memorize every citation you read? And must you always bring the discussion to the next level of silly exaggerations, accusations, insinuations, and pettiness?

I had cited those sources before you came in. I cited them for you (I think multiple times) when you came in. We discussed them. Even if you didn't memorize them, you should have noted that the issue was settled and hunted the archives if you wanted them specifically. MrVoluntarist 15:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, let's take another look at these. Oh, and for the record, it's three citations, not four.

Alright, if you count the Southern journal as one, then Raico plus two journals is three.MrVoluntarist 15:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

The Raico one is not good enough for the reasons listed above --

What reasons listed above? MrVoluntarist 15:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

and notice that I don't care that Raico is a capitalist. Most historians are.

Another claim you hope no one will call you on. MrVoluntarist 15:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

The Southern Economic Journal sources seem legitimate, as does the Journal of Political Economy one. I think that my main problem was that the articles never discussion anarcho-capitalism as being related to classical anarchism in any way; they just refer to it as "anarchy." Well, international relations scholars refer to Hobbes' state of nature as being anarchy, and compare it to the reality of international relations, which they believe exist in anarchy. Should we include those conceptions of anarchy in this article on anarchism, as well? I would so so, if said IR scholars were comparing international anarchy to anarchism, but they are not. And it doesn't seem that these scholars are comparing market anarchy to anarchism, either. Perhaps I haven't read the articles thoroughly enough (in fact, I am certain of this). If you have, and know that I'm wrong, I invite you to show so. I don't care -- I just want this article to be accurate. --AaronS 15:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course you haven't read the articles thoroughly enough. Your idea of "reading an article thoroughly" is claiming that critics of an idea really support it, and hoping others won't notice the titles of the articles that establish they are critics. I bring this up repeatedly because it reveals bad faith. The reason they are relevant is because they are critiques of anarho-capitalist systems and reference them as "anarchy". That demonstrates that anarcho-capitalism has been referred to as anarchism. MrVoluntarist 15:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• "You're rejected books published by reputable publishers." Oh, really? When?

Off the top of my head: they weren't books, but the academic journal citations I gave you. MrVoluntarist 01:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey, that's double-dipping! --AaronS 01:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah, so it's okay to make a second false claim, as long as the refutation of the first applies to the second. MrVoluntarist 02:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• "He is also not a secondary source, but a primary one." I think that you misunderstand your definitions, here. Russell would be a primary source, I believe, if we were talking about, say, Russell's theories on the philosophy of language. Better yet, what RJII does with sources is akin to me writing or heavily editing the philosophy of language article to skew it towards Russell's take on language by selectively quoting Quine and Frege and then focusing too much on Russell. Catch my drift?

No. a secondary source would be Russell quoting the Anabaptists, but he didn't. MrVoluntarist 01:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Russell is either a secondary source or a tertiary source. If he were a primary source, it would mean he was living with the Anabaptists, or that he was an Anabaptist, or something to that extent. --AaronS 01:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

A primary source is the one from which the claim originates. Russell is the origin of the claim given, hence primary. MrVoluntarist 02:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

And where do you get this definition of primary source? How is it qualified? Because I believe that it is highly mistaken. --AaronS 15:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Russell was the first to mention communism in the context of Anabaptists (or at least it was original for him if someone indepedently so decided). That makes him primary for the claim that "communism = Anabaptism". If the claim were just about what Anabaptists did, the actual records from them would be primary, and references thereto would be secondary. You rejected the Tucker quote about how anarchists can support profit, interest, and rent, for not being secondary. MrVoluntarist 15:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• "Having your feelings hurt because your standard was used against you is not the same as incivility." What you're using is a straw man, because what you did has nothing to do with my standard. What you did was pure snarkiness, from my perspective. Maybe I'm wrong.

What? Now you're just grabbing terms at random. What do strawmen have to do with this? Just because you thought it was "snarky" (?), doesn't make it uncivil. There were no insults. There was no condescension. I made a revision and posted the specific reasons why. There's no way you can call that incivility, sorry. MrVoluntarist 01:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Incivility is subjective. I find snarkiness to be uncivil. That's kind of the definition. As for the straw man bit, your characterization of my source standards was a straw man. --AaronS 01:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, if you're going to fall back on an arbitrary standard no one can predict since it relies on reading your mind, I concede that I violate that one. But as far as I can see, the only way the statement in dispute can be construed as "offensive" is if we take "any instance of one's words being used against him" as "offensive". As for strawman, come on Aaron, you went to a good college, don't make mistakes like this. A strawman is when you distort someone's position and attack it. I did not distort your position. Your position was that biased, non-secondary sources should not come in. Now maybe that's a misapplication of your standard, but it was your standard. It's just that saying so is not as sexy as saying "Strawman!", I guess. MrVoluntarist 02:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Let's be honest, MrVoluntarist, the point of your edit was to somehow prove that my standard is a bad one; but, you misapplied my standard in doing so. That's a straw man. --AaronS 15:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

No, it wasn't. My intent was to maintain consistency. If that causes you to believe the standard you promoted is a bad one, all the worse for your standard. The fact that you interpreted someone applying your standard as a mockery of it shows you're on shaky ground. And there was no strawman. Read your own (repeatedly invoked) link. I did not distort your position. You agree biased sources are out. You are agree non-secondary sources are out. If there are exceptions to those rules, and applied that standard in ignorance of them, that would be a strawman. There were none. MrVoluntarist 15:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• "Controversial =/= mainstream, neutral source" Oh, so shall we discount Russell's take on the philosophy of language, too? You're completely missing the point. If you want to write "Murray Rothbard argues that the Anabaptists were Martian anarcho-capitalists (The Anabaptists, Martian Anarchists, Oxford University Press)..." go ahead. But the point of contention in this article has always been the bias towards anarcho-capitalism. That's why my standard has always been the following: (a) sources should come from neutral observers (i.e. why would Russell want to make Anabaptists look like anti-authoritarians?); (b) sources should be published by university presses, major publishing companies, or should be part of the canon of a well-known author neutral with regard to the subject at hand (Russell, I dare say, is a bit more well-known than Kevin Carson, for instance); and so on... --AaronS 01:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Right, and you're making my exact point for me, which is what I said many times a few archives ago -- what motive do some (allegedly) right wing minarchist academics have to promote anarcho-capitalism as a form of anarchism? They have none. If you want to ignore them on anarchism/ancap issues because they're right-wing minarchists, you have to ignore Russell on anarchism because he's a socialist and "has a stake" in making it seem like communism has a longer history than it does. MrVoluntarist 01:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

What? But the Russell quote has nothing to do with communism! It has to do with the anti-authoritarianism of Anabaptists. Since when were common communists and socialists anti-authoritarian? And do you seriously think that laissez-faire capitalists have no interest in promoting laissez-faire capitalism? --AaronS 01:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

The Russell quote has nothing to do with communism??? I thought you had given up making obviously false claims and hoping people didn't notice. (Anyone remember the "those critics of anarcho-capitalism are just anarcho-capitalists!" ?) This is the quote: "repudiated all law, since they held that the good man will be guided at every moment by the Holy Spirit...[f]rom this premise they arrive at communism...." Why include the communism part? To imply that communism is necessarily anarchist? As for your last question, you're missing the point (again). The relevant claim is that of anarcho-capitalism being anarchism. Yes, minarchists want to promote laissez-faire. No, they certainly don't care about whether anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism. MrVoluntarist 02:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Which is why none of your sources are relevant. They don't answer the question at hand. As for the Russell quote, I was talking about capital C communism, the kind of thing a non-libertarian socialist would support. But if you feel strongly about it, we can remove the communism bit until someone else can substantiate it. --AaronS 15:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they do answer the question at hand. (At least fifth time I've explained this to you.) The question at hand is, do mainstream, scholarly publications treat anarcho-capitalism as a form of anarchism? They do. And as for Russell, you can't just clip the communism bit. That the passage was intended to promote an idea part of his controversial philosophy (that communism has a long history) means the whole source is tainted for purposes of categorizing the philosophy of Anabaptists. MrVoluntarist 15:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Does snarkiness constitute incivility? everyone asks me what 'snarky' means. it's a term i stole from my friend laura. all those canadian chicks are so snarky, but apparently some of yankee ones are too, so it fits. the urban dictionary defines it as an adjective meaning 'a witty mannerism, personality, or behavior that is a combination of sarcasm and cynicism. usually accepted as a complimentary term'. not a bad definition, but goes on to point out that general snarkiness is sometimes mistaken for a snotty or arrogant attitude. snarks are so misunderstood. sure, snarky can be bitchy. snarky can be moody. but underlying snarkiness is this feeling of being amused even in the midst of irritation. and i'd like to expand on the definition." snarkychick. My problem with the Russell quote is that it is retrojection, the anabaptists were not part of a social movement called anarchism, and as religious group they did not express themselves either philosophically or politically - in the sense that politics emerges with the rise of the bourgeoisie and les politiques as part of secularisation which took place in Europe. Check the Anabaptist page, and it refers to Kropotkin's remark as regards anarchism which is clearly POV as is Russell's. To my mind the anabaptists were neither anarchist nor communist, but certainly Christian. The desire of anarchists, communist or otghers for that matter to retroject their beliefs in an ahistorical way is a feature of political philosophies worthy of mention without suggesting that it has vailidity. Harrypotter 14:56, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Reiteration

Since it doesn't seem that MrVoluntarist is actually responding to my points and concerns, I'm going to outline them again:

• He says that I've rejected sources "because they are capitalist." I have never done such a thing. He claims that I rejected the Ralph Raico source because Raico is a capitalist; that's false. I reject it because it comes from the highly partisan Ludwig von Mises Institute, a favorite reference of anarcho-capitalists.
• He says that I have rejected "books published by reputable publishers." I have never done such a thing. He claims that I rejected three academic journal articles simply because I didn't like them; that's false, too. He brought up the articles to prove that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism. The articles, however, do not compare anarcho-capitalism to anarchism, as far as I know. The refer to it as "anarchy," and make no mention of anarchism as it is commonly understppd, much in the same way that realist international relations scholars refer to international relations as being in a state of anarchy. I asked in good faith for MrVoluntarist to correct me if I am mistaken; after all, the burden of proof is on him, not me. Instead of doing so, he decided that it would be more fruitful for the discussion at hand to ridicule me and claim that I am acting in bad faith. They do not sufficiently answer the question "Is anarcho-capitalism a form of anarchism?" I am not saying that this question can't be answered, I'm simply arguing that, since MrVoluntarist seems so bent on somehow proving me to be a bad-faith hypocrite, the reason why I rejected them as sources is because they aren't relevant to that question at all. The word "anarchy" is used in many ways, many of which have nothing to do with "anarchism."
• He claims that a primary source is "the one from which the claim originates," whatever that means. Regardless, it's false. The article on tertiary source explains: "Where a primary source presents material from a first-hand witness to a phenomenon, and a secondary source provides commentary, analysis and criticism of primary sources, a tertiary source is a selection and compilation of primary and secondary sources." The article on primary source explains further: "These often include works created by someone who witnessed first-hand or was part of the historical events that are being described, but can also include physical objects like coins, journal entries, letters, or newspaper articles." Moreover, the article on secondary source explains yet further: "Secondary sources are texts based on primary sources, and involve generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation. In the study of history, secondary sources are those writings which were not penned contemporaneously with the events in question." Russell is not a primary source with regard to describing the Anabaptists. Anabaptists = 16th century. Russell = 20th century. Russell was not over 400 years old when he died.

So, that should clear things up. I also ask you, MrVoluntarist, to try to refrain from making exaggerations and accusations that cannot be supported by facts; it only serves to dilute the important discussion about the content of this article. This talk page would be more useful if it were filled less with attempts at character defamation and more with civil dialogue about what should be included in the article. Thanks. --AaronS 16:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

15 minute revert rule?

MrVoluntarist, you argue that there should be an explanation on the talk page less than 15 minutes after editing the page. I think that this is a sound policy. You should follow it, too, though. After all, you changed the page, then did not explain your change on the talk page; my revert came roughly 40 minutes later. Your revert came 16 minutes after mine. While I do admit that I greedily exceeded the 15 minute policy by 1 minute, I hope that you show as much generosity as I have in the future. --AaronS 01:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

My change didn't need a talk page component; I said everything that was necessary to explain the reasoning behind the change in the revert note. It wasn't very complicated. Now, I agree a fifteen minute rule is arbitrary, but I also feel it's too long to take to justify a change for which the revision note is insufficient. When you make a change, you should have thought out your justification before making it. You clearly did not do that. When I first came back to my computer, I saw you made a change that referenced the talk page. I checked it. I waited. It seemed like you had forgotten about the talk page, so I reverted. Please try to avoid sending Wikipedia editors on wild goose chases for explanations. MrVoluntarist 01:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey, not all of us have superfast computers and Internet connections. The textboxes necessary for editing on Wikipedia are extremely slow on my computer. Please try to have some patience. --AaronS 01:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd belive you except for your previous griping about your substandard wifi. You sans-culotte, you!MrVoluntarist 02:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, a USB wireless adapter is a luxury of the bourgeoisie alright. --AaronS 15:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Griping about the "wifi in this area not being good enough" is about as bourgeois as you can get, I'm afraid. MrVoluntarist 15:42, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

And as for why I reverted "after the fact", it's because you still hadn't justified your double standard before re-inserting the quote. MrVoluntarist 01:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Uh, actually, I did justify my change. And it's not a double-standard. Please, enough with the incendiary language. Do you want to bicker, or do you want to improve the article? --AaronS 01:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

We had not finished discussing me matter. Wikipedia is about consensus. MrVoluntarist 02:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Which is why you shouldn't delete the work of other editors without discussion... I find it ironic that you are so apt to accuse me of double-standards. --AaronS 15:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

You also shouldn't add sources that violate your own standards. Some people would interpret that as POV pushing. MrVoluntarist 15:42, 28 January 2006 (UTC)