Talk:Anarchism

This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.

Talk archives & Open Tasks

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

Another Suggestion

Thanks for making those changes, Sarge. Now, one more concern: the phrasing "the 20th century saw the formulation of the contentious anarcho-capitalism."

The adjective "contentious" seems to modify "anarcho-capitalism" rather than whether anarcho-capitalism is really anarchism. This would likely imply to new readers that there is something internal to anarcho-capitalism causing dispute. What we really mean, of course, is that there is a dispute about whether anarcho-capitalism qualifies as anarchism - quite a different thing. One could properly talk about, e.g. contentious propaganda of the deed, since prop of the deed involves violence and contention, but not anarcho-capitalism, if you catch my drift. Would you clarify what contentious is modifying by changing it to something like: the 20th century saw a contentious/disputed/controversial (take your pick) formulation of anarchism called anarcho-capitalism?

Further tweaking it: the word "capitalism" itself is, as you know, defined differently by different people, and has changed considerably over time. So why not specify what is different about this formulation? In particular, inserting the word "pro-market" (or "modern pro-market" to distinguish it from older Individualist Anarchist pro-market notions) explains even better. Thus we now have, the 20th century saw a contentious, modern pro-market formulation called anarcho-capitalism.

IMO the last one is best, most precise, etc. But at a minimum the adjective "contentious" should be moved, as in the first suggestion.

Also, anarcho-capitalism should be a link, since it is the first occurance. Finally, what's with the double reference to Encarta in the same sentence? The "and to this day" seems gratuitous, and can be omitted. Thus we have:

Anarchism traditionally and popularly is described as anti-capitalist, though the 20th century saw a contentious, modern pro-market formulation called anarcho-capitalism.

BillyBong 02:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I agree the wording is poor. I don't know about "the rise" (since it suggests it's older), and "modern pro-market" is confusing. How about "although the 1970s saw the formulation of a contentious free market philosophy called anarcho-capitalism"? Though there might be a better word than philosophy. Sarge Baldy 02:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, revision: "though the 1970s saw a contentious, free market formulation called anarcho-capitalism." Sarge Baldy 02:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Excellent. Thanks. BillyBong 02:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

No problem. It's not like we're actively sitting here trying to figure out how to marginalize your POV. I'm very open (maybe too open) to compromise and cooperate and find fair solutions. But this really just isn't the best article to jump into and rewrite whole sections unilaterally. That's really the main thing that bothers people. Sarge Baldy 02:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Sarge, you've been very accomodating, and you're not my personal secretary, so there's no need for you to make the following edits. Most are relatively minor, and can wait until protection is lifted. Meanwhile, discussion is invited.

• Somewhere along the line, the translation of archon was changed from "ruler" to "chief." "Ruler" is a more precise translation - the one given here in Wikipedia.
• Origins and predecessors can be trimed. In the second sentence, "Following classical socialist theory" is gratuitous; the claim following is not part of classical socialist theory (esp for statist socialists), and can easily (and usually is) supported without reference to socialism. The first sentence about Kropotin's book is relevant, but it shouldn't be the lead sentence since, without previous explanation, it doesn't seem to relate to the section title. Also, "tribal societies" should be changed to "hunter-gatherer societies" to make it clear we are not speaking of e.g. modern Cherokees in Oklahoma that live consumerist American lifestyles, run casinos, and get govt aid for being indians. I would stike the egalitarian claim since many feminists would reject most such societies as paternalistic; besides, the relative equality of resources implies a degree of egalitarianism anyway. I suggest modifying the first paragraph to:

Anarchists argue that the State is not a natural phenomenon, and that hunter-gatherer societies lacked division of labour, accumulated wealth, decreed law, and had relatively equal access to resources. In Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution, Peter Kropotkin argued that mutual aid was a natural feature of animal and human relations.

• In the second paragraph of the same section, replace "earlier" (than what?) with "pre-modern" or "ancient."
• The Proudhon section is very redundant, e.g. it says he opposes capitalism six times, and that doesn't include his direct quotes, or descriptions of mutualism which clearly show incompatability with capitalism. It smacks of an editorial agenda, or overreaction, or defensiveness. Since "capitalism" is such a connotative and disputed term, I'd hack out most references to the "C" word and let Proudhon's explanations of possession and mutualism speak for themselves.
• In the Other issues section, the Anti-Racism, Anti-Fascism, and Anti-Oppression subsection, the second half of the paragraph should be deleted, starting with "Anti-Racist Action is not an anarchist group..." (Neither is Zapatista, strictly speaking, and anarcha-feminism is already covered.) Cut, trim, snip.
• The whole Cultural Phenomena section can go. If someone is really attached to it, they can make it a separate article, with a See Also link in this one.
• Probably that book they use in college philosophy courses, "In Defense of Anarchism," should be included in the book section. It's really pretty good, and academically respectable.

BillyBong 03:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

UK encart article does not say what is claimed

It does not say anarchism was "traditionally anti-capitalist". It should be changed so that the article claims the source says it was originally associated with socialism and communism. Also, why does the article say "contentious anarcho-capitalism". Like anarchism isn't contentious. (Sorry if that's misspelled.) MrVoluntarist 04:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Well you know, anarcho-capitalism is a little too radical for most anarchists. Anything too far out of the supposed "mainstream" makes them uncomfortable. RJII 04:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see what's so radical about it. It's just a consistent form of libertarian capitalism. Radicalism means wanting major changes. Anarcho-capitalism hardly wants to change anything. It thinks things are pretty good. Hell, most anarcho-capitalists think they can get where they want to go through voting. Sarge Baldy 04:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

wha? Anarcho-capitalists ... hardly want to change ... anything? Anarcho-capitalists ... favor ... voting? Um, was that post supposed to be satire, or...? MrVoluntarist 04:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's not mainstream anarchism supposedly. RJII 04:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The short 1 page US Encarta (ref 2) says the anarchism is "basically anticapitalist." The three page UK encarta (ref 1) says about individualist anarchism: "Since World War II this tradition has been reborn and modified in the United States as anarcho-capitalism." Neither refers to ancap as contentious. So the sentence in the intro should be changed from:

It has also traditionally and popularly been described as anti-capitalist[1][2], though the latter 20th century saw a contentious, free market formulation called anarcho-capitalism.

to

The latter 20th century saw a free market formulation called anarcho-capitalism[1], though it is traditionally and popularly described as anti-capitalist[2].

- Faithless

Exactly! Thank you. Of course, the US Encarta source has its own problems, but we can discuss that once we agree your phrasing is better. MrVoluntarist 17:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The 'it' in your phrasing is ambiguous (obviously it refers to 'anarchism', but grammatically it looks like it refers to 'anti-capitalism'). Maybe:

Although the later 20th century saw the development of a free market formulation called anarcho-capitalism[1], anarchism is traditionally and popularly described as anti-capitalist[2].

VoluntarySlave 19:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Very good. Why don't you go ahead and make that change. It seems fair and neutral - as opposed to AaronS's POV deletion of the citatation he doesn't like. - Faithless ne BillyBong ne anon ne ... (I was right the first time; It doesn't make sense to register.)

Thanks. That was quick. But we've lost the free market and anarcho-capitalism links. Could you put those back in? - Faithless

Anarchism, Possession and Property

We could consolidate much of the stuff into one section. As it is we get incomplete descriptions of Proudhon's views on the subject, and then later Tucker's views, and then later Kropotkin's views, etc. Bringing these together would help readers see the recurring themes in each system. Also, the text doesn't explain possession very well. Finally, the 'Theory of Property' from what excepts I have available, seems closer to Georgism than to propertarianism in the usual sense. Jacob Haller 14:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

You are right - possession is not explained very well at all. In the Proudhon section, the explanation given is confusing and contradictory. (But Proudhon may have liked that!). As BillyBong suggested above, the whole Proudhon section needs to be revamped. Maybe there needs to be a sidebar explaining the similarities and differences between private property and possession as mutualists use the terms. Or simply include a short explanation in the Proudhon section. E.g. Proudhon used the term "possession" to refer to a variant of private property in which ownership required continuous possession and/or use. In his early writings, he used "property" to mean ownership failing to satisfy the continued use provision. - Faithless

We ought to avoid using one word (property) in two very different senses. Like 'wage labor' 'private property' can cause confusion. I'm not sure how to set up tables here, but perhaps one listing different viewpoints (Proudhon's, Tucker's, and various modern groupings), their standards for legit ownership, their terminology for legit ownership (possession or property for Proudhon, possession for most modern anarchists) and their terminology for illegitimate ownership (property for Proudhon and for most modern anarchists). Another approach would focus on the basic rationales for these systems; to preserve economic autonomy ('property is freedom') including equal access, to reflect a right of individuals to the products of their labor, to reflect a right of individuals to the requirements of life, etc. Jacob Haller 00:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

JacobHaller wrote: "We ought to avoid using one word (property) in two very different senses."

I agree. One easy way around it is to use the standard Wikipedia meaning of property, and use the French propriété for Proudhon's non-standard meaning. Thus, modifying the suggestion above we get:

Proudhon used the term "possession" to refer to property in which ownership required continuous possession and/or use, and "propriété" to mean property failing to satisfy the continued use provision.

What do you think? - Faithless

I guess I'm more interested in the ways people use the words right now. Thanks. Jacob Haller 14:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

??? You can't have it both ways. Right now, people use the word property in two very different senses. If you want to avoid that ambiguity, then we need to have a convention for our article. SteveRwanda 16:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Very, very good point. There is significant ambiguity in word usage, due to how terms have changed over time and people have adopted new terminology. Not just property and possession, but capitalism, liberalism, even anarchism. I don't know any easy fix for an article that has to use so many terms like that. MrVoluntarist 18:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

This is interesting stuff, but to my mind we already go into too much depth on it in an article that is overlong. I would actually trim all but the barest references to theories of property out of this page, and suggest people who are interested in the subject work on it in other pages. The details of Proudhon's theory in the Proudhon page, more general and comparative stuff in pages on theories of property in general, or perhaps on a new page about anarchist theories of property. Or maybe the anarchist economics page.Bengalski 19:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

That was my thought. This article is a bit heavy on these issues, and too heavy in general. Which isn't to say it isn't an important discussion to get into, but it might be necessary to spill things onto a new page instead. Sarge Baldy 19:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I have an idea. What if we, when at all possible, use some specifying adjective with the ambiguous terms. For example, instead of simply "property" when we are using it in the mutualist/socialist illegitimate type of ownership sense, we use the term "allodial property." Instead of "capitalism" in its not legitimate according to socialism sense, we use the term "statist capitalism." Instead of capitalism in its legitimate according to anarcho-capitalism sense, we use the term "stateless capitalism." Then we go through the article and specify wherever such terms stand alone. This would not increase article length except for the few specifying adjectives, so Bengalski's and SargeBaldy's concerns are hopefully addressed.SteveRwanda 20:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. It's cleaner, easier to read, and gets us from semantics to the point. Sarge Baldy 20:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

At least until mercantilists start calling tariffs an integral part of "stateless capitalism", their chosen name for their system ;-) Seriously, this suggestion would be a tremendous improvement. MrVoluntarist 21:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not so keen on this. As far as I understand it 'allodial property' is a very specific legal term, and I'm far from convinced that Proudhon or any other anarchist writer on property was much concerned with this narrow legal concept. I don't see where introducing 'statist/stateless capitalism' would help the article. Where specifically do you want to introduce these changes?Bengalski 22:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Where to specify "capitalism":

The first self-labelled anarchist, 2nd P:

"opposed capitalism" to "opposed statist capitalism"

3rd P: "capitalism" to "statist capitalism"

same for every occurrance of "capitalism" except in the quote

Anarchism and feminism

2nd P: "capitalism" to "statist capitalism"

Anarcho-capitalism

1st P: "interest or capitalism" to "interest or stateless capitalism"

2nd P: "capitalism" to "stateless capitalism" in two places

Other issues

2nd P and last P: "capitalism" to "statist capitalism"

SteveRwanda 23:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

On Proudhon I'd propose this: give a bare statement using his own terms in the first para, cut out all other discussion of the theory, and refer the interested reader elsewhere. Eg something like this:

Pierre-Joseph Proudhon is commonly regarded as the first self-proclaimed anarchist, a label he adopted in his groundbreaking work What is Property?, published in 1840. It is for this reason that some claim Proudhon as the founder of modern anarchist theory. Proudhon developed the theory of spontaneous order in society, where organization emerges without a central coordinator imposing its own idea of order against the wills of individuals acting in their own interests; his famous quote on the matter is, "Liberty is the mother, not the daughter, of order."

In What is Property? Proudhon answers with the famous accusation "Property is theft." In this work he opposed the institution of "property" (propriété), as he understood the term, but supported an alternative form of ownership he called "possession". Proudhon's theory of property is highly complex, and its interpretation the subject of much debate. (See XXX for more detail.)Bengalski 22:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

That's fine but it it should be noted that later he dropped the idea of "possession" and supported "private property" as protection against the state. RJII 23:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

By my partial reading, he uses use/possession as the basic theory with original production as a second test for produced goods and geoism as a second test for land. He changes his terminology, using property in the sense of possession, but not his position. Jacob Haller 04:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

No, he changed his position. As the source in the article says, he eventually "came to consider that liberty could be guaranteed only if property ownership was not subject to any limitation save that of size" He even allowed land to be inherited. The source says he "reverses his earlier preferences for 'possession' rather than 'property' as a form of ownership, arguing instead that the individual must be absolutely sovereign over his own land." (Edwards, Stewart. Introduction to Selected Writings of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Anchor Books, Doubleday & Company, Inc. 1969, p. 33) RJII 05:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

"Allowed"? I thought he was very passionately in favor of the right of inheritance. MrVoluntarist 05:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. RJII 05:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

"Simple Justice, I said in my first Memoir, requires that equal division of land shall not operate only at the outset. If there is to be no abuse, it must be maintained from generation to generation. This applies to all extractive industries. ... If the landowners derive an income for themselves, this is an abuse." - Proudhon, Theory of Property pp. 18-19. Jacob Haller 13:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I hope that one (shorter, clearer) subsection can replace the (long, scattered) references in the individual subsections. Even if not (1) the critique of (presently-existing) property represent one of the starting points for anarchist theory (2) and often one of the distinguishing features between anarchist theories. I now agree with the two-word suggestion, i.e. possession, (possession) property, (geoist) property, (Lockean) property, (feudal) property, (non-possession) property, etc. This could work even without moving everything. Jacob Haller 04:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I added the suggestions made in this section. Mainly somewhat shortening Proudhon and modifying "capitalism" where appropriate. WickedWanda 22:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Were the changes to the Proudhon section necessary, appropriate, or discussed above? Anyway, check 'General Idea of the Revolution in the 19th Century' pp. 260-261 (or Edwards and Fraser p. 73). Proudhon distinguishes between (feudal) property and possession/(possessive) property, even if he first called the latter 'possession' and later called it 'property.' Jacob Haller 00:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

It has been discussed in this section. But you are definitely right that possession needs to be in there, so I put it back in. WickedWanda 04:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Encarta?

Can one encyclopedia use another one as a source? --cesarb 21:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, of course it can. We have quite a lot of articles that were based directly off other encyclopedia articles. Admittedly it's a bit incestual in a way, but encyclopedias are generally a bit more neutral than most other publications that could be dug up. Sarge Baldy 21:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

These are articles that were copied from older encyclopedias, not that use them as a source. --cesarb 15:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

True. Though I guess the questions I would ask is whether the source is reliable or neutral. I would generally consider an encyclopedia an adequate secondary source, if not the best one. Though it might be a question worth addressing at WP:RS. Sarge Baldy 16:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

IWW and 3rd International

AFAIK the IWW rejected involvedment in the 3rd International and was never 'pro-Comintern.' The pro-Comintern members left to form the CP while the neitral and anti-Comintern members stayed with the IWW. Can anyone cite sources for the assertion in the article? Jacob Haller 00:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Theory of Property

There have been recent attempts to delete the anarcho-capitalist position on property. This does not seem reasonable, since property is a major consideration for anarchists. Should we delete Proudhon's or Bakunin's theories of property, too, to be consistent? That said, I think

Rothbardian anarcho-capitalists believe that private property can result only from being the product of labor and that it may only be transferred by trade, gift, or abandonment (after a given period of time).

should be rephrased to

Most anarcho-capitalists believe that private property can originate only from being the product of labor, and may only be legitimately transferred by trade, gift, or abandonment (after a given period of time).

I'm going to fiddle with this wording just a teensy bit. --Christofurio 18:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

SteveRwanda 10:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. That's crucial. We have explanations of the communist anarchist position on property, as well as for the labor-value individualists. The property philosophy of anarcho-capitalism is essential. And, it only takes one sentence to explain. (By the way, I think your version is an improvement.) RJII 15:37, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Everyone get over it, Anarchism exsists. Just because you don't want it to doesn't mean its going away.

Agorism

Any objection to putting Agorism on the template? What about a subsection in the article? WickedWanda 18:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I object. It's a wingnut fringe of a wingnut fringe, neither of which have much to do with anarchism. --Tothebarricades 16:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

As if anarchism itself is not a "wingnut fringe." RJII 17:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not convinced it's important enough in itself, but I suspect it can serve to bring out important features in related traditions. For one thing, agorism splits the possession-to-property left-right axis from the workers' revolution-to-capitalist hegemony left-right axis, with the Elmer Smiths of the world on the right of the former and the left of the latter. Jacob Haller 02:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Right. In Wikipedia's Le Guinian terminology, agorism is the middle "soft propertarian" ground between anti-propertarian socialists and hard propertarian capitalists. It is tolerant to both community property and private property. WickedWanda 20:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd say no to inclusion in the template; in historical terms, it's just not significant the way, say, anarcho-syndicalism &c are. I'd be open to inclusion as a small paragraph in "Other branches and offshoots" - since that includes such notable non-movements as Saul Newman's post-Anarchism. Or alternatively, as a short subsection under anarcho-capitalism (not to equate the two, but the one emerged from the other). Not as its own section though. Bacchiad 14:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Semiprotection template

I don't see it in the article, but I see it in the source. WTF? Perhaps it needs to be "sprotected" rather than "semiprotected". WickedWanda 20:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Hm, apparently the banner has been replaced with that lock icon in the top right. Which I guess is less intrusive. Sarge Baldy 21:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, there it is! WickedWanda 22:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

AC removed

Why was Anarcho-capitalism removed from this article? AC deserves just as much time in the article as i.e. anarchist communism. I don't know how to revert pages, so could someone please fix this? I understand that many self-proclaimed anarchists feel that AC is not really anarchism, but wikipedia is not the place to voice your philosophies, it is the place to present the facts behind a subject from a Neutral Point of View and there is a strong enough of an anarcho-capitalist presence which claims to be anarchistic and this deserves to be mentioned.

I fixed it. Twice. Apparently (look at Talk History) Max is a known edit warrior. I can only undo one more time today, so someone else may have to take over. WickedWanda 19:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

YOU are not a wikipedian Hogeye go away, stop vandalizing the article with original reseach and POV You swear, personal attack, and get frequently banned as well as using sockpuppets ad infinitum. -- maxrspct leave a message 19:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

"Their true place (anarcho-capitalists) is in the group of right-wing libertarians described in chptr3"  : (using political ideas by barbara goodwin ISBN 0471935840 [1]) -- maxrspct leave a message 19:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

If you feel that A/C is not a proper form of anarchism, please explain your position under the A/C section of the page, but do not delete it. Your single source (which has questionable reliability as the author does not even have a page on wikipedia nor is the book in question readily available) does not call for blatant omission of information relevant to the subject of the article. Two-Bit Sprite 20:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

You ca't self-ref wikipedia Twobit.. I have it right here.. but that quote is the pertinent one. -- maxrspct leave a message 21:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

In case anyone hadn't noticed, there are sources attached from scholars saying anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism. If anyone needs more source let me know. I have plenty more. It's not original research so there's not justification to delete it. RJII 21:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Independant non-fringe sources? I doubt it. -- maxrspct leave a message 21:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you just look for yourself? They're right there in the footnotes. They're certainly not what one would call "fringe sources" RJII 21:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, I'm starting an Anarcho-capitalism article in Wikiquote and will begin listing sources. That will help prevent people from trying to censor anarcho-capitalism out of this article in the future. Here it is so far: [http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism] RJII 21:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Ha haaa.. Typical .. - none are non-fringe. U have admitted yerself that Peter Marshall's book as inaccurate.. so....... -- maxrspct leave a message 22:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The last laugh is mine. You'll NEVER be able to censor anarcho-capitalism from this article. When I'm going in about a week you'll still be here waging your futile war. Have fun. I hope they pay you well. You wouldn't be sensless enough to do this stuff for free would you? RJII 22:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Never!

It's all about living life RJ, whoever you are. Getting paid? Yeah it's like Orwell's 1984 > speak/write speak/write speak/write speak/write speak/write speak/write speak/write speak/write speak/write speak/write speak/write speak/write speak/write speak/write speak/write speak/write speak/write - maxrspct leave a message 22:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I find it curious why you care. Anarcho-capitalism is obviously very different from all the other branches of anarchism, so why do you wish so much for it to be associated with them? -- infinity0 22:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Because it is a form anarchism. Each form of anarchism is very different from other forms, in my opinion, as well. I would replace anarcho-communism just the same if someone tried to delete it. RJII 22:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Cultural phenomena

It's been suggest by a couple of people that this section be removed. Any objections?WickedWanda 19:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Who are the people? A bunch of sockpuppents of Hogeye? The Ungovernable Force 21:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Probably. I hadn't heard anyone else say anything about wanting to get rid of it. Sarge Baldy 02:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

"big edit" by Bacchiad

I have to say, I kind of liked what Bacchiad did to the page (prior to its reversion), it at least started to restore some consistancy in structure, however I think some improbements could be made to it, for example I feel that anarcho-capitalism is downplayed in as a subheading under "Issues" and I feel that the tension between social anarchists and capitalistic anarchists (and even between say mutualists, agorists and syndicalists) that it should have its own heading, maybe...? Two-Bit Sprite 21:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I like it as well, and think it lays things out better (with a movement section, followed by one for individualism, and then one for issues). It's less cluttered. And I don't feel it downplays anarcho-capitalism, as if there's any word to describe a/c's place within anarchism, it's "disputed". Putting it against anarchism's long opposition to capitalism doesn't seem unfair to me, it seems to put things more into perspective. It's also a lot slimmer, which would be a nice change. Sarge Baldy 21:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Vision Thing, you have not given a sufficient reason for the reversion. Bacciad has obviously spent a long time making that edit; don't just blindly revert it without even giving a reason - that's rude. From the first glance, whatever its faults, I think it is better than the long version, and it is more easy to make changes to Bacciad's version than the long version. -- infinity0 22:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

RJII, your reversion is illogical. Why don't you re-insert the ancap section instead of reverting? -- infinity0 22:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

May I also point you to WP:NPOV where minority/insignificant viewpoints are not necessary. Anarcho-feminism, religious anarchism, etc, were all deleted too. The edit is not an anti-capitalist edit, so please don't think that. It's an attempt to improve the article. -- infinity0 22:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Looking over the version now, I see that all the previous sections are still there. Instead of carving anarchism up into distinct schools, it goes over the issues within anarchism. I think this is a much better format since it avoids being black and white. Your ancap information is still in the article, so don't worry. -- infinity0 22:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I prefer the issue-based style as well. I think it works better to look at "capitalism" and say what different anarchists have had to say about it rather than looking at each different group of anarchists and saying what they had to say about each specific issue. There's too much overlap to look at individual traditions. There's movements and history, and then there's specific issues. And that's all we should be concerned with. Sarge Baldy 22:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

We've had this way of organizing the article before, with main sections: Precursors, Socialist/Workers/Communist and Individualist/Liberal. I like it too, now that the intro includes both the anti-state definition and the trad anti-state plus anti-capitalist definition. Looking good for the moment. WickedWanda 02:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

No, anarcho-capitalism does not belong in the intro. The overwhelming current of anarchist thought and practice has been fundamentally anti-capitalist. Ancap deserves no more mention in the introduction than other small, late-anarchist groupings, like Green Syndicalism or Anarcho-Primitivism. Bacchiad 02:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and I don't think it should have its own section. It should be listed along with the issue of capitalism, so that people can better understand its disputed place. Sarge Baldy 02:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay. In a way it's better that way, since the anti-capitalist disclaimers are preceeding (rather than mixed in with) the ancap paragraphs. WickedWanda 05:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Capitalism vs. capitalism... common ground?

Is the capitalism supported by Anarcho-capitalists the same capitalism that non-a-c anarchists oppose? Don't members of both groups oppose state supported capitalism, which is modern day capitalism? I mean, in a truly anarchist free market, would we have the giant multi-national powerful capitalist corporations that we have today? Or are they creations supported and subsidized by the government infrastructure equally opposed by all types of anarchists? In other words, are anacaps and "traditional" anarchists really different in their beliefs? When anarchists say they oppose capitalism, what exactly do they oppose? What kind of capitalism do the anacaps support? Could there be more common ground here than many realize? --Serge 06:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Anarchists oppose capitalism, regardless of whether it's tied to the state, because it's seen as inherently exploitative and hierarchical. But then, anarchists not only have a problem with the capitalism of a/c, but also that it supports the existence of many other authoritarian institutions anarchism has long fought against, such as police forces, military, organized religion, bureaucracies, and just about anything else. In fact, all anarcho-capitalists really are interested in is the privatization of the state, not its elimination. Which is pretty far out from any "traditional" anarchist perspective. So no, there really isn't any common ground. Sad as it is to say, trying to reconcile traditional anarchism with anarcho-capitalism is about as easy as trying to reconcile it with the state. (And that's speaking as someone who was a longtime libertarian capitalist and anarcho-capitalist.) Sarge Baldy 06:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

But how does one prevent capitalism from occuring naturally without resorting to a state to control it? Capitalism, ultimately, is simply the free trade of goods and labor, is it not? If a baker wants to hire help, what's to prevent him from doing so in a hypothetical traditional anarchist society? What if he's successful, and opens multiple bakeries, hiring more and more people? At some point (if not when he buys his first pound of flour or sells his first loaf of bread), he is a capitalist. How do "traditional anarchists" prevent such capitalism from flourishing if not with the power of the state? And if they do prevent natural capitalism from flourishing with the power of the state, how are they anarchists?

Also, is privatization of the state not its elimination? I mean, how is a privatized state a state? That is, if individuals are paying for various "traditional state" services (water, streets, police, fire, etc.) directly (or collectively through contracts entered voluntarily, such as part of a home owner's association), where is "the state"? Is it not eliminated when it is so privatized? In the Soviet Union, milk production and distribution was a state service. In capitalist societies this function is privatized. Does not the privatization of this service eliminate the state, at least with respect to that service? Wouldn't that be true for any state function that is privatized in an a-c society? If all state functions were privatized, would that not eliminate the state? If not, how would it be manifisted? --Serge 07:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you assume too much that capitalism arises up naturally if there is no authoritarian force there to "squelch" it. On the contrary, depending on how you organize society, capitalism and competition might be completely nonsensical. That's the whole point. It's not about simply throwing out the state, and making a few tinkers, it's about radically reorganizing society in such a way that it is no longer compatible with a capitalist economic structure. That means eliminating currency, eliminating surplus, eliminating anything that poses a threat to egalitarian relations. Designing a society in which capitalism makes no sense. It's not hard to dig around and find societies that are organized this way. For example, the Piaroa [2] and the Paliyans [3] both see competition as leading to the breakdown of the order and individuality they value.

The thing with anarcho-capitalism is, they want all the functions of government, they even want laws, they want police, they want formalized education, they want a military. They want everything the state has to offer, except maybe taxes or the draft. That works as a consistent version of social contract theory or classic liberalism but hardly fits well into the anarchist tradition, which has criticized the control of individuals in all institutions. Anarchists weren't simply opposed to the state as a formal legal entity, but also to each and every one of its functions. Anarcho-capitalists by contrast believe very deeply in what the state has to offer, but just don't like the idea of the state as a monopoly, and think corporations can do a better job competing over each of the functions.

Anarcho-capitalists believe in private police forces who legally enforce capitalism, which just shows how unstable it is on its own. Other anarchists don't believe in "enforcing" an anti-capitalist economic system, because they see that as non-anarchist. But if they did, if they had police forces that controlled capitalism, beating people with a stick for trying to sell things, that would be the mirror of anarcho-capitalism – in which you beat people for taking "private property" – and essentially just as anarchist, or just as non-anarchist, as the case might be. On the contrast, anarchists believe in a system that works without having to restort back to authoritarian social controls. Sarge Baldy 08:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand that relatively small human societies can survive and even thrive to a certain extent without the money and liberty that enables the efficient division of labor required to sustain modern populations. But do you envision hundreds of millions cooperating and thriving without the free trade of goods of services that is the hallmark of capitalism? What would motivate individuals to act in the highly productive, efficient and creative ways required to benefit the anonymous greater good if not to better the lives of themselves and their families the way only capitalism motivates? It is understandable to feel revulsion for the arguably unnatural complexities of modern life, but how else could we have the luxury of the time and technology for two complete strangers to even have this type of discussion? --Serge 15:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

You are confusing free trade with capitalism. You can have capitalism without free trade or free trade without capitalism or you could have both or neither. Basicly anarchists view capitalism as other -isms like racism (opression based on race), sexism (opression based on gender), thus capitalism is opression based on financial status. // Liftarn

I am not prepared to concede that I'm confused, but I will admit that I do not see a distinction between capitalism and free trade. That traditional anarchists "see" capitalism as oppressive does not mean it is, nor that it is anything other than free trade. Trade that is truly free among human individuals who differ in drive, personality, values, skills, natural talent, family/personal support, creativity, intelligence, work ethic, etc. will inevitably and necessarily lead to differences in material status between individuals. The greater the population in which free trade is engaged, the greater the largest difference in material status is to be expected. In a village of a few dozen people, that has limited to no trading with others, the differences between the richest and the poorest can be expected to be relatively small. In a free market with over 5 billion participants, the richest will inevitably have substantially more financial status than the poorest. With free trade, this is inevitable. Whether the negotiation advantages and disadvantages enabled by differences in material/financial status constitutes "oppression", or even something we should try to avoid, is a matter of opinion. But even if you wanted to avoid it, I don't see how you could except to inhibit free trade by force. --Serge 16:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

This is not the place to discuss whether or not ancapism is or is not a "true" form of anarchism. Anarcho-capitalism does exist and it does claim to be a form of anarchism, and thus anarcho-capitalism as a theory is relevant to the topic of anarchism. Period. Two-Bit Sprite 13:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

What makes you think we're discussing whether ancapism is a "true" form of anarchism? --Serge 15:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Sarge Baldy: "The thing with anarcho-capitalism is, they want all the functions of government, they even want laws, they want police, they want formalized education, they want a military."

This seems to conflate services with function of government. Surely even anarcho-socialists don't want to be mugged or killed, and want to exercise their right to possession property (or to take according to their needs, as the case may be.) Ansocs might do this spontaneously, or have a mutual association or co-op to provide this type of security service. I don't see why a firm that provides such a service is a State, but a mutual or co-op that provides it isn't.

Just because something is a service currently provided by the State doesn't mean that it is not valuable to people. Education, for example, is usually provided by the State, but clearly would not cease to be of value in a stateless society.

Sarge Baldy: "If they [anarcho-socialists] had police forces that controlled capitalism, beating people with a stick for trying to sell things, that would be the mirror of anarcho-capitalism – in which you beat people for taking private property..."

You seem to be assuming a monopoly here - that these free-market police forces are enforcing a property system on everyone instead of just those who choose their services. Panarchists, anarchists-with-no-adjectives, and ancaps see it as enforcing contracts only in the jurisdiction of those who have voluntarily joined. So yes, if a capitalist goes into an anarcho-communist neighborhood/jurisdiction and hires someone, he may get beaten; if an anti-property communist anarchist goes into an anarcho-capitalist jurisdiction and helps himself to goods, he may get beaten. In either case, the beating may be spontaneous or organized, by individuals or groups. Where's the State?

Sarge Baldy: "I think you assume too much that capitalism arises up naturally if there is no authoritarian force there to "squelch" it. On the contrary, depending on how you organize society, capitalism and competition might be completely nonsensical."

I don't see how you're going to "organize society" to make stateless capitalism nonsensical without using authority. Anarcho-socialists seem to lack any explanation here, and come off as naive and utopian.

My take on the common ground: Both anarcho-capitalists and anarcho-socialists are against the State. Both are against statist capitalism. The disagreement is about stateless capitalism, i.e. the voluntary acceptance of private property, free markets, and employment. WickedWanda 17:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

All four terms are ambiguous. For classical anarchists 'capitalism' describes the hierarchies rooted in state power, land monopolies, credit monopolies, and other capital monopolies. Also, some anarchists use 'markets' to describe (voluntary or involuntary) commodity exchange, while others use 'markets' to describe 'the sum of all voluntary human relations.'

The question is whether, absent state power and capital monopolies, people expect market exchanges to take hierarrchical or non-hierarchical forms. Jacob Haller 04:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC) [correcting accidental logout]

User178: "For classical anarchists 'capitalism' describes the hierarchies rooted in state power, land monopolies, credit monopolies, and other capital monopolies."

Right - statist capitalism. Also called "political capitalism" by some (e.g. BlackCrayon.com.) [4]

User178: "Also, some anarchists use 'markets' to describe (voluntary or involuntary) commodity exchange..."

Huh? I've never ever heard this usage. Can you give me a citation of someone using "market" to mean an involuntary commodity exchange?

WickedWanda 05:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Monthly Review link

Where does it say that most anarchists are against institutions of capitalism? -- Vision Thing -- 09:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I guess you're right; it says "Those activists who identify with anarchism are usually anti-capitalist; among these, some would also call themselves socialists (presumably of the libertarian variety), some would not." but that's talking specifically about people opposed to neoliberalism. Although I would say I find it literally insane that anyone could think anarcho-capitalists "outnumber" traditional anarchists, especially since anarchism has been growing everywhere in the last decade. It's hard to find a scholarly source saying that most anarchists are against capitalism, because that's the sort of thing people should already know from their intro to political science classes. Very often people write about anarchism without acknowledging the existence of anarcho-capitalism, whether because they believe it's negligible, not anarchism proper, or simply haven't heard of it. It's not hard to find statements from non-anarchists that go "Anarchists believe that human corruption results when differences are enforced through the maintenance of property and authority." (The Anarchist in the Library, Siva Vaidhyanathan) Likewise, the Library of Congress excludes books about anarcho-capitalism from the HX category (which is for "Socialism, communism, anarchism, utopias"). Seeing as the whole field of library science is dedicated to the categorization of information, it seems interesting that they decided anarcho-capitalism doesn't classify as anarchism. But it can stay "many" for now. Sarge Baldy 23:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

A/C cleanup

I've worked a bit on cleaning up the Anarcho-capitalism section, but it still needs some work, namely:

• The sentance "Another prominent anarcho-capitalist is David D. Friedman." looks thrown in out of the blue. I agree that Friedman is very important in the A/C tradition, but he needs to be worked into the article instead of stuck into the middle of it, know what I mean?
• The last paragraph seesm to have some misconceptions that I'm not sure how to correct. For example it gives the impression that the NAP is inherantly an aspect of Natural Law. This is incorrect, there are plenty of pragmatist ancapists who perport the NAP as merely a guideline for facilitating the peaceful coopertation of individuals, not as some form of "natural law".
• It also seems to have a strange misconception of the term Utilitarianism. Ancapists who use utilitarian arguments typically state that capitalism is better fit to provide for the needs of the individuals involved in that it generates wealth and hence utility.

Two-Bit Sprite 13:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I explained the D. Friedman reference by contrasting his utilitarianism with Rothbard's natural law outlook. I noted the contractarian basis for NAP, and managed to smuggle in a Jan Narveson link. I changed "utilitarian" to "consequentialist" in the last paragraph. WickedWanda 17:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks good thanks! :) I think this section has turned out very nicely, and is just long enough to inform the reader of the essentials and just short enought to be concise. We'll see how long it lasts this time ;) Two-Bit Sprite 18:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Capitalism, an institution?

In the introduction there is this sentence:

For many anarchists, this includes not only the state but also the institution of capitalism.

What exactly is the "institution of capitalism"? How can an economic system whose hallmark is free trade be an "institution"? This wording seems biased (Marxist?) and thus in violation of WP:NPOV. --Serge 23:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Seems to me you have a misconception about the word "institution". Correct me if I'm wrong (very possible) but I think you are picturing a brick and mortar institution like the post office or something. An institution can merely be a set of conventions and practices, like the "institution of marriage". Two-Bit Sprite 03:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I actually meant to write "institutions" when I typed that sentence - as in banks, wage-structures, corporations, etc. Bacchiad 03:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, in the A-C section, there is this statement:

Throughout most of its history, anarchism has been defined by its proponents in opposition to capitalism - which, they argue, can be maintained only by state violence.

Can someone provide a link to the (or any) argument that capitalism can be maintained only by state violence? I'd like to see how that is formulated. --Serge 23:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I haven't looked for links, but here is my understanding of the issue: Capitalism is based on private property. And private property can only exist as long as there is someone willing to use violence to enforce it. Historically, private property has been enforced by the state. Thus, capitalism has rested on state violence.

Ancaps want to replace the state with a collection of competing private institutions. But they still need "men with guns" to defend their social order. Most anarchists (and most people in general) believe that private competing institutions would fail to agree on a common legal framework and would eventually start fighting each other. -- Nikodemos 01:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Defending your body and external property, or paying someone to do it for you, does not make you a State. What would make you a State is that you force others to finance that protection --you tax --you initiate force. Support of private defense is not unique to anarcho-capitalists. Individualist anarchists in general support private defense of person and property. For individualists, using force in defense is consistent with anarchism. It's actually viewed as essential, because it's not a utopian doctrine --they don't expect people to all of a sudden stop having a proclivity to attack people and steal from people. So, there has to be defensive force in order to protect anarchy. 19th century individualist anarchist, Victor Yarros (not an anarcho-capitalist) explains, "Anarchism means no government, but it does not mean no laws and no coercion. This may seem paradoxical, but the paradox vanishes when the Anarchist definition of government is kept in view. Anarchists oppose government, not because they disbelieve in punishment of crime and resistance to aggression, but because they disbelieve in compulsory protection. Protection and taxation without consent is itself invasion; hence Anarchism favors a system of voluntary taxation and protection." And, "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 in which justice is observed, in which nothing is punished but crime and nobody coerced but invaders." Of course, anarcho-communists oppose such a thing. "While social anarchists seek to abolish the state as the source of private property, the individualists want to eliminate it because they see it as an obstacle to private property." (Ulrike Heider, Anarchism: Left, Right, and Green) All of the individualists support private defense of person and property, whether they're capitalist or not. RJII 03:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention that the primary defence of revolutionary anarchism is that the violent revolution is in self-defense. I have no sources for this, so I won't add it to the article, but I'm sure some can be dug up as I've seen them before. Two-Bit Sprite 03:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

This still isn't a source. Your personal understanding of the issue is not encyclopedic, I believe the original question was asking for a reliable source. Two-Bit Sprite 03:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

A source for that would have to be defining capitalism in its own idiosyncratic way. The common modern definition of capitalism doesn't indicate any such requirement: "an economic system characterized by private or corporation ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision rather than by state control, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly in a free market" (Merriam-Webster Unabridged Dictionary). Whether property is protected by the state or privately is not relevant to the definition. Now some of the old individualist anarchists defined capitalism as the concentration of capital in the hands of a few brought about by state-enforced monopoly (such as forbidding competition in banking). According to them "capitalism," by that defintion would not exist if the state stopped interfering with competition. But, that's a pretty old/obscure definition of capitalism. And, they still believed in private ownership of capital and a market economy. RJII 03:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[Nikodemos]: "But they still need 'men with guns' to defend their social order." Doesn't every social order need men with guns to defend it? Otherwise, other men with guns will impose their own social order on society, right?—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 03:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course not. That's what liberals think because their societies are an atomized mess constantly on the verge of collapse, but anarchists believe in spontaneous order. Sarge Baldy 03:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

But, that spontaneous order is premised on individuals having the freedom to do what they want. Without that freedom, there is inefficiency and chaos. So unless there are "guns" protecting individual freedom, there is not going to be any spontaenous order unless you expect people to lose their taste for violence and aggressing against each other. I don't know what you're talking about "liberals" because liberalism is all about spontaneous order that comes about from people having the freedom to pursue their self-interest --from Proudhon, through Adam Smith (the invisible hand), on down through Rothbard. "Liberty is the mother, not the daughter of order" -Proudhon RJII 04:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The freedom to be free isn't compatible with the freedom to enslave people, to kill people, or to be hit with sticks by police. You can't have both the freedom to coerce and the freedom from coercion. It doesn't even make any sense. You want the freedom to self interest; I want freedom from a bunch of self-interested vampires trying to exploit me, the freedom to clean air, the freedom from bureaucracy and capitalism and private property. Anarcho-capitalism doesn't allow those freedoms; if someone is shoving a gun down your throat for doing something, it's pretty evident you're not "free" to do it, no matter who the hell is holding the gun. I say "liberal" society to mean an atomized society where every person is seen as an enemy to every other person, who might use them to their own ends or compete against their interests, rather than one in which people have enough connection to other people they aren't liable to kill them or rape them or sell them out for a few bucks. Sarge Baldy 04:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

How are you going to have freedom from anything without forcefully protecting that freedom? Without a weapon, without fighting back against initiations of force against you, you're a sitting duck waiting to be enslaved. RJII 04:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, you have to organize a society that's self-sustaining. Anarcho-capitalists have such a "the world is evil" liberal mindset they can't even conceive of a society in which people see each other as human beings rather than as resources, even though practically every small scale community is like that because they recognize that once you atomize the society everyone will starve to death. Sarge Baldy 04:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure you're not seeing people as human beings? You may be a gentle soul, but don't generalize. Many human beings are vicious animals and enjoy being so. What are you going to do to defend your anarchy from these people? If nothing, then anarchy is impossible. They'll institute a state and dominate you. RJII 04:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Well there we fall back to the "nature vs nurture" thing. I've taken enough criminology classes to know that people are much more a product of their environments than of their biological makeup. All the biological explanations are pretty much considered dead in the water. Biology has some role in predisposing people to behaviors, but under the right circumstances they won't act on them. I'm not very worried about "vicious animals", because I consider human nature dynamic and not static. Organize things properly, and even people with a biological predisposition won't act out. Look at the societies here [5] for some examples of how some groups have organized in ways in which violence didn't exist. Especially inciteful are the Paliyans [6] and Piaroa [7], who are generally recognized as anarchist or very close to it by anthropologists. (The Paliyans, incidently, might very much appeal to an individualist anarchist, despite their obvious distaste for competition.) Sarge Baldy 04:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

"Organize things properly"? That doesn't sound very anarchistic. In anarchy, there is no organizer. Organization emerges inadvertently under the condition of FIRST having liberty. Nothing can be organized, period, without first having the liberty to organize. Also, if people didn't have a biological predisposition to violence, then there would have been no one to cast the first punch. There would have been no one to institute the first State. Human nature hasn't changed one bit. States exist because it is in human nature to create states. Anarchists exists because it is in human nature to oppose States. There will always be the conflict between States and people wanting freedom from States. I think Proudhon eventually came to recognized this in his "antinomies" --anarchy is a "perpetual desideratum," he said. (And, by that time he had come to conclude that "private property" was necessary in order to protect the individual from the State having too much power over the individual). RJII 05:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? You can't have a system without "organizing". By "organizing" I mean the process by which you get from where we are to where we end up. Removing the state is "organizing". If removing the state is non-anarchist, then I have no idea what your plan is. I already said people have a biological predisposition to violence; and that that disposition can easily be overcome. I don't know, there's just no point arguing with someone who's already convinced himself that people fit into some narrow box. It's all just a complete tautology. It's hard to argue with someone when they're talking in circles. You can point out examples of societies who have never heard of violence or can't even comprehend the idea, or show how rates of violence differ wildly across the globe, but it doesn't mean anything when people choose to stick blindly to an unsupported biological ideology that complements every part of their entire world view. Sarge Baldy 05:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

You can't organize without the liberty to organize. The conditions for establishing anarchy require anarchy itself. That's why all anarchism, including anarcho-capitalism, is an absurdity. It just amounts to saying "I want anarchy." So what? There are others that want statism who will invade your little spontaneous anarchy and enslave and exploit you for everything you've got. RJII 05:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

A better place for discussing this might be livejournal, or anarhism.net. Two-Bit Sprite 12:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Sarge Baldy: "Organize things properly, and even people with a biological predisposition won't act out. ... Especially inciteful are the Paliyans and Piaroa."

Like RJII, I'm very suspicious of people wanting to "organize things properly." Sounds like imposed authority to me. I'd be more convinced if you could offer some invisable hand process applicable to modern society. The examples you cite concern hunter-gatherers, with the Piaroa adding some primitive agriculture. It worries me that it would take a plague or something wiping out 98% of the world population to implement. The strategies for avoiding violence in the cultures cited seem totally unworkable except in a primative hunter-gatherer scenerio - disappear into the woods for the Paliyans, belief in magic supernatural karma for the Piaroa. Sarge, are you a primitivist hoping for the vast majority of humankind to die off? WickedWanda 05:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

And I find the idea of a police force the most obvious possible example of "imposed authority". In fact, anarcho-capitalism sounds about as fun as Stalinism to me. All systems have to be "organized", unless your system is complete chaos. The difference is, in anarchism the system is organized and then left alone, because it's seen as stable and working. In anarcho-capitalism, the system is never stable or working, so you have police forces making sure everything stays properly organized to the authoritarian tenets set up by the presidents of the individual states, er, I mean PDAs. Sarge Baldy 06:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The concept of "stable" that you're applying is bizarre. People do act. The world also changes on its own. Therefore, nothing is ever truly stable. When circumstances place pressure on something to change, people sometimes act to maintain them the way they were. That doesn't mean the situation is not stable, in the sense in which that word is normally applied to human affairs.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 07:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Many indigenous tribes were very stable for thousands of years. Thousands of years is stable enough for me, seeing as the only reason those societies broke apart was because of greedy colonial powers looking to exploit them. That's because those societies organized themselves in a way that was stable, sustainable, and orderly. There was no reason for them to change. Looking at the history of human life on the planet, societies that rapidly change are the oddball ones, the least stable ones, and the least sustainable ones. Not to mention the ones with the most anomie and violence. Sarge Baldy 07:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Sarge, if you want a society that is totally pacifist, and runs away and hides in the woods when their rights get violated (like the Paliyans), then I can understand why you'd think organized self-defense is a state. But most anarchists are not pacifists, and most anarchists embrace technology and modern society. We are not willing to jettison science and go back to primitive superstition. I think most anarchists realize that personal or group defense of rights is not, ipso facto, a state. WickedWanda 08:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Two-Bit Sprite 13:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Good point.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 21:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I guess this talk page tends to drift in that direction pretty naturally. I don't think it's so bad until it gets uncivil. It's better that it gets brought up here rather than in the article itself. Seeing as the largest debate in this article regards the degree to which much of the subject matter is appropriate, I don't think it's fair to say such dialogue doesn't belong on the talk page. Although you're right to say this particular discussion went "off the rails". Sarge Baldy 21:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Anticapitalism fact citation

Throughout most of its history, anarchism has been defined by its proponents in opposition to capitalism - which, they argue, can be maintained only by state violence.

Can someone provide a link to the (or any) argument that capitalism can be maintained only by state violence? I'd like to see how that is formulated. --Serge 23:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Serge,

First, recall the difference in emphasis between socialist and libertarian uses of the word 'capitalism'. See the citation of Wendy McElroy in Anarcho-Capitalism and the second paragraph of anarchism and capitalism. Socialists tend to mean 'presently-existing capitalism', while libertarians tend to mean the unrealized ideal of complete laissez-faire.

Second, the citation needed tag is entirely phoney. Three-quarters of the article is about anarchists who believe that abolition of the state necessarily entails the abolition of capital. If that isn't proof of the widespread belief that capitalism is maintained by state violence, I don't know what is.

But I draw your attention to the Anarchist faq, particularly the following sections:

• http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secCcon.html
• http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secGcon.html
• http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/append1.html

There you will find the argument fleshed out more fully, with citations of historical anarchist thinkers.

In conclusion, I ask that the tag be removed. Also, I address the following appeal to my anarcho-capitalist friends: Please, before you edit the article again, take a little bit of time to read up on the historical anarchist movement. It is not, of course, required that Wikipedia editors actually know about the subjects they edit on, but it really does help smooth things out. Bacchiad 07:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

It looks like the problem's been solved with the insertion of as they understand the term. This effectively acknowleges the different use of the term "capitalism" you note above. WickedWanda 08:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

This solves the issue for me. Two-Bit Sprite 13:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

So socialists use "capitalism" to mean presently-existing capitalism, "while libertarians tend to mean the unrealized ideal of complete laissez-faire."

That strikes me as an incomplete categorization. Libertarians use "capitalism" as the name of an ideal and as the name of those forces within the present world that may in the fullness of time bring that ideal into reality. It is a way of identifying with the liquidated kulaks of the past, the burdened entrepreneurs of the present, as well as of the better world that will neither burden nor liquidate such productive folk in the future. It isn't just wool-gathering of the "wouldn't it be nice" sort you imply above. --Christofurio 00:33, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Well said.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 03:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Whatever. My point was that market distortions like corporate welfare and favorable regulation is classed as anti-capitalist in libertarian use, but essentially capitalist in socialist use. Bacchiad 04:51, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Right. Socialists tend to conflate statist capitalism and market capitalism, whereas libertarians are quite keen on the distinction. Libertarians usually refer to statist capitalism as "fascism," and existing capitalism as "a mixed economy." WickedWanda 13:27, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Well said. As a market-friendly social anarchist, I generally try to say 'state capitalism' for the first, 'market exchange' for the second, and avoid saying 'capitalism' semplice at all. Bacchiad 16:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Ward Churchill

User:Max rspct removed Ward Churchill from the Cultural Phenomena section, with an edit summary claiming Churchill is not an anarchist. Although I can't say for sure that he is, I know he has anarchist leanings. He recently spoke at the Bay Area Anarchist bookfair on the topic of anarchism and indigenous societies (at least that's what my friends said, I wasn't there). Anyway, I think this should be discussed. The Ungovernable Force 17:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I have an indymedia interview...

When asked whether he considers himself an anarchist he says: "I consider myself to be an indigenist and that would be somewhat related to anarchism, we have a lot of common ground in terms of understanding - we can communicate, we can work in alliance fairly easily." (Barbara Bovine interview).

In one of his COINTELPRO talks he has vaunted the (up to) 1920's IWW and "..how would the history of the United States have developed if an anarcho-syndicalist movement with a highly developed political conscienceness and an agenda in effective tactics had not been obliterated by the mass trial of it's leadership in 1919 but had ultimately evolved and grown, according to it's own dynamics and it's own ability to articulate it's message to the public at large - what would the nature of the US labour movement have looked like, what would the work relations in American workplaces look like, how would it be different from the way it is now. I think you can probably connect those dots and trace it out in such a way to understand that things would be very very different and in a very, very positive form than the way things are now... " He goes on.

I have both recordings for these, but no transcripts. `--maxrspct in the mud 20:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

So he says that things would be very, very postive compared to today if an anarcho-syndicalist organization had not been virtually destroyed. Wouldn't that make you think he is an anarchist? A lot of people don't claim the label anarchist, but would often be called anarchist nonetheless. I think he should at least be mentioned, perhaps with qualifiers. The Ungovernable Force 20:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

A lot of people don't want to call themselves anarchist just because they don't like applying labels to themselves in general. So they kind of skirt around them and hint about it and let people figure it out for themselves. I don't know who seriously disputes Le Guin is an anarchist, although apparently "someone" removed her too. Sarge Baldy 20:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The stated criteria is "celebrities who publicly identify themselves as anarchists." That was the reason Robert Heinlein and others got deleted. From Takver's Anarres Comments on Ursula Le Guin, The Dispossessed and Anarchism

"Le Guin is careful not to label herself so she can speak and be heard to a very wide audience. ...

Refer to the preface to the short story 'The Day before the Revolution' published in the anthology 'The Winds Twelve Quarters Vol2' It is written by Le Guin 'In Memorial to Paul Goodman 1911-1972'. An excerpt....

'Odonianism is anarchism. Not the bomb-in-the-pocket stuff, which is terrorism, whatever name it tries to dignify itself with, not the social-Darwinist economic 'libertarianism' of the far right; but anarchism, as prefigured in early Taoist thought, and expounded by Shelley and Kropotkin, Goldman and Goodman. Anarchism's principal target is the authoritarian State (capitalist or socialist); its principle moral-practical theme is cooperation (solidarity, mutual aid). It is the most idealistic, and to me the most interesting, of all political theories.'

This is as close a statement Le Guin has come to identifying with anarchism that I have found in her writings. But together with her activism as a person and as a writer, it is clear she understands the philosophy of anarchism and shares a close affinity."

WickedWanda 21:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Well,, Winston Churchill when quizzed in parliament about his attitude to the invasion of the Soviet Union by nazi germany stated "If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favourable reference to the devil in the House of Commons.". Doesnt make him of a communist or marxist persuasion. An extreme example... but the same goes for George Galloway and Iraq etc (Galloway isn't a Baathist or pro-dictator). --maxrspct in the mud 21:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see the point of that. Maybe it's just me though. The Ungovernable Force 21:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it is too POV to put Ward Churchill in there. He has spoke an anarchist bookfairs.. But is not written up anywhere (i know of) as being Anarchist.. tho the christian right often call him a Marxist .. which is quite off the mark considering Ward C's writings on the subject. --maxrspct in the mud 21:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

So say he is often considered an anarchist. Or else change the criteria to people who either self-label as anarchists or are commonly considered anarchists. And I agree he is not Marxist, in fact he says in one of the notes to Pacifism as Pathology that he is "strongly anti-marxist in [his] political perspectives and practices [...]".--The Ungovernable Force 21:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

He is almost always listed as Native American activist. It's not our job to speculate.--maxrspct in the mud 21:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Globalization and capitalism

What's the deal on removing the globalization paragraph from the capitalism section? Bacchiad 04:37, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

It's now in the "Other Issues" section. The Ungovernable Force 04:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Why? Shouldn't it belong logically in the capitalism section? Bacchiad 16:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it should. Although I suppose neoliberalism and capitalism are mildly distinct, it's clear that they're related, and most anarchists involved in the movement are clearly anti-capitalist. Sarge Baldy 17:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it's fine in either place. Globalization is distinct from plain capitalism IMO, but if you want it in the capitalism section too, just put it back. I don't know who changed it though, do you? The Ungovernable Force 18:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Some anonymous user keeps moving it out every time I put it there. Bacchiad 19:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's there now so we'll see what happens. The Ungovernable Force 20:01, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

If it was that anon that was playing with the article earlier, it turned out to be an open proxy and I blocked it yesterday. Sarge Baldy 20:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Open proxy, gee, I wonder who that was? The Ungovernable Force 20:27, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I moved Globalization in its own subsection since it's distinct from capitalism. -- Vision Thing -- 09:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

How so? Bacchiad 23:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Globalization is usually defined as "the growing economic interdependence of countries worldwide". It's not a process necessarily connected with capitalism. World could be becoming more economically interdependent even in some socialist system. In fact, many developing nations aren't capitalists, by most common definitions of capitalism, but they are involved in process of globalization. -- Vision Thing -- 20:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Globalization is usually defined as "the growing economic interdependence of countries worldwide". It's not a process necessarily connected with capitalism.

Not necessarily, no. But in actual fact? Bacchiad 23:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

World could be becoming more economically interdependent even in some socialist system.

It could, but it's not. If economic interdependence of a socialist, say, or mutualist character were spreading, I'm quite sure most people in the black blocs would be in favor. But that's not the way things are currently, is it? Bacchiad 23:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

It’s not and that’s one of the reasons why Globalization deserves its place in the Issues section. -- Vision Thing -- 08:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The movement against neoliberal globalization is called that because it encompasses a wide variety of groups, including farmers, trade unionists, socialists, and so on. It isn't called the anti-capitalist movement because it's only opposed to a specific form of capitalism, even if some of its members oppose capitalism entirely. The anarchist activists involved in the movement are "usually anti-capitalist" [8] and often texts describing anarchist involvement in protests such as that against the WTO in Seattle don't even use the word "globalization"; they just describe them as being anti-capitalist. Unlike some protestors, they aren't involved in the movement simply due to an opposition to neoliberal globalization. They're involved because they're opposed to all forms of capitalism. Placing them in a specifically globalization category is misleading. Sarge Baldy 22:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalism

Is (with certainty) a minor and insignificant point of view, and as per WP:NPOV, does not require a detailed account in the article. A simple summary is enough. -- infinity0 22:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Evaluating it as a "minor and insignificant point of view" is obviously biased, since it is the main living modern form of anarchism. Let's see some citation for your claim. Re the Rothbard picture, let's compare with other guys with pictures.

Google hits:

Bakunin 1,370,000; Michael Bakunin 291,000 Mikhail Bakunin 202,000

Proudhon 1,200,000; Pierre Proudhon 540,000

Rothbard 1,040,000; Murray Rothbard 643,000

Kropotkin 810,000; Peter Kropotkin 325,000

It's too bad that, after getting an consensus for a while, you come in and ruin it, Infinity0. Rather than denigrating anarcho-capitalism, I think it should be elevated to a school in the individualist camp. WickedWanda 22:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Selected statistics mean nothing. Take it up with the millions of non-anarcho-capitalist anarchists out there. -- infinity0 22:46, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Rothbard is primarily known as an economist. Also, because he's more recent he gets more hits. That's just how the internet works. Chomsky gets 11,500,000 Google hits, does that mean we should give him some huge giant image? (Edit: and that's just for "Noam Chomsky" - "Chomsky" alone gets over 18 million, or almost 18 times Rothbard.) Sarge Baldy 22:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Chomsky should - and does - have a picture. Anarcho-capitalism is a significant school of anarchism and should have similar space to, say, anarcho-syndicalism. 64.79.194.175 02:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Isn't one sockpuppet at a time enough for you? Sarge Baldy 02:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

WickedWanda, please sit back and realise that what you are doing is not useful for an encyclopedia. Understand and accept that your own view is minor and that detailed information about it should not be in this specific article. Anarcho-capitalism is sufficiently distinct from anarchism that there should not be detailed information here, beacuse it is irrelevant. It has its own article for the detail. -- infinity0 23:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Although a brief mention of anarcho-capitalism is in order, I agree that it has little to do with anarchism and should not be given any prominent treatment in this article. That's what this is for. Anyway, the opinion of a blocked user's sockpuppet doesn't really mean that much to me or anyone else in this community. The Ungovernable Force 23:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with WickedWanda, anarcho-capitalism is not a minor and insignificant point of view in anarchism. -- Vision Thing -- 12:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

By making this sort of comment, you are aggressively pushing your own POV and simultaneously closing yourself to discussion. To put it simply, you are wrong. -- infinity0 13:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the current structure. Anarcho-capitalism should be mentioned, but in its current place. - FrancisTyers · 13:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the current structure, that anarcho-captalism be described, with the photo of Rothbard. But, thanks to Infinity0 and his anti-cap POV, we're back to the same old edit war. 70.85.247.250

Everyone agrees that the details should not be mentioned. WP:NPOV says that details should not be mentioned. You're blocked; you're not even supposed to be editing. And, I was not the only one who reverted you. -- infinity0 14:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, how does my anti-capitalist POV even come into this? My reasons are given above; they have nothing to do with capitalism whatsoever. Inserting a detailed account of anarcho-capitalism into here is like inserting a detailed account of muslim terrorism into Islam. It simply shouldn't be done. -- infinity0 14:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Obviously everyone does not agree; just in this section I see that WickedWanda, Vision Thing, and I do not. Your POV is what motivated you to destroy the anarcho-capitalist section. Why don't you just play with the Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism article or something if you want to push your POV? 70.85.247.250

Forgive me for not greatly valuing the opinion of a suspected sockpuppet of banned user and master puppeteer Hogeye. --AaronS 16:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Remember how you used to make fun of me for obsession and paranoia? If so, the irony has escaped you. MrVoluntarist 16:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, my stalker. Please see [9]. --AaronS 17:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

So, you made a category page. Your point? MrVoluntarist 17:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Get your facts straight. --AaronS 17:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, people equally obsessive about Hogeye made the page. What is this supposed to prove? MrVoluntarist 17:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm okay with inclusion at roughly the current level of text in the article; and I'd even be willing to a different placement within the structure. But do we really have to include Rothbard's smug-ass bow-tied face in there? Bacchiad 23:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

(Note: "current level of text" = 3 mid-sized paragraphs). I'd be up for removing Rothbard's pic. Or at least get a less annoying one. -- infinity0 23:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I don’t agree with removal of Rothbard's picture. Annoying face is not a good enough reason for removal. The only alternative would be to put David D. Friedman’s picture, but he doesn’t have one on Wikipedia yet. -- Vision Thing -- 08:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Is there one of an older Rothbard either on Wikipedia itself or in the public domain? BTW, would you mind taking a moment to answer my question in the section above? Bacchiad 14:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Do we now have a consensus on the "Anarcho-capitalism" section? -- Vision Thing -- 20:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm all right with how it is. I'm not sure it really needs a picture, but the younger one is definitely less irritating than the old one. I just think that section needs to be kept under control for weighting purposes. Anarcho-capitalism doesn't have that much in common with other things listed on the page, so it gravitates towards having an excessive amount of content. Sarge Baldy 20:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

         Anarcho Capitalism and Anarchism are inherently opposed from each other. Beyond both of them having no government, they have nothing in common. Anarchists have more in common with communists then they do in anarcho capitalists. Anyone who says that they are anywhere near similar clearly have not read anarchist theory.      -FionMacCumhail 07:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Edmund Burke

In the "origin" section the following is stated, "One of the earliest known essays explicitly advocating the absence of government was "A Vindication of Natural Society" (1756) by Edmund Burke.[3]"

Given that Edmund Burke stated explicitly that this essay was a satire, and that none of his political positions ever hinted otherwise (he was a staunch conservative), isn't it a little strange that this is listed in the origins section at all, much less as "advocating" anarchism? This would be like listing "A Modest Proposal" as part of the history of cannibalism advocacy on the cannibalism page without mentioning that it was a satire. Blahblahblahblahblahblah 09:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

True. It doesn't make sense to say he was advocating anarchism when it's generally regarded as a satirical piece. Although the Godwin quote noted is enough for me to think it probably deserves a place here in some fashion. Sarge Baldy 10:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't say that Burke advocated anarchism; it says that the essay did. It is not clear whether it was written satirically - the first edition said no such thing. The preface on the second edition (when Burke was going for a government position) claimed it was written in satire. At any rate, whether it was originally written as satire is irrelevant since many (including Godwin) took it at face value. 66.90.101.225

If it is not clear whether or not it is a satire then it certainly doesn't belong in the origins section. Maybe it belongs somewhere else in the article, and if it is present it absolutely requires mention that the vast majority of scholars believe it was a satire. It is indeed a strange argument that Burke would only claim it was a satire to acquire a government position when he then maintained it was a satire for the remainder of his life and what is more fiercely advocated a conservative ideology. Was all of this just for show? If some editors want to claim that Burke was lying then could always do that elsewhere, but this kind of speculation does not make Burke appropriate for the origin of anarchism section. BTW, the part that states that Godwin was strongly influenced by Vindication is uncited. It would be nice if you could provide the referance for that so that we don't have to throw it out or put a citation needed superscript there. Blahblahblahblahblahblah 17:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I see the referance now, its the Godwin quote where he also clearly referances it as a satire, not as a work genuinely proposing the absence of government, "while the intention of the author was to shew that these evils were to be considered as trivial". Blahblahblahblahblahblah 17:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Blah wrote: "If it is not clear whether or not it is a satire then it certainly doesn't belong in the origins section."

How do you figure that? If it was the first essay explicitly advocating the absence of government, then it belongs there regardless of whether it was written as satire. Many famous pieces have been reinterpreted over time contrary to the author's intent. E.g. "Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos" and John Locke's "The Two Treatises of Government." There is an excellent paper that discusses this, a PDF: Reflections on Political Literature: History, Theory, and the Printed Book. 64.92.163.234

An essay explicitly arguing against the absence of government is different than one arguing for it. Thus the question of whether or not it is a satire is of primary importance, and since you agree this question is not answered the essay does not belong as part of the history. You can personally reinterpret the text all you want, it won't change the fact that the vast majority of scholars still agree it was a satire, not based solely on the text, not based solely on Burke's referance to it as a satire, but based also on its coherence with ALL of the political views he expressed in every other text he ever wrote.

I agree that the text should probably be mentioned somewhere, but the origins section is not the place, and it surely should not be mentioned without referance to the fact that it is generally considered a satire, and probably not without referance to whoever says otherwise (like, for example, Rothbard amongst other highly biased sources). Blahblahblahblahblahblah 18:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Opps, my bad. You are using a banned open proxy to edit these pages, almost certainly to avoid a ban placed on your account. I apologise for wasting my time and the time of others by responding to you as though you were genuinely concerned with quality editing of wikipedia. Blahblahblahblahblahblah 18:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

No one doubts that the essay argues explicitly against the State. The satire debate is about whether Burke meant the opposite of his explicit criticism of government. (Obviously, you've never read the essay, or you'd know it argues explicitly and in no uncertain terms against the State. Please read Vindication of Natural Society and and get a clue.)

I notice that you fall for argumentum ad hominem - circumstantial when you erroneously conclude that I'm not genuinely concerned with quality editing. 208.53.131.232 18:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Saying Vindication was "possibly satire" seems accurate. Saying that the author "intended it as satire" is misleading. No one knows how Burke intended it when he wrote it. He said absolutely nothing about it being satire before it was published, nor in the first edition. He claimed it was satire in the preface to the second edition, after it became known that he was the author, when he happened to be vying for a government position. Burke's claime that he intended it as satire should be taken with a large grain of salt, just like Bill Clinton's claim that he didn't inhale. I think we should either return to the "possibly satire" formulation, or add the word "belatedly" to hint at the complexity, i.e. "although the author belatedly stated it was intended as satire." - A.

Non-Aggression Principle

Apparently there is some objection to a paragraph about the NAP, i.e. a short explantion on what it is and noting its relationship to anarcho-capitalism. Why is this? Is this a POV thing or what? 64.92.163.234

It was too long. I think it does merit some mention though, so I've included a parenthetical reference. Bacchiad 20:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Main article vs. debate article

Apparently there is also some objection differentiating the main article about anarcho-capitalism and the article about the semantic debate on whether anarcho-capitalism is really anarchism. Why is this? 64.92.163.234

They should both be main articles, simply because it is debated. It's not quite fair to say one is the main article and the other isn't, since its place is very much disputed. Sarge Baldy 20:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Strong crypto and anarchism

Apparently there is also some objection to pointing out the relationship between anarchism and strong crypto, cypherpunks, PGP, digital currency, etc. Why is this? Is this an anti-money communist POV thing or what? 64.92.163.234

I added, after "See also: Crypto-anarchism and Cypherpunk", the phrase "which emphasize cryptography and its applications in privacy and digital currency." It was quickly deleted. Does someone deny the importance of strong crypto, anonymity, and digital money to freedom and developing parallel structures? I don't understand the antagonism toward these technologies. 24.175.119.117

It's generally fluff. Some mention of it might be appropriate, but in the meantime it's easier to just revert the banned sockpuppet than reward him for his efforts. As for the contractarian you mentioned, he's not even an anarcho-capitalist and so probably not even notable enough for mention on anarcho-capitalism, let alone here. Sarge Baldy 22:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Hard to believe you're so ... so primitivist, Sarge, considering that you're using Wiki. Most anarchists I know have a PGP public key and are at least interested in anonymous digital currency and anon/pseudonymity.

Sarge> "As for the contractarian you mentioned, he's not even an anarcho-capitalist..."

Irrelevant. There is no claim that he was. It is a fact that his contractarianism is an influence on anarcho-capitalists. If this were an anarchist only thing, we'd have to delete any mention of Max Stirner. - anon

Are you seriously convinced that Jan Narveson is of a comparable level of influence to anarchism as Max Stirner? Sarge Baldy 02:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm providing a counterexample to your lame excuse that, since Jarveson is not an anarchist, he shouldn't be mentioned in the article. - anon

Proudhon and "statist capitalism"

Someone give a source saying that Proudhon supported any form of capitalism. Saying he only opposed "statist capitalism" suggests that he must have preferred capitalism in some other form, and this is just ridiculous. Sarge Baldy 22:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

You've changed your mind, huh? Above, in "Anarchism, Possession and Property" you write the following about specifying the type of capitalism: "That sounds good to me. It's cleaner, easier to read, and gets us from semantics to the point." - Sarge Baldy 20:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Proudhon, of course, was talking about centralized control of industry using the state, the definition of capitalism in his day.

BTW, Wiki should program it's bot to revert editions with "\'", since that is a dead giveaway that a proxy is being used. (This is a common bug in anonymous proxies - the old string delimiter problem.) - anon

You're exactly right. I changed my position completely. It wasn't a good idea at all. Sarge Baldy 01:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

"Statist capitalism" is a neologism. I've removed it from the article, leaving only "capitalism." I also removed the bit about Proudhon's ideas being "complex," because that's blatant editorializing. --AaronS 13:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree about Proudhon and complexity. I don't agree that the adjective "statist" is a neologism, or that using a well-know adjective to modify "capitalism" constitutes a neologism. It's simply an adjective. If that adjective bugs you, would you be happier with "political capitalism" per BlackCrayon.com? (The term "state capitalism" is already taken.) I really think it should be made clear that what Proudhon called "capitalism" was not the meaning we give it today. Back then it did not refer to an economic system, but a certain monopolistic arrangement of industry. 216.219.253.189

We're not talking about an adjective, we're talking about a term: statist capitalism. --AaronS 17:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Are all adjective-noun combinations neologisms? If not, what is your criteria? Wikipedia's criteria is basically no original research. Since modifying the word "capitalism" is not remotely original research, I don't see the problem. - A

No. My criteria is that "statist" in this case is clearly not being used as a mere adjective, because we are being presented with the idea of "statist capitalism," especially as being in opposition to "non-statist capitalism." Neologisms are to be avoided in encyclopaedias. Further, novel descriptions are to be avoided; calling capitalism "statist" or "non-statist" is novel. --AaronS 19:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

To most readers, it is a mere adjective. It underlines the difference between the 19th century definition of capitalism and the modern one. Proudhon was not against the market, nor even against private ownership of the means of production so long as it was the possession variety. To obscure that is to mislead readers. Repeating the question: Would you be happier with "political capitalism" or "capitalism in the 19th century sense"? - A.

I don't think we should get into the game of assuming that we know what "most readers" are thinking when they read soemthing. "Political capitalism" is probably worse as a neologism than "statist capitalism." Your latter suggestion is getting closer to something encyclopaedia-worthy, but does not quite achieve it. What you're basically trying to say is "If Proudhon were alive today, he would not oppose capitalism." Well, Proudhon is not alive today, and you have no justification for such a claim. --AaronS 20:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Neither should we delude readers into thinking that Proudhon was against markets or private possession property. Using the term "statist capitalism" would let readers know that what he opposed is not what we call "capitalism" today. In modern terminology, Proudhon was neither capitalist nor socialist. 216.98.161.210

There is no such thing as "statist capitalism." Capitalism is an economic system, and does not by itself have a position on the existence of the state. --AaronS 15:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think socialism has ever necessarily implied opposition to markets or property. Socialism has always been a broad term, and always included strands of market socialism. Actually I think you'd be hard pushed to find a single major socialist party today that is opposed to markets and private property.Bengalski 17:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Why don't we just make it clear that:

1. Proudhon was for markets.
2. He considered himself, and was considered by others, to be a socialist.
3. He opposed capitalism as he understood the term.

How 'bout that? It'd be especially fun if we can hunt up a passage where Proudhon says exactly what he means by capitalism. Bacchiad 17:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Why would Proudhon oppose capitalism as he misunderstood the term? It seems redundant to note that he is using the term in a way that he understands it. Capitalism comes in many forms; one can certainly be anti-capitalist while supporting markets. In the past, there has been POV-pushing on this issue, mainly because a couple of editors wanted to make it seem as if, were he alive today, Proudhon would support anarcho-capitalism. --AaronS 17:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

"as he understood the term" is not contrasted to "as he misunderstood the term" but rather "the present understanding of the term". Today, most readers of the article will think of markets (among other things) when they think of capitalism, even if there are non-capitalist sustainable market systems. There's the rub. If you just say someone "opposed capitalism", then even if they were using the definition of the time, and that definition is still used by some today, readers will infer that he "opposed markets". It's a difficult problem, and I'm open to solutions. Maybe an info box? Maybe a deep link to the wikiquote definition of capitalism he was using? MrVoluntarist 18:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Infoboxes? Heaven help us! Let's not get into that again. Aaron's point is well taken; we don't want to mislead either by implying, say, that Proudhon was in favor of landlordism, usury, the wage-system, etc. The best way we can do this is by providing depth, especially in the form of relevant and succint quotations or citations of his work. Bacchiad 18:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

"(statist) capitalism" instead of plain "capitalism" or "statist capitalism"? Jacob Haller 20:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think the article in its present state does a good job of defining what he meant by capitalism, and emphasizing that he was equally in favor of market exchange. There's boatloads of clarification. But feel free to add more, rather than modifying that sentence, which states the thing accurately. Bacchiad 23:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Here are some aspects of (modern) capitalism which Proudhon supported: 1) markets 2) private ownership on a small scale; possession

"Where shall we find a power capable of counter-balancing the... State? There is none other than property... The absolute right of the State is in conflict with the absolute right of the property owner. Property is the greatest revolutionary force which exists." (Theory of Property in Lubac p. 177) Also: "...the more ground the principles of democracy have gained, the more I have seen the working classes interpret these principles favorably to individual ownership." (General Idea of Revolution in the 19th Century p. 210)

Here's a quote from an essay by L. Gambone: "Proudhon was an enemy of state capitalism and state socialism." Using "state" as an adjective is not new.

I don't think Proudhon used the word "capitalism" in any of his writings. Wasn't he a geezer when Marx coined the term? Here's probably as close as he got: Proudhon in The General Idea of the Revolution wrote, "The school of Say ... has for ten years past seemed to exist only to protect and applaud the execrable work of the monopolists of money and necessities..."

Hmm. "Monopoly capitalism" may be the way to go. Or list the aspects of capitalism that he didn't like, and not use the term at all in his section. Pbanger

Those are all aspects of 19th century capitalism, too. I don't think that we want to suggest that, in the 19th century, everybody thought that socialism had markets and capitalism didn't. --AaronS 13:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Here are some aspects of (modern) capitalism which Proudhon opposed:

1. rent
2. interest
3. profit
4. the wage system

The kind of market operation Proudhon envisioned under mutualized anarchy is so distinct that I think it's legitimate to label it (like he did) as opposed to capitalism.

Marx didn't invent the term capitalism. Read What is Property you'll find "capitalism" and "capitalist" all over.

The quotes you selected are very nice. They complement this one, which is already in the article:

He contrasted this with what he called "possession," or limited ownership of resources and goods only while in more or less continuous use. About this latter type of property, Proudhon wrote "Property is Liberty," and argued that it was a bulwark against state power.

As for the Gambone essay: first of all, it's not that old, so terms used in it can still be considered neologisms. But for me, the problem isn't so much that "state capitalism" is a neologism - it's inaccurate. Proudhon simply didn't believe that capitalism (with rent, interest, profit and the wage system) was possible without a state. Recall that Gambone's motive, in much of his writing, is to make classical social anarchist theory amenable to a libertarian audience - it is not to give an encyclopedic representation of Proudhon in his own terms. Bacchiad 13:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Bacchiad, I think you are mistaken on two points. Marx coined the word "capitalism." Google "Marx coined capitalism" and you'll get many references to that effect. Also, Proudhon never used the term "capitalism" in What is Property. I searched two versions of it available on the web, and the word "capitalism" is simply not there. "Capital" yes; "capitalist" yes; but "capitalism" no. Which isn't surprising since Marx coined the term later.

Which brings up the quote (that used to be) in the Proudhon section. I challenge this quote.

"The economic idea of capitalism, the politics of government or of authority, and the theological idea of the Church are three identical ideas, linked in various ways. To attack one of them is equivalent to attacking all of them . . ."

The ref says "quoted by Max Nettlau, A Short History of Anarchism, pp. 43-44." But Nettlau was born the year Proudhon died, and the alleged quote appears nowhere in Proudhon's writings. One suspects it is Nettlau's paraphrase of what he believed Proudhon meant.

I like the idea of listing the specific grievances against what was to be called modern capitalism, i.e. rent, interest, profit, and the wage labor system. But perhaps all of this is moot, now that there is no Proudhon section anymore. I can't say I'm too keen on the idea of removing Proudhon from an article about anarchism. I think I liked the other way better (but without the fraudulent quote.) Pbanger

Er, yeah. It means quoted from his writings. I'd be more likely to suspect it was in his writings somewhere than pulled out of thin air. Seeing as Nettlau was a historian, I'm sure he had pretty good access to documents from Proudhon that haven't been formally published, and probably wouldn't try passing off subjective paraphrases as legitimate quotes. Looking now, his article even says he had an extensive archive, likely including a number of Proudhon documents. Sarge Baldy 16:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

More references

Here's some more references to work in. These come from Anarchism by Sean M. Sheehan (2004), who does not appear to be an anarchist himself.

Another equally important boundary is reached when individualist anarchism becomes indistinguishable from extreme right-wing conservatism and its worship of the free market. The term 'anarcho-capitalism' for this domain of right wing libertarianism is generally regarded as a political oxymoron by anarchists, but it points to an ambiguity about libertarianism that won't go away. (pg. 39)

Anarchists oppose capitalism for much the same reasons as socialists do. The capitalist economic system is viewed as necessarily unfair, privileging power in the hands of a discrete class at the expense of ordinary working people. (pg. 46)

Sarge Baldy 00:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that anarcho-capitalism is both anarchism and libertarianism. Don't make a false dicotomy out of it. 24.248.213.34

Well, the source wasn't explicitly saying otherwise. I mostly was listing it as a source for most anarchists not regarding it as a form of anarchism, which seems fairly evident, but generally lacks a reputable source. Sarge Baldy 18:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposition: "Origins of anarchism" article split

This article is much too long. I propose that we move the "Origins" section into a new origins of anarchism article. We could then condense that section, describing the subsections in one or two sentences. What say you all? I think that this would be highly uncontroversial as far as POV is concerned, and probably the best way to reduce the article.

This would require a bit of thought, as the different strains of anarchism are introduced in a chronological manner. We could keep that chronology, but take their description outside of the context of explaining the history of anarchism. Make sense? --AaronS 14:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. That sounds good to me. Either abbreviate or remove the Origins section. There used to be a section on predecessors of anarchist thought, with references to Taoism and the Stoics. That could go in the new article. Bacchiad 14:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, I'd advocate cutting the Other Branches and Offshoots section out entirely. Almost everything described there is non- or minimally- notable. Bacchiad 14:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that post-left anarchism is worth mentioning, but the others could possibly have their own article, new branches of anarchism, for example. --AaronS 14:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I made the split. I've realized, however, that we're going to need a short section on Proudhon. I'll get to that soon, but I wouldn't mind if someone beat me to it. ;) --AaronS 15:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Other Branches and Offshoots -> Relations with the Left

I've moved almost all of the material from Other Issues and Other Branches and Offshoots into a new section called Relations with the Left. The title of that section probably sucks; we can change it. But since all of the moved material deals about the same issues, I think it should go in one place. We can now start trimming it.

I moved the Technology part to Cultural Phenomena. Bacchiad 15:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I've very much reduced the "Issues in anarchism" section, giving it its own article. The page is now at 40KB. We're rapidly approaching a reasonable size. As always, feel free to change my edits or alter them -- I just think that it's important that we cut out the fat, first. Then we can work to improve what's here, while remaining confident that we aren't working with a drunken elephant. --AaronS 16:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I like it. The only change I made was to restore some of the language on anti-parliamentarianism. Bacchiad 16:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Shortening Anarchism and organized labor

Since we're doing a major weeding out, I suggest we delete paragraphs 2, 3, and 4 of the Anarchism and organized labor section. These paragraphs have to do with rather detailed history, and are more appropriate for the Anarcho-syndicalism article. Pbanger

At first glance, that seems reasonable. --AaronS 16:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Quo usque tandem, VisionThing?

Why do you keep moving the Anarcho-Capitalism section? It's got a nice little home next to post-left. They go well together. We've got all the post-WW II new movements living happily there at the bottom. What moves you to interrupt chronological flow and shift it upward time after time? Bacchiad 13:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

It does seem strange. Further, it gives more undue weight to the anarcho-capitalism section than was ever allowed even during the height of the disagreements regarding this article. All of the sections, ideally, should be cut down. --AaronS 15:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

VisionThing hath reverted everything I did yesterday, though none of his edits were called revert. What gives? Bacchiad 12:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

No, I didn't reverted everything you did yesterday, but I did reverted your unexplained edits and, not like you, I wrote why. -- Vision Thing -- 13:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, you substituted old pieces of text for my new pieces of text, which might not technically be a revert, but amounts to the same thing. In any case, there seem to be disagreements on three basic fronts:

1. How big should ancap be?
2. Where should ancap be?
3. Should ancap be mentioned in the individualist anarchist section?

Let's take the first point first. We've been trying to cut down on the length of the article lately, and a bunch of ancap got cut. Since the cuts kept getting reverted, I tried over yesterday to come up with a version that a) was succinct, and b) included the content that ancap editors felt strongly about. I'm pasting it below. Bacchiad 14:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalism section was already reduced ten days ago and I agreed with that reduction on condition that there wouldn’t be any more reductions. You also said that you are ok with the current level of text. Also, I think that in its current form AC section gives pretty correct picture of anarcho-capitalists views and that there is no need for rewrite of it. -- Vision Thing -- 09:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalism is a predominantly United States-based theoretical tradition that promotes an economic system of stateless free market capitalism. In such a society those services traditionally provided by state monopoly - such law enforcement and military defense - would be provided through private markets. Anarcho-capitalism has been influenced by non-anarchist libertarians such as Frederic Bastiat, Ayn Rand and Robert Nozick; unlike other forms of anarchism, it does not oppose profit, rent, interest, or wage-labor.

Murray Rothbard, an Austrian-school economist, developed anarcho-capitalist theory on the basis classical liberal natural law arguments (the non-aggression principle). Another prominent anarcho-capitalist, David D. Friedman, prefers to justify stateless capitalism on a utilitarian basis. For Friedman, pre-modern societies such as medieval Iceland provide a model of how anarcho-capitalism might function.

Most anarcho-capitalists believe that in the absence of state coercion, free capitalism would naturally and inevitably develop. Hence, Rothbard's statement that "capitalism is the fullest expression of anarchism, and anarchism is the fullest expression of capitalism." This has met resistance from anarchists who hold that capitalism is inherently oppressive and hierarchical. Some followers of Rothbard, calling themselves left-libertarians or agorists, have adopted leftist critiques of presently-existing corporate capitalism, and favor strategies of resistance such as counter-economics.

Now, this is indeed shorter in terms of word count. But I worked hard to include all of the salient information that had been there, and I'd like to think I succeeded. We can talk about the second two issues later. For now, what problems do you have with the above? Bacchiad 14:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that this should be removed from the individualist anarchism section:

Anarcho-capitalism, inspired by some aspects of individualist anarchism, diverges by rejecting labor theory of value and the label of socialism in favor of the subjective theory of value and a broader notion of proviate property.

The only source for the claim does not exactly meet the standards of WP:Reliable sources. For that reason, I think that it would be more appropriate in the anarcho-capitalism section. --AaronS 20:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The reference is crap. What it says, however, could stand without the reference. I agree with you on placement in principle, but since a lot of ancaps do consider themselves successors to the individualists, it is likely to be placed back again and again, even without edit-war abuse by the usual sockpuppets. I'd therefore like to keep it in, since I'd prefer an accurate statement of the distinction rather than constant willy-nilly identifications. Bacchiad 20:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Those are very good points, and I tend to agree with you. I'll have to think about it before changing anything. I think that the current placement implies a direct link, which, as of yet, no reliable source has been able to confirm. --AaronS 20:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Godwin

Why isn't there a section on the first anarchist, William Godwin? He's not even mentioned! Just because Proudhon was the first to accept the label, that doesn't make him the first anarchist. Godwin was an anarchist according to all scholars. Annarchist 00:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

That's a good question. It used to talk about Godwin about a week ago. I know there was some debate about who was the "first anarchist" between some users (I think one of them was a troll though if I remember correctly). I'm going to look in the history and see what happened. The Ungovernable Force 01:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, it was removed to reduce the length of the article, which is something we have been working on. He is talked about at the origins of anarchism page. Before adding him here, we should wait to see what others think, since the editor who got rid of the mention of Godwin clearly did so for a good reason. The Ungovernable Force 01:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

But he is not just an "origin". Godwin was an anarchist and an extremely important one at that.

Eh, no more important than Thoreau, who (embarassingly) isn't even listed on the origins page. Sarge Baldy 04:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I added back the Godwin part. Beeboe

Apparently, AaronS doesn't want Godwin in there. Despite rather detailed citations, he wrote "unsourced claims" on his edit summary. Aaron, can you tell us why you don't want mention of the first anarchist essay, the first anarchist treatise, or anything about Godwin in the article? Here's the part that I think should be inserted into the Origins section:

The earliest known essay explicitly advocating the absence of government was "A Vindication of Natural Society" (1756) by Edmund Burke. Strongly influenced by Vindication, William Godwin published An Enquiry Concerning Political Justice [10] in 1793. Although Godwin did not use the word "anarchism," many later anarchists have regarded this book as the first major anarchist text, and Godwin as the "founder of philosophical anarchism." But at this point no anarchist movement yet existed, and the term "anarchiste" was known mainly as an insult hurled by the bourgeois Girondins at more radical elements in the French Revolution. --Beeboe

I have nothing wrong with having Godwin in the article. There are several reasons why I removed your addition, however. The first is that you claimed that "earliest known essay explicitly advocating the absence of government was 'A Vindication of Natural Society' (1756) by Edmund Burke." But, the source that you cited only provides a reference to Godwin describing Burke's essay. Burke himself admitted that the essay was satirical. The second is that your claim that "many later anarchists have regarded [Godwin's essay] as the first major anarchist text" is completely unsourced. The third is your claim that Godwin is the "founder of philosophical anarchism," which is also unsourced. --AaronS 19:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Vindication explicitly advocated the absense of government - that is obvious to anyone who reads the piece. Whether Burke wrote it as satire is neither here nor there - the claim is about what the essay says, not Burke.

So, was Stephen Colbert the first comedian to explicitly and extensively praise President Bush? Please take a look at the definition of satire. --AaronS 13:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

You still don't see that the statement is about the text itself, not the writer. Beeboe

• "It was Godwin, in his Enquiry concerning Political Justice (2 vols., 1793), who was the first to formulate the political and economical conceptions of anarchism, even though he did not give that name to the ideas developed in his remarkable work." - "Anarchism" from The Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1910, by Peter Kropotkin
• As for Godwin being the founder of philosophical anarchism, you can find support for that in various places, including Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy to the Dictionary of the History of Ideas to The History Guide. Google "Godwin philisophical anarchism" for hundreds more.

Your objections don't hold up, Aaron. Beeboe

My objection was only to your lack of reliable sources, Hogeye. --AaronS 13:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Are Kropotkin and Godwin and Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy unreliable sources? I don't think so. I think that you simply disagree with what these sources say. Beeboe

Placement of Ancap

Now that we've got some clarificatory work done on individualist anarchism vis-a-vis capitalism and socialism, I'd feel alright moving the Anarcho-Capitalism subsection into the Anarchism and the Individual section. Comments? Bacchiad 19:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, sounds good to me. Anarcho-capitalism is a form of individualist anarchism, and we have citations to that effect. Beeboe

No, not from reliable sources. I think that it is better under the capitalism section. --AaronS 19:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Why are you deleting this sentence: "Since World War II this tradition has been reborn and modified in the United States as anarcho-capitalism or libertarianism."? Few months ago you were inserting some claims using Encarta as a source. Are you now saying that it isn’t reliable source? -- Vision Thing -- 09:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Levy makes that statement with a lot of prior context and qualification. Further, I was only using Encarta to support well-known facts (that anarchism has a history with socialism, that anarchism and socialism are related, etc.). --AaronS 13:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

You mean the Wendy McElroy reference? Yeah, that's POV; and even for being POV, it's needlessly snarky about the labor theory of value. Not to mention the usual Rothbardolatry. But that aside, it gives an accurate picture of the difference. It's practically unneccessary as a reference, but I've refrained from stripping it out as a choose your battles sort of thing.

Anyway, the present Capitalism subsection may as well be called Anarcho-Capitalism since that's the only thing it discusses. And that doesn't make sense in Issues since ancap isn't an issue, it's an ideology. The way I see it, we've got three options for placement:

1. An. and the Individual -> Stirner, Individualism, Ancap
2. Issues -> Capitalism -> Ancap, Anti-Globalization
3. Issues -> Capitalism and Leftism ->Ancap, Post-Left

My preference would be for the second or third; but VisionThing is going to edit-war either way. Since the present setup is so cruddy, we've got to decide whether we should put it under Individual and maintain the necessary disclaimers, or else go for one of the other two (or some fourth option) and present a strong, united front if VisionThing reverts. Bacchiad 20:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I would prefer option (2) or (3), with a stronger preference for (2). It makes more sense. I respect Vision Thing, but I would not support any revert placing anarcho-capitalism in the individualist section. A more productive use of all of our time might be to discuss a mutually acceptable fourth option, as you suggest. I welcome Vision Thing's thoughts and suggestions. --AaronS 20:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I would prefer placment in Anarchism and the individual since Anarcho-capitalism is an individualist ideology and, with usual disclaimer, there is no reason not to be there since it’s already in the Anarchism article. If consensus isn’t reached on that option, I’m for option number two, but with anarcho-capitalists take on the issue of globalization. -- Vision Thing -- 09:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Putting anarcho-capitalism under Individualist Anarchism is most logical. However, putting it under capitalism makes for a more coherant section. Why? When the ancap section stands alone, anti-capitalist POV warriors tend to garbage it up with disclaimers every sentence or two. The advantage of being in the Capitalist section is that all the little anti-cap rants can be shunted to the Cap intro section. Beeboe

Any objections to putting an anti-globalization subsection in with it? Bacchiad 23:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Ancaps and anti-globalization

If consensus isn’t reached on that option, I’m for option number two, but with anarcho-capitalists take on the issue of globalization. -- Vision Thing -- 09:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I think this might be the best consensus option. I have two concerns. The first is, I want to limit the number of disclaimers, weasel words, yes-it-is-no-it-isn't back and forths in the article generally. This includes the ancap section, which is why in a previous edit I cut the criticism section down to:

Most anarcho-capitalists believe that in the absence of state coercion, free capitalism would naturally and inevitably develop. Hence, Rothbard's statement that "capitalism is the fullest expression of anarchism, and anarchism is the fullest expression of capitalism." This has met resistance from anarchists who hold that capitalism is inherently oppressive and hierarchical.

I want to do the anti-globo people the same courtesy. Also, I don't want to paint an (I think false) picture of ancaps as corporate apologists; a lot of the most prominent ancap people, like the Mises Institute, are equally anti-WTO, -G8, etc. They may disagree on tactics and prefer to phrase it as opposition to "world government" rather than "globalization", but I don't want to obscure that position. But I think we could settle on a short sentence with a good reference that captures the thing properly. Let me think on it and, if no one else does first, I'll post a draft version to the talk page. Bacchiad 14:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

To capture the thing properly, we need to note the semantic quibble. To anarcho-socialists "globalization" = "neocolonialism." To anarcho-capitalists "globalization" = "expansion of the division of labor." In short, both are against neocolonialism, but only the ansocs (some, anyway) are against the division of labor. Per your reduction of disclaimers suggestion, I moved the latest disclaimer to the Capitalism intro section. Beeboe

Beeboe, you seem to have an over-riding interest in semantic quibbles. Let's say for a moment that if the semantic distinction were important to a lot of notable ancaps and if they used the same definitions as you do, it would be important to include in the article. Let's just assume that as a thought experiment. Now, could you provide a couple of good citations where notable ancaps do that? Then we could hash out whether it merits mention. Bacchiad 01:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Antiquated Terminology

What should we do about terminology which is misleading due to obsolete usages? A current concern (in the Individualist Anarchist section) is how it should be noted that people in the 19th century who called themselves "socialist" are not at all socialist the way the term is used today. Probably at the very least we should use "scare quotes" and a footnote. Beeboe

Who really cares, you're not supposed to be here anyway, remember? The Ungovernable Force 20:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I care. So should anyone editing here. It's supposed to be an encyclopedia article, not a propaganda piece. We shouldn't purposely try to mislead people. ("Not supposed to be here?" Please give reasons, rather than poisoning the well.) FreeJohnG 20:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and I'm sure you're not just another sockpuppet, right? The Ungovernable Force 20:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Apparently you're not up for reasonableness today. Everyone's a sockpuppet, eh? FreeJohnG 21:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

No, just everybody who signs up within the past 48-72 hours, suddenly finds themselves on this page, becomes immediately acquainted with Wikipedia editing and policies, and supports Hogeye. Please, we're not idiots. --AaronS 22:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Give it up hogeye, it won't ever work. The Ungovernable Force 22:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Sock-puppetry aside, I don't agree with the term 'antiquated' or accept the needs for a million disclaimers. First of all, it doesn't say "they were socialists"; it says they described their position as "socialism". Which they did. And furthermore, there's already a good deal of wording about ind. anarchist defense of private possession and markets, and opposition to state socialism. It's abundantly clear from the article in its present state that what they meant by socialism is different from the average everyday definition. Finally, 'antiquated' and 'obsolete' are POV; they imply worthlessness. 'Different from today's common understanding of the word' would be more acceptable, though I think still unneccessary. User:Bacchiad 01:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Food Not Bombs vs Black Bloc

The article currently says:

Many participate actively in the anti-globalization movement. Here, as elsewhere, anarchists have differences of opinion over tactics; thus the black blocs are prepared to engage in property destruction, while the activists of Food Not Bombs advocate more peaceful means.

Although FNB as a group says it's nonviolent, in my own experience, many if not most of the people involved don't have any problem with black blocs and property destruction. I don't think there is really any disagreement, the only difference is in the tactics used by the people at the time. When you want to destroy property you do it as a black bloc, when you want to give out food, you do it under the banner of FNB--it's not a matter of disagreement. The Ungovernable Force 20:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

What does Food Not Bombs have to do with globalization? Shouldn't that be somewhere else, like a section on parallel structures? FreeJohnG 20:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that was kinda a cruddy comparison; sorry 'bout that. I was just trying to capture the difference over tactics. Bacchiad 23:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

anarchism project

I'm new and I don't know much. I was wondering if there was an anarchism project I could join here. Thanks. Shannon 00:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia. If you want to join something, try the anti-state.com or strike-the-root.com forums. If you want information then try Anarchist Theory FAQ for general anarchism; Anarcho-capitalist FAQ for market anarchism; and An Anarchist FAQ for communist anarchism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.159.81.81 (talk • contribs) .

Lol, plugging you're own faq, eh hogeye? The Ungovernable Force 01:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone have any evidence that this is hogeye>? I'm concerned that this hogeye figure has become a straw man representing anyone who might disagree with the views of certain editors... it seems like it's a bit common practice to just dismiss out of hand any comment from any IP or unrecognized username as being a "Sock-puppet of Hogeye"...? Two-Bit Sprite 04:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, this is what User:AaronS said when one of the socks tried to play dumb and ask if I thought everyone was a sock: No, just everybody who signs up within the past 48-72 hours, suddenly finds themselves on this page, becomes immediately acquainted with Wikipedia editing and policies, and supports Hogeye. Please, we're not idiots. I think it's quite obvious that these IP's and users are hogeye evading, based on their editing style and the content of the edits they are making. And looking at Hogeye's extensive history of evading, it makes sense to assume any new user who starts making pro-capitalist edits is probably Hogeye, especially when the edits are exactly the same as other Hogeye socks (many of which have been blocked already). Also, you're question was a direct response to my above comment. Well, this faq was written by hogeye, so the fact that that anon is plugging it seems fishy, don't you think? The Ungovernable Force 04:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Milton and David

Why does somebody keep deleting references to the fact that anarcho-capitalist David Friedman is the son of Republican-monetarist Milton Friedman? It certainly seems relevant. It illustrates one of the directions (I don't say the only direction!) whence anarcho-capitalist thoughts can arise. Whether you think of David as rebelling against Dad, or staying essentially within Dad's fold, or as something between the two is up to you. But the fact of their relationship is NPOV, and should be in here. --Christofurio 15:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Same reason we cut out/cut down the paragraph on Latin American syndicalism, the bio of Warren and Tucker, the blockquote in anti-fascism, and other stuff: economy. This is a big long article that has to cover a lot of territory. In broad terms I think it's interesting that David is Milton son, but that's most interesting in his own article, kind of interesting in the ancap article, and in my personal judgement least interesting in the anarchism article. Personal judgment call, but I thought the most relevant things were utilitarianism and medieval Iceland. Bacchiad 03:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it's a personal call, and one that I'm not willing to edit war about. So be it. --Christofurio 18:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it's an irrelevant detail. We should keep things as concise as possible, and such a trivial point really doesn't have any reason to be here. It's a perfect example of the sort of fluff that we need to keep out of this article. Sarge Baldy 22:09, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

RJII

RJII checking in from a cafe in Provincetown. I went ahead and edited some articles. Oh, I'm banned for life? Ok, ban the IP then. See ya. 72.93.12.116 18:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Provincetown, eh? I bet you're right at home, there. ;-) --AaronS 18:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Length reduction

I thought that it was pretty clear from the last few discussions that we're trying to cut down the article size by trimming the fat, but for clarity's sake, now it has its own section. There was some confusion. --AaronS 14:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Since article has 40KB of the readable prose I don't see why any further systematic trimming would be necessary. Also, your edits [11] show that you were editing out the content with which you don't agree and not the content that needs trimming. For instance, you trimmed Anarcho-capitalism section despite the fact that consensus about its size was already reached a half a month ago. -- Vision Thing -- 16:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I did trim that section, yes, but I also trimmed almost every other section. Please assume good faith. Further, you'll see that my cuts aren't just about length, but also about unverified claims, fluff, and other such nasties. --AaronS 16:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

If you dispute validity of some content you should say why here. By deleting sourced claims you are reducing quality and neutrality of this article. With that you are coming close to vandalism. For example, you deleted this sentence: "The term "socialism" at that time meant "co-operative production"." which is backed up by a published article of Larry Gambone, for which even one left libertarian site said "a must read!" It's hard to assume good faith in someone who makes that kind of edits. -- Vision Thing -- 21:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Who is Larry Gambone? I tried looking for signs of some reputable or well-known publisher in that document, but I could not find any. If you do, let me know. Until then, I would appreciate if you took a look at WP:Reliable sources, WP:OR, WP:Be bold, and WP:Assume good faith. You might see that, as opposed to being evil and biased, my edits might make some amount of sense (I hope). In the meantime, to satisfy your curiosity, I will explain them in detail soon (not that it is necessary to do so beforehand; it isn't. But it is necessary to explain repeated reverts). --AaronS 13:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Since his article isn’t accepted as a source I removed claim backed by infoshops FAQ using the same criteria. -- Vision Thing -- 13:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

A bit more detail

Some anarchists disliked merging communism with anarchism. For example, Benjamin Tucker, whilst professing respect for Kropotkin and publishing his work, described communist anarchism as "pseudo-anarchism," and argued in favor of a less radical socialist anarchism.

Instead of

Some anarchists disliked merging communism with anarchism. A number of individualist anarchists maintained that abolition of private property was not consistent with liberty. For example, Benjamin Tucker, whilst professing respect for Kropotkin and publishing his work, described communist anarchism as "pseudo-anarchism".

This is because, in the essay in question, Tucker does indeed talk about communism being inconsistent with liberty. In the article, however, this is used to generalize about "a number of individualist anarchists" and make the claim that the "abolition of private property" is somehow contrary to libertarian ideals. But Tucker can only speak for himself, and he qualifies his statements with a respectful tone for anarcho-communism; it's just that he thinks that his socialism is better. My version better respects the main thrust of his essay, makes no generalizations, and keeps the discussion to one of communism versus socialism, not private property.

I removed this:

The newer school of anarcho-capitalism (see below), seen as an outgrowth of individualist-anarchist movement by some scholars, rejects labor theory of value in favor of the subjective theory of value, view supported my most economists today, and has a broader notion of private property.

because it (1) does not belong in that section, (2) misuses the Levy source, and, as such, (3) is not supported by reliable sources.

The newest element in this discourse has been a school of thought called anarcho-capitalism, which argues for a stateless, laissez-faire capitalist society. Its reception among scholars and advocates of traditional anarchism has been mixed. On the other hand, many anarchists continue to be involved in broad-based leftist, anti-capitalist activism.

becomes

The 20th century, however, saw American economist Murray Rothbard's advent of anarcho-capitalism.

because it is more succinct, does not require a myriad of improperly-cited sources, and is a much better lead into the anarcho-capitalism section.

My reduction of the anarcho-capitalism section simply removes tangential points that are not essential to the article as a whole.

Ta-da. --AaronS 14:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Some anarchists disliked merging communism with anarchism. For example, Benjamin Tucker, whilst professing respect for Kropotkin and publishing his work, described communist anarchism as "pseudo-anarchism," and argued in favor of a less radical socialist anarchism.

Instead of

Some anarchists disliked merging communism with anarchism. A number of individualist anarchists maintained that abolition of private property was not consistent with liberty. For example, Benjamin Tucker, whilst professing respect for Kropotkin and publishing his work, described communist anarchism as "pseudo-anarchism".

This is because, in the essay in question, Tucker does indeed talk about communism being inconsistent with liberty. In the article, however, this is used to generalize about "a number of individualist anarchists" and make the claim that the "abolition of private property" is somehow contrary to libertarian ideals. But Tucker can only speak for himself, and he qualifies his statements with a respectful tone for anarcho-communism; it's just that he thinks that his socialism is better. My version better respects the main thrust of his essay, makes no generalizations, and keeps the discussion to one of communism versus socialism, not private property.

--AaronS 14:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I added two more sources for that claim and removed "argued in favor of a less radical socialist anarchism" since that is already mentioned in IA section so it’s redundant here. -- Vision Thing -- 13:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I removed this:

The newer school of anarcho-capitalism (see below), seen as an outgrowth of individualist-anarchist movement by some scholars, rejects labor theory of value in favor of the subjective theory of value, view supported my most economists today, and has a broader notion of private property.

because it (1) does not belong in that section, (2) misuses the Levy source, and, as such, (3) is not supported by reliable sources.

--AaronS 14:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

(1)It belongs in that section since it's talking about Individualist anarchism, if you check Encarta source you will see that it's in the same section there also; (2) I don't see how it misuses Levy's source; (3) Are you saying that Encarta can’t be used as reliable source? -- Vision Thing -- 13:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The newest element in this discourse has been a school of thought called anarcho-capitalism, which argues for a stateless, laissez-faire capitalist society. Its reception among scholars and advocates of traditional anarchism has been mixed. On the other hand, many anarchists continue to be involved in broad-based leftist, anti-capitalist activism.

becomes

The 20th century, however, saw American economist Murray Rothbard's advent of anarcho-capitalism.

because it is more succinct, does not require a myriad of improperly-cited sources, and is a much better lead into the anarcho-capitalism section.

--AaronS 14:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Your version was too succinct and it wasn’t explaining the source of the dispute. Anyhow, I saw that infinity0 thought the same but he overwrote it with obsolete one. -- Vision Thing -- 13:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

My reduction of the anarcho-capitalism section simply removes tangential points that are not essential to the article as a whole.

--AaronS 14:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

You reduction in AC section didn't remove tangential but crucial points about anarcho-capitalists philosophy. Further, we did reach a consensus about optimal size of AC section, and consensus was that it doesn’t need more trimming. -- Vision Thing -- 13:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

individualist anarchism

The article says Tucker advocated labor notes and mutual banking. I don't think this is correct. Drowner 20:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

You're definitely wrong on mutual banking[12]. On labor notes, I don't believe he explicitly advocates them, but he does cite them with approval[13]. The point is, they're stuff that, according to him, workers could do more of without invasive monopoly. Bacchiad 03:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The two-way division (between 'anarchism and workers' liberation' and 'anarchism and the individual') suggests that these causes parted ways; of course they did not and some individualist anarchists e.g. Labadie, were unvolved in syndicalist unions, etc. I'm edit-shy but mebbe moving 'anarchism and the individual' above 'anarchism and workers' liberation,' and moving the cross-references, might help. Tucker's criticisms of Kropotkin could go in the 'issues' section. Jacob Haller 00:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Division of anarchism on social and individualist strands is common in the literature about anarchism. Maybe we should mention it in the intro.-- Vision Thing -- 13:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Length of article

I've noticed that this article, the article on actual anarchism, is much shorter than the article on the sham of "anarcho-capitalism". This is completely disproportionate to the popularity, historical importance and philosophical legitimacy of the two movements. Either someone can write another 1,500 words on anarchism, or as I'd prefer, the "anarcho-capitalist" article should be severely cut.--Nwe 17:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The length of anarchism in comparison to the length of this article is of no import. --AaronS 17:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is, of course it is, it implies that "anarcho-capitalism" is more significant than actual anarchism.--Nwe 18:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

See what happened to your question? That's what'll happen to any edits you try to put in the "real anarchism" sections of the article. Bacchiad 20:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

See It now? That's what'll happen next if citations are either given or unwanted in my edits.

Good! Go to it! Bacchiad 18:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd rather 1.Compromise 2.See the "anarcho-capitalism" article cut 3. See writers more adept and knowledgable than I contribute. I don't know who you are and where exactly you've found yourself in this discussion. Are you stoned? You seem stoned.--Nwe 21:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it especially matters what size an article is compared to another. Wikipedia is fraught with systemic bias. Jimbo Wales himself is Objectivist, and a large proportion of editors are middle/upper class tech-savvy males from the United States with a lot of spare time. With those demographics, NPOV becomes a completely impossible joke, even if it remains useful as a rule of thumb. What I can say is that this article is fraught with issues, particularly regarding the anarcho-capitalist section. At present, there's no real disclaimers about it, and it has a massive section. It would be difficult to name 10 notable anarcho-capitalists, where there's no difficulty in naming hundreds of anti-capitalist anarchists. [14] And this despite anarchism being a grassroots movement with mostly unrecognized members, and anarcho-capitalism being a stand-alone American ideology without a significant movement of any kind (let alone being part of the anarchist movement more generally). Certainly this section is highly overweighted. Likewise, it needs a significant disclaimer because "'anarcho-capitalism'... is generally regarded as a political oxymoron by anarchists" (Anarchism, Sean M. Sheehan, 2004, pg. 39). Sarge Baldy 20:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Authority as "Evil" vs. "Harmful"

I'd like to propose a small change which, under normal circumstances I might just be inclined to edit without a discussion. However, because this page is constantly vandalised and hotly contested, I thought it best to discuss the matter first. It is the matter of whether anarchists should be defined as deeming goverment/authority as "evil," as the current summary does: "Thus 'anarchism,' in its most general semantic meaning, is the belief that all forms of rulership are evil and should be abolished."

I dislike the use of this term because is suggests a moral bias based in a dicotomy of good vs evil, such as a christian morality of rightiousness vs a moral evil. On the surface it may not seem to be a problem, but many anarchists do not see this matter in such terms. To that end, I would suggest a definition which does not depend on moral subjectivity. Perhaps using the term "harmful" or "negative" instead would be best? I propose two possible alternatives, the second of which is something of a quote from Lawrence Jarach's anarchist phamplet, "Instead of Another Meeting."

"Thus 'anarchism,' in its most general semantic meaning, is the belief that all forms of rulership are [1) harmful to society] [2) a negative means of maintaining social harmony] and should be abolished. " —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cast (talk • contribs) .

Well, it's already been changed, but no, it should not say evil for the same reason you gave. A lot of anarchists do not believe in evil as a concept and reject dichotomies like "good" and "evil". This is especially true for post-leftists, and probably others as well. The Ungovernable Force 03:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

can you show this, Ungovernable Force?

I am the one that substituted 'evil' for 'undesirable'. Can you back up your statement above, "A lot of anarchists do not believe in evil as a concept, etc.". About the revert of my recent edits, unless you can show how they are incorrect, then they will go back to the way they were. I'm not particular about the word 'evil', itself, but undesirable is just softening what any self-respecting anarchist would agree on..the putridness of governments. Another thing is the push for communism in this article. Are we talking about anarchism or communism? I'm reverting it back again. This article is not cutting it in my perspective, and I am 100% anarchist anti-authoritarianism. I know what anarchy is. Shannon^{duck talk} 02:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

First off, I didn't revert it the first time, someone else did, so I'm not sure why this is directed towards me. Second, read Days of War, Nights of Love, especially this essay on Crimethinc.com. Crimethinc is one of the most influential anarchist groups in america right now in terms of ideology (or lack thereof), so the fact that they are saying this suggests that many anarchists probably feel similarly. And although I don't feel like searching for any of it right now, there have been debates on infoshop.org about the idea of morality, and many people involved have rejected it. As for the rest of your edits, why are you so intent on changing it? This is the version of the intro we have agreed upon. I don't see the benefit of your changes. I especially hope that you will not just change it back again without a consensus on this page first. Lastly, why you are bringing in this "are we talking about anarchism or communism" here thing, like the two are mutually exclusive--many anarchists are communists as well, and most if not all (depending on your definition of anarchism) are socialists or socialist-inspired. If you have a particular problem with it somewhere in the article, could you say what it is? The Ungovernable Force 04:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

individual sovereignty and NPOV

User:AaronS is trying to revert my perfectly cited addition to anarchism. "Some" in this case does not mean "as opposed to many." It just means here that there are people out there holding to the first view, and that there are people out there holding the second view. "Many" in itself is a weasel word best to be avoided. Intangible 17:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that you addition is false. Your write: For some anarchists, this includes not only the state, but many or all institutions of authority, such as state socialism and capitalism; others see individual sovereignty as reason to reject the state. What does this even mean? That while some anarchists reject the state, other anarchists reject the state? That's redundant. If that's not what you mean, then it needs to be reworded. Or, does it mean that, while some anarchists reject more than the state, other anarchists reject only the state? No, anti-statists do that, not anarchists. Why are you changing this agreed-upon intro? It took a long time to reach a compromise. --AaronS 17:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

It means the latter. If you reject the latter, you reject the inclusion of individualist anarchism in this article. Intangible 17:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Says who? Also, please answer my question about changing the agreed-upon version of the intro without any discussion. --AaronS 18:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

You change the agreed-upon version of the intro without any discussion many times if I remember correctly. -- Vision Thing -- 18:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, says who? I haven't seen any disagreement. --AaronS 18:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

See the 1889 article. With my change I think I brought in a good nuance to the article. Intangible 18:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

To give a quote from the 1889 article: "The Invididualistic Anarchists accordingly profess to have very little in common with the Internationalists. The latter are Communistic Anarchists." Intangible 18:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Wording of the statement should be improved, but I agree with Intangible, "individual sovereignty" is an important concept so it should be mentioned in the intro. -- Vision Thing -- 18:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Article is unadulturated communist/socialist propaganda

Anarchy does not = communism or socialism. Anarchy does not = capitalism, but at least is feasible as a possibility.

Anarchy is a headless state.

This article is clearly pushing for a communistic interpretation of anarchy. I personally don't believe there is such a thing as communist/anarchy. Unless maybe it's anarchists living in communes, which would be a possiblity.

Saying communist/anarchy is akin to saying monarchistic/anarchy.

In any case it is obvious by the way this article is written, that any talk of anarcho-capitalism is not allowed. This is clear by: 1. the obvious witch hunt done on the editor above who was accused of being another editor. and 2. the communist slant in the article itself. Shannon^{duck talk} 23:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

This article claims nowhere that anarchy=communism or socialism. That would be highly POV, as it would not include such historical movements as mutualism, or probably even modern ones like primitivism or post-left anarchism.

If you can point out a specific instance in which the article makes such a claim, please do and I will remove it immediately. Indeed, if you can point out an instance in which the article is "pushing a communistic interpretation" of anarchy, please do. The anarcho-communists have played a huge role in historical anarchism, but it would not be proper for this article to be dominated by them.

As for an editor "being accused of being another editor", the sad fact is that we have two highly prolific anarcho-capitalist editors who have been banned from wikipedia several times for using sock puppets. The accusations are thus appropriate to the context. As for the "communist slant", again, specifics would be welcomed. Blahblahblahblahblahblah 23:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Anarchism as a tradition is more nuanced than, and distinct from, anti-statism. That's why they're in two separate articles. Treating them as if they were the same topic would be severely POV. Sarge Baldy 23:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

"In any case it is obvious by the way this article is written, that any talk of anarcho-capitalism is not allowed."

That is plain false. We have a section, right there in the article. - FrancisTyers · 23:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

In response to Blah

Blahblahblahblahblahblah said (nice name): If you can point out a specific instance in which the article makes such a claim, please do and I will remove it immediately.

In the first paragraph: Okay. At first it just said "For many anarchists, this includes not only the state, but all institutions of authority, such as capitalism." I added 'and communism', and it wasn't removed. That's a start.

But then it states: "The rise of anarchism as a cohesive philosophy in the 19th century, with its notion of freedom as being based upon political, economic, and social equality, was a reaction to the rise of bureaucratic nation state and large-scale industrial capitalism."

1. If the word socialism was substituted it would be an accurate statement.

The article itself provides plenty of evidence against this assertion. I suggest you give "What is Property?" a quick glance to see Proudhon's reaction to capitalism. In addition, the evidence in the article, which you are claiming is false, is sourced. If you have counter evidence, please provide it. Blahblahblahblahblahblah 08:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

1. Why is this sentence even in the introduction?

It is explaining the origins of anarchism, which seems appropriate for the introduction. Blahblahblahblahblahblah 08:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

1. Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine said that they believed in anarchy more than in government and hinted at it's "unnaturalness" in the 18th century. They were opposed to the banking institutions of Alexander Hamilton.

Neither Jefferson nor Paine identified themselves as anarchists. Neither Jefferson nor Paine called for the complete abolition of government and all other forms of institutional authority (i.e. rulership), so I see no reason to include anything on them in this article. If you have evidence that they identified as anarchists or called for the abolition of all forms of rulership, please provide it. Blahblahblahblahblahblah 08:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Blah goes on: "Indeed, if you can point out an instance in which the article is "pushing a communistic interpretation" of anarchy, please do. The anarcho-communists have played a huge role in historical anarchism, but it would not be proper for this article to be dominated by them."

No, it wouldn't. And who says 'the anarcho-communists have played a huge role in historical anarchism' besides you? Others, many others, throughout history, have played a huge role as anarchists, as well.

Well, I suppose the hundreds of thousands of members of the CNT who played a large roll in the Spanish Revolution would have something to do with my claim concerning "huge role", as would the prominence of thinkers such as Kropotkin, Bakunin, and Goldman in the history of the movement. One could also include the existence of anarcho-communist collectives whose members numbered in the tens of thousands, and its large influence on several prominent labor unions worldwide. Of course, many other movements have played large rolls as well, though it would be hard to match anarcho-communism for sheer numbers or visibility, but that is why detailed accounts of all anarchist ideologies are included in this article. If you have information on a movement that is not included, please provide it. Blahblahblahblahblahblah 08:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Like I said, this article is communist pov pushing. It's outrageous in an article about anarchism. Shannon^{duck talk} 05:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

None of your statements thus far have been sourced, whereas the article lists numerous sources for its claims. To be frank you don't sound like someone entirely versed in the history of anarchism, perhaps you should take some time to read some Tucker, Proudhon, Kropotkin, and Bakunin, before making blanket claims about the history of anarchism. Nonetheless, if you feel any prominent anarchist is being left out of the article you can always inform us about them here or add them yourself.

In addition to the claims in the article, which are already sourced, you might want to try reading some other encyclopedia to get a quick overview of the philosophy. For example, here are some relevant quotes from encarta, which you can find here.

• "Anarchism arose out of the ideological ferment of the French Revolution and in reaction to both the European bureaucratic nation state and the advent of large-scale industrial capitalism."

• "However, anarchism, as a self-conscious ideology, appeared in Europe during the first half of the 19th century, the uneasy sibling of modern socialism and communism."

• "Foreshadowing syndicalism, which would become an important factor in the French labour movement in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Proudhonian mutualism argued that workers’ associations would replace the capitalist economy, enabling the political State to wither away."

• "Like Rousseau, most schools of anarchists believed in positive rather than negative freedom. For both, freedom was based on political, economic, and social equality, but whereas Rousseau relied on State coercion and the education of the next generation in the ways of classical republican virtue, the anarchists believed that a stateless society would be accomplished through non-coercive persuasive example and libertarian education."

I don't believe any of these statements are appropriate sources for this article, which should rely on the primary sources readily available, but it might help to familiarize you with the subject. Blahblahblahblahblahblah 09:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Fact tags and one clarification

• "The Russian Revolution of 1917 was a seismic event in the development of anarchism as a movement and as a philosophy." – I never heard that Russian revolution was "a seismic event in the development of anarchism" and I don't see why someone would see it as such, so I ask for a source.

• This link doesn't provide a source for claim that "Arditi del Popolo" totally humiliated thousands of Blackshirts in Parma.

I found (sourced) claim that Tucker said: "Capitalism is at least tolerable, which cannot be said of Socialism or Communism" in another Wikipedia article. Latter I found a confirmation of it in another source (not that it's necessary, but sill). In "Meanings of the Market: The Free Market in Western Culture" James Carrier wrote: "But toward the end of his life, Tucker declared, 'Capitalism is at least tolerable, which cannot be said of Socialism or Communism' (cited in Martin 1970:275), providing the shift further illuminated in the 1970s by anarcho-capitalists." -- Vision Thing -- 14:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

You aren't going to get them, VisionThing, because those aren't factual statements, they're rhetorical tropes - and somewhat POV ones at that. The first is a banality (the Russian Revolution was a seismic event in world history, so of course it was a seismic event for anarchism, just as it was for capitalism, communism, royalism, and everything else); the second is hyperbole. Instead of sowing fact tags everywhere, why don't you actually try to edit the article. The consistent pattern of your activity on this page has been to delete text, re-insert text, or add fact tags. Why don't you give it the old college try and actually modify what the text has to say? Bacchiad 02:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

History of anarcho-syndicalism is not really my field of expertise; I counted on present social anarchists to neutralize it, but apparently that's too much to expect from them. -- Vision Thing -- 13:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

On the Tucker quote: It's a junk reference. Where in Tucker's works does the quote actually come from? I'm not going to take another's article's word on Carrier's word on Martin's word on what Tucker allegedly wrote. Bacchiad 02:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

You mixed something. I found Carrier refrence.-- Vision Thing -- 13:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Bacchiad, I will take a stab at why Vision Thing doesn't just try to edit the article..it's because he is outnumbered, it's because of this and the 3RR combined that he doesn't bother. Because the same thing that happens to me on certain articles happens to him. Everything we try to add or change goes right back to where it was. I have a sneaking suspician that is what happened to Hogeye, too. All the communist/liberal/socialist pushers outnumber the libertarians and invariably, with the convenience of these rules, don't have a fighting chance.

To Blah: You said if you saw communist pushing in this article you would remove it because it would POV. This article is, almost entirely, from start to finish, communist propaganda that has little to do with real anarchism. From start to finish. I think it should renamed 'communism'. It would be more fitting. Shannon^{duck talk} 04:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm still awaiting the specifics I've asked for several times now. Blahblahblahblahblahblah 05:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

And you wrote this after you removed only criticism of communism in the article. LOL -- Vision Thing -- 13:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Vision Thing. And to Blah: I'm not going to waste my time and energy pointing out every single item. If I did that I would have to just post the entire article on this page. Then you would yell at me for doing that. If you can't see the huge communist slant in this article, then maybe you shouldn't be working on this encyclopedia. Do some studying of communism. Shannon^{duck talk} 14:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Lingeron: What's this "Shannon" persona? I don't get it. Bacchiad 16:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

That's my name. Shannon^{duck talk} 13:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Shannon, reading your comments here and at anarcho-capitalism I get the feeling of a clash of cultures and paradigms between you and the socialist anarchist editors. In all honesty, while I disagree with it, I respect your viewpoint that what you understand by anarchy is incompatible with communism, or ´socialism´. But while you have every right to argue that position, you should recognise that it is not a view that has been shared by most anarchists, either historically or today.

I´d go further and say that this position is one that is limited to a specific, and narrow, historical and geographical environment. The only people I have ever encountered araguing for anarcho-capitalism, or taking it at all seriously, are from the United States. And yes this is the English language wikipedia, and written predominantly by North Americans, but our goal I think is to be a global not a US encyclopedia. We need to be thinking of what anarchists across the world, throughout the history of the movement, have meant by the term. And, whether you agree with them or not, most anarchists throughout history have considered their beliefs to be a form of socialism, and in practice have been closely allied with other stripes of socialists in revolutionary and labour struggles.

The fact is that anarcho-capitalism is a new idea, and quite distinct from other, better known and more widespread, ideas of anarchism. Here is how an-cap Wendy McElroy sees it [15]:

´´The result [of Rothbard´s work in the 1950s] was something entirely new under the sun: an anarchist movement that championed capitalism. It is difficult to even come up with a parallel to give you a sense of how incredible a hybrid capitalism and anarchism make. If you can imagine someone proving that not only are Freudianism and Behaviorism both correct but that both are nd always have been compatible, you might get the flavor of it all. For better or worse, this moral and sophisticated defense of capitalism has greatly distanced individualist anarchism from the general anarchist movement which still considers capitalism to be an evil on the level of, if identical with, the State. And when you talk to communist anarchists, if they don't get immediately hostile, they are likely to express total bewilderment at this bizarre combination of beliefs.´´

McElroy, who knows the history of ´libertarianism´, is quite open about how far it departs from ´general´ anti-capitalist anarchism. But it seems some newer, younger, ancaps and right-libertarians have grown up with the Rothbard doctine as an established fact, so are maybe not even aware of anarchism´s development as a socialist movement.

I think some of the confusion that arises here is because anarcho-capitalists, and the libertarian right in general, have developed a particular and narrow definition of socialism as something like full state ownership or control of property. In this, funnily enough, they come close to agreeing with the Marxists, acting as if only Marxist socalism is the real thing and other forms rest are aberrant or anomalous, if they even acknowledge their existence. But, even aside from anarchists, there are many forms and branches of socialism, and have been from the start. The utopianisms of Robert Owen, Charles Fourier, etc. preceded Marx, as did the mutualism of Proudhon. While Marxist variants of socialism became prominent in continental Europe, to the UK for example there were the many stripes of reformist socialisms, fabianism, municipal socialism etc. And many other variants - guild socialism, christian socialism, eurocommunism, etc etc. Few of these fit the easy simplifications of Mises, Rothbard et al.

As for communism, certainly not all anarchists have been communists. But many of the biggest, most effective anarchist miovements were. If you want to get a flavour of what communist anarschism meant at its strongest, you might look at Isaac Puente´s ´Comunismo Libertario´[16] - this was the economic manifestor adopted by the world´s biggest anarchist movement, the Spanish CNT which in 1936 had 1.5 million members. This at a time when, as McElroy writes, "individualist anarchism virtually died in 1908 when the offices of Tucker's Liberty and bookstore burnt to the ground."Bengalski.

Why must all editors who disagree with anarcho-capitalist POV be socialists?

Or anarchists at all? I don't really buy this whole "clash of the POVs" characterization. Sure, there are some people, here, who have clearly drawn the line in the sand. That's beneficial, because it's honest, but it's also detrimental, because it allows people to portray every one of your edits as being POV. A long time ago, I refused to endorse my own beliefs as socialist or socialist anarchist. I still do. My interest in this subject is academic. I'm too young, uninformed, uneducated, and downright stupid to know what politics would be best for the world. I find the anarchist ideal to be, well, ideal and romantic, but I do not let that enter into my editing process, just as I wouldn't let my love of, say, J.R.R. Tolkien's work allow me to add "The Lord of the Rings is the best piece of fantasy fiction" to the Lord of the Rings article.

I wager that there are other editors, here, who tend to find themselves at the receiving end of some of the anarcho-capitalist editors' accusations, and who feel the same as I. I resent the characterization of the frequent disputes regarding this article as being between a cadre of socialists and a cadre of right libertarians. Sometimes, some of us, who just love knowledge, history, politics, or whatever, get caught in the middle. The fact of the matter is that the users who many accused of POV-pushing -- Hogeye and RJII -- were eventually banned for or admitted to doing just that. RJII even drafted quite an amusing manifesto as to the success of his "psychological warfare," sounding not so different from a deranged Caligula returning from a victorious campaign against the ocean itself, adding to his treasury a sizeable bounty of seashells and sand, and declaring himself Jupiter.

This is about what is verifiable and encyclopaedic. So, let's stick to that. We know RJII has sock puppets, but it doesn't really matter. Let him play with himself. In the meantime, stick to the article and its content, and stop sticking it to one another. --AaronS 15:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Anarchism/historical

This seems like a forgotten fork. Any reasons why it should not be deleted?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 04:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow, blast from the past. I scanned it real fast, it didn't seem too necessary. I did however take the current version and put it into one of my sandboxes for a second so that if it is deleted, we can always look to see if there was any info that we might want. It's in the history here. The Ungovernable Force 04:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)