Talk:Anarchism/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

→

Archive 25

New proposed disambiguation scheme

I'm reverting the changes Kev made to the new disambiguation I introduced (see this difference). Kev explains "The disambugation being put forth by capitalists is skewed" -- actually, my disambiguation, which describes (this kind of) anarchism specifically by its historical roots, is clearer than Kev's replacement (which is redundant with the beginning of the text, to boot): "This page refers to anarchism as a philosophy of those who seek out and identify structures of authority, hierarchy, and domination, and challenge them, to increase the scope of human freedom". Some anarcho-capitalists would read that and think you were talking about their philosophy. Some anti-libertarians would read that and take serious issue with your concept of freedom. Kev then removes all reference to anarcho-capitalism (which was already very terse and way at the end) from the article text. This is unnecessary -- it wasn't exactly occupying prime real estate before -- and having it in will serve to avoid occasional confusion. Third, Kev changed the disambiguation from anarchism (disambiguation) to anarchy, a page which is inadequate to the job. He thinks that anarchism (disambiguation) is biased ... see Talk:Anarchism (disambiguation). - Nat Krause 06:04, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The disambiguation page is skewed. The changes that were made are skewed. I believe Kev is correct in his treatment of the page, if you're going to use disambiguation to introduce ancaps, then they shouldn't be mentioned at all. If they are mentioned, they don't need a disambiguation. It's one or the other.-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 06:10, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

Why one or the other? This is an encyclopedia and it's a not-paper one at that. We should try for a minimum on confusion, so to mention AC briefly both on a disambiguation page and in the text seems like the obvious thing to do. Sorry if that pains you. - Nat Krause 06:20, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If the text starts with a disambugation expressly designed to serve the purposes of this minor fringe movement then I fail to see the justification in go on to describe anarcho-capitalism in it. You want to have your cake by having wikipedia over-emphasize this fringe movement on the one hand by disambugating the very word anarchism for its purposes, then you want to eat it too by including anarcho-capitalism on the very page you just disambugated it from. Kev 06:27, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Disambiguation=making unamniguous=you use one definition for the page=not making it ambiguous by including other definitions in this page. Disambiguate or mention ancaps, one or the other, not both. You have been pandered to enough now, you won't get anymore to serve your goals to emphasize internet clubs.-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 06:34, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

When I see a reference to "increase the scope of human freedom", the last thing I think about is socialism. Such a "disambiguation" doesn't do a good job of disambiguating. Furthermore, linking it to anarchy makes no sense on those grounds -- the latter page doesn't even have a link to anarcho-capitalism, because when I tried to add one a while back it got reverted by one of the socialists around here who are working tirelessly to expunge all references to AC from all the pages related to anarchism and anarchy. The new disambig page needs a lot of work, but it still makes more sense as a link destination. *Dan* 12:26, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Geez, it is a larff to hear any anarchist describe someone else as fringe. Dan is right about the disambiguation. Plus, it is currently redundant: just mentioning some of the principles of the movement is quite sufficient, the rest is just puffery. The fact that we have a (not-so-NPOV) definition for this article does not mean we can't mention anything that falls outside of the definition, especially if, as in this case, just about the only thing we say about it is that it falls outside the definition. I mean, the definition of "anarcho-capitalism" is quite clear, and yet that article mentions socialist anarchism several times. These pages are controlled by ansoc POV warriors. - Nat Krause 13:10, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It would help a lot if while describing the POV warrior opposition you didn't use terms like ansoc, which tag you to a pretty narrow field of POV warrioring yourself Nat. You and Dtobias (now Dan) have your own axes to grind, and your talk of socialists working tirelessly to "expunge all referances to AC from all the pages related to anarchism" would get a lot more traction if A) it was true (it isn't, almost all the editors of anarchism pages have allowed brief referances to anarcho-capitalism to exist) and B) you didn't appear to be doing the exact same thing in the opposite direction (that is, working tirelessly as capitalists to bias these articles toward a particularly AC perspective on the history and modern state of anarchism). Kev 18:09, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalism is not part of anarchist thought. Why do vandalising Anarchi-capitalists such as Nat want to put it in there? (YES I'M BACK) Also it is arguable that Anarchism is not part of traditional socialism (as is suggested by the first paragraphs). On th AC issue neither the Oxford [1] and Cambridge [2] philosophy reference works mention Anarcho-capitalism and certainly not as part of the anarchism entry . - max rspct 13:41, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hey, check this out, I, too, can make irrelevant blanket assertions: anarcho-capitalism is part of anarchist thought. See? Look how sensible it all is. However, the above discussion centers on a disambiguation, thus, it is not trying to settle the issue of whether or not what is a part of which. Your comment sounds a little out of place, and your citations of philosophy references are irrelevant. We are trying to make a better source of information, containing more facts, than the other options. Your insistence that Wikipedia conform to your POV is counterproductive. - Nat Krause 14:10, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

:DO NOT CHANGE MY TEXT! YOU VANDALIZER! My referencing is not out of place! disambiguation is an issue because of the insistence of those who want anarcho-capitalism put on the same level as anarchism - max rspct 16:25, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I guess you're right about that: how could the rest of us ever hope to reach the same level of non-hierarchicalness as you? Anyway, Wikipedia does not allow personal attacks. - Nat Krause 03:31, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Peh, I dunno this seems like we're just giving in to a few idiots.

That's so funny, I was just thinking exactly the same thing. - Nat Krause 03:18, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't see the necessity of this extra page at all, or the unbelievable amount of attention it gets at the top of the article. Just because a few people call themselves anarchists and no one else on earth agrees with them, they get their name on a page? OK, to be fair we should include "anarcho" monarchists because there actually is a guy out there that made a site about it. It's true that he's the only person on earth that came up with this, but who cares?! Anyone can use the word anarchism! Why not make a separate page for the fashion "anarchists" whose ideology is based solely on buying red copyrighted "anarchy" signs from corporate chain stores?? Surely they must be mentioned! All joking aside, it is a lapse in judgement to do this and I very highly recommend that we ditch this, because it's once again giving into the demands of idiots who know nothing at all about anarchism and want to say "me too!" and it gives wayyy too much attention to a use of the word anarchism which is not only false but extremely rare and only spoken in conversation by those who know nothing about anarchism. SERIOUSLY, LET'S LOSE THIS. --Fatal 22:49, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Looks like someone saw the obvious inaccuracy at the start of de main article (disambiguation preamble) and changed it for the better. - max rspct 23:58, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why can't we just say at the top of the page: "This page is about traditional, anti-capitalist anarchism, for other usage of the term anarchism see..." or something to that effect? As it stands it's not exactly NPOV. --Tothebarricades.tk 02:10, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Left-anarchism

This page should be moved to "left-anarchism" given the content summary. The current disambiguation scheme has a left-anarchist POV. The disambiguation page should be NPOV'ed and moved here. Philwelch 03:39, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely not. That would be a tragic case of original research on the part of wikipedia.-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 04:27, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Phil that that would be a superior set-up, but I don't think it would find a consensus, even if you asked neutral, disinterested Wikipedians (who tend to be a vaguely lefty crowd to begin with). On the other hand, any neutral Wikipedian should be able to support an honest disambiguation, as used on libertarianism. - Nat Krause 05:17, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Left-anarchism" is a POV term in and of itself, and the main place I've heard it used is here. It is not an option for a serious political article, it is a name for a propaganda pamphlet.-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 06:14, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

Wait wait wait, the libertarian disambugation is HONEST? And it uses the word "common" to describe the libertarian capitalist position, with the exact same form and about of evidence that exists to demonstrate that the most common use of the term anarchism is socialist anarchism? Thank you Nat, for actually admitting that you are pushing a POV here by applying a double standard. Kev 07:19, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The word "commonly" is necessary on Libertarianism because, otherwise, it would be saying that this is the only sense of the word in the United States, Canada, etc. Is that what you want? - Nat Krause 07:53, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Disambiguating and mentioning

Kev removes the only mention of AC in the article text, writing: "Nat, we've been over this, you can't -both- decide to disambugate this page AND talk about anarcho-capitalism as a form of anarchism in it". The complete text in question is this:

Anarcho-capitalism is a philosophy which is sometimes referred to as a form of anarchism because it opposes the state. However, this article concerns the term "anarchism" in the sense of a socialist movement, and anarcho-capitalism does not fall under this rubric.

Since these two sentences, appearing at the end of the article, explicitly state that anarcho-capitalism falls outside of this definition, I fail to understand the logic of the objection. - Nat Krause 07:53, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The logic goes like this. The second indicating that anarcho-capitalism was not considered in this article was already there. Then you decided that the entire page needed to be given a little warning about how this is not the only use of the term. Fine and good, it also makes the anarcho-capitalism bit redundant. So we removed it, now you insist not only on over emphasizing anarcho-capitalism by declaring this page to be one of oh so many possible uses right at the begining, but then you want to double up the emphasis by explicitly mentioning anarcho-capitalism in an article you just ruled it out from. Then again, I've said all this before, so until you come up with something new, I'm not going to keep repeating myself. Kev 09:30, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Oslo IFA"

Does this link need deleting - Anarchist International Information Service.
An unseen addition? Or has this all been done before.. I have read this - Warning from Danish ABC & German I-AFD Regarding Norway "Anarchist" Group Norwegian cells declaring UDI? - max rspct 22:07, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Anarcho-Nationalism

We really need an article on anarcho-nationalism. I know very little about it, but it seems to be growing, since I know one person (a communist in Romania) who runs into them rather often, and another (a student in england) who is being harassed by a particularly aggressive one intent on debate. I know alot about related subjects, like third way, international third position, national bolshevism, etc... but I don't know nearly enough about anarcho-nationalism to start a stub, much less write a decent article. If anyone does I'll be glad to help! Cheers, Sam Spade Apply now, exciting opportunities available at Spade & Archer! 23:01, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Anarcho- Whaaat? Another branch of Nationalism? or do you just want to add more miniscule tendancies to this article?-max rspct 23:06, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Apparently they opose capitalism, the state, and whatnot, but tend to be racist and are very focused on heritage, national identity and emphasis of borders or some such. Sam Spade Apply now, exciting opportunities available at Spade & Archer! 23:16, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why don't you go join up? - max rspct 23:27, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

WTF? I'm not an anarchist nor a nationalist. I'm an encyclopedia editer/reader interested in diverse subjects. Cripes. Sam Spade Apply now, exciting opportunities available at Spade & Archer! 23:31, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Anarchism and Anarchism (anti-capitalist)

Why do we have two seemingly identical articles? The latter should redirect to Anarchism. I think the way it works is that the most common meaning of a term is the default article, with a "For...see: <article name> (disambiguation)" as a header, right? --Tothebarricades.tk 03:36, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Anarchism should be a NPOV disambiguation page, instead of POV a anti-capitalism page, since the anti-capitalists are so non-communitarian. If you don't like Anarchism (anti-capitalism), how about Anarchism (no exchanges allowed) since the spontaneous order of the market will occurr when humans are allowed to exhange, or Anarchism (poverty) since no private property is allowed.--Silverback 03:43, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Again, you only demonstrate your oh so obvious bias here. I appreciate that Silverback, as it makes my attempts to obstruct your POV warrioring much easier. Kev 05:34, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The original article had become too POV to double as a disambiguation page, and creating an "Anarchism (disambiguation)" page is obviously clumsy. While I freely express my opinions on the talk pages, I strive for NPOV usually through a non-deletionist approach to balance in the article proper. This new disambiguation page is NPOV. Note, that although I mock the coercive branch of anarchism with the names above (which also have a kernel of truth), in good faith, I chose the qualifying subtitle that this other POV self-identifies with, "anti-capitalism". Perhaps rather than obstruct, you should work with me towards NPOV.--Silverback 11:27, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

The moment I see you actually do something in line with NPOV, I will work with you toward it. Up to now all I see is blatant POV pushing on your part. Kev 23:04, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

restored to original name

Earlier this afternoon, user:Silverback moved this article to Anarchism (anti-capitalist). I have undone this. Please do not rename this article without a concensus on this Talk page to do so. -- Viajero 12:40, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why the special treatment for renaming? Isn't NPOV as good a justification for renaming as for editing?--Silverback 12:49, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

It is sensible for the Anarchism article to be about Anarchism and be called Anarchism.  :) — Helpful Dave 14:38, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I took a look around, and I saw didn't see anything indicating a special standard for renaming. NPOV would seem like as reasonable a justification as for any other major edit, especially since the scope of this article has changed dramatically over time. Moreoever, since Viajero has previously stated a strong POV with regard to the issues involved in this page, it might be advisable for him not to use admin powers when dealing with it. - Nat Krause 15:39, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's a red herring and therefore a straw man. Who said that renaming had a different formal standard? Viajero just asked for consensus to be reached before a certain change was made, the implication being that it was a major change and one which was against consensus. This is normal across Wikipedia.  :) — Helpful Dave 16:08, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There's no consensus about anything on this page, and yet it has changed dramatically over the last few months. - Nat Krause 16:14, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OK. Silverback can move it then, but those with common sense should immediately move it back.  :) — Helpful Dave 16:22, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is not an NPOV issue. Lots of pages about lots of controversial subjects do not disambuagate the main page just because there is some minor sub-movement trying to subvert the use of the word. Yes, anarcho-capitalism should be noted as significant somewhere on the page, or the page should itself indicate that it is not based on their use of the word. But this POV attempt to over emphasize anarcho-capitalism is ridiculous, and not by coincidence it is only being pushed by those who have expressly indicated sympathy for anarcho-capitalism and contempt for traditional anarchism. Kev 23:03, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

Since the gift economy cabal has coopted this article, it is POV that the "Precursers of anarchism" section is about precursors of their form anarchy. Many in this section are just opposed to the state. There is no indication that most of them would be in favor repressing free exchange, either with violence, re-education camps, social ostracism, or whatever this POV has in mind.--Silverback 13:05, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

It's vandalization, without discussion and consensus if not Entryism. Those wanting Nationalist POV, Nationalist inserts into this article and an ambiguous disambiguation page should go edit Nationalism and/or leave this article alone. Most of those concerned have little understanding of Anarchist history beyond enthusing over obscure free-market right-wing "libertarians" and far-right sects. The page should get protected again if this carries on.. - max rspct 13:17, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC) Addendum: Anarcho-capitalism should have its own article .(and a place on a disamb' page although typing in Anarchism should lead to the Anarchism article - there ain't two types of anarchism) but it definatly DOES NOT deserve an entry as a "school" of anarchism in the main anarchism article. - max rspct 14:29, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Who is talking about repressing free exchange? Anarchists seek to remove the barriers to free exchange, barriers like coercion in the form of rent (taxation by another name), interest (usury), and so forth. You only hurt yourself with this POV mongering silverback. Kev 22:59, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If you allow free exchange then the spontaneous order of the market will occur, true anarchism is anarcho-capitalism by default, you must add some other element. The way you define anarchism, as being characterized by ability of each actor to have a say in outcomes proportionate to the degree they are affected by them, is contradictory, if all the actor can do is accept or refuse gifts and not provide incentives for "gifts" by reciprocal exchange. Once things become reciprocal you start getting a market.--Silverback 01:22, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

You know Silverback, you obviously think these arguments are original or clever, or you wouldn't be repeating them here like a million other caps have. But that is beside the point, entirely. Your arguments are specious at best, but even if they were the best in the world they should have no affect at all on this encyclopedia. We are here to explain what does exist, to explicate the views of ideologies like anarchism and anarcho-capitalism. We are not here to do original research or come up with good arguments for declaring once and for all that so and so ideology is what we say it is. If that is your intent, as it obviously seems to be, then there are lots of forums for you. This is not a forum, it is a discussion page for an article whose status has no relation to your arguments whatsoever. Kev 08:57, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You are calling my arguments names like "specious". If there is an explanation of these high sounding assertions about the characteristics of gift economy anarchism, perhaps they should be put in the article.--Silverback 09:04, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

And you continue to ignore what I have written, making further attempts at communicating with you rather pointless. Kev 00:58, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

New editor

Hi, I've never really been involved with this article before. I've just had a look, and I can see that so-called "anarcho-capitalism" has been included in the list of anarchist schools of thought. People who call themselves "anarcho-capitalists" are not in any anarchist school of thought, and so there are only two solutions: that the "anarcho-capitalist" section be deleted (and covered in a separate article) or that we change the section title to something like "Schools of thought that use the term 'anarchism'".

The first solution is ideal, but if there is a consensus on this page to include the section, then the second solution must be applied. There are no other options.

:) — Helpful Dave 14:55, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree it is not a school of anarchism - but we can't have ersatz schools of thought (whether they wanna call themselves anarchist or not) mixed in with the widely identified and accepted strands of Anarchism (by both academics, anarchists themselves). There is plenty of prior discussion on all this - consult the archives above. I feel that the best way is to include Anarcho-capitalism on the disambiguation page - but have that accessible from the main Anarchism article. But not to have Anarchism disambiguation page as the first port of call. savvy? - max rspct 15:37, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Disambig or not?

Make up your minds. Will we disambiguate anarchism or not? This article definitely should use the definition of anarchism as established by its founding figures either way, but if we disambiguate, there is no mention of ancapism at all on it except in the disambig blurb at the top and a link at the bottom, if we don't, then ancapism would be placed in a section at the end explaining the hostile relationship between the two and linking to the main ancap article. The option of including it in "schools of anarchism" is one that flies in the face of historical evidence of course, and one that would require ignoring the definition of anarchism that anarchists themselves hold.-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 17:28, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

I seriously don't care. Either solution is acceptable to me. My only point is that there should be some place in the article where a link to the anarchocapitalism page is. That's all. Luis rib 17:31, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So you would prefer no disambig, and a section addressing the opposition between the two at the end? I find that reasonable. Having ancapism mentioned is not a problem to me, so long as it is in the proper context, using the definition of anarchism that the founding figures and historical movements represent.-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 17:38, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think a disambiguation page is needed in this case. A link to Anarcho-capitalism under See also should suffice. -- Viajero 18:01, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fine , a link pointing straight to the A/C article should satisfy all. No disambig page, no sub-entry in the Anarchism article but a link under see also. - max rspct 18:34, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Once again I vote to not disambiguate. --Fatal

The BIG LIE

This page has become too duplicative of the the communism page. The communists are trying to steal the heritage of the individualists. There is no evidence that Aristippus, Stirner and many of the others would be any more likely to give up their sovereignty to a commune than they would to the state. The commune is just a mini-fascist state where the collective takes precedence over the individual. The individual has mass and the commune doesn't. The commune is just a massless, quasi-Christian, concept, only believed in by the faithfull. No way Stirner would kiss commune ass. A "gift economy", what a joke, communes were just mini-countries claiming their real-estate, another fascist state, creating an us vs them hierarchy. What did the Ukrainian communes ever "give" to anybody, I bet they "exchanged" their produce. I challenge y'all to give citations of them giving anything away.--Silverback 03:48, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

You should have labeled this section "THE BIG STRAW-MAN", cause that is what it is. Of course Stirner would not have accepted a commune, nor a state, or capitalism. He was explicit on all three grounds, leaving your point floating absolutely nowhere.

Anywho, the rest of your drivel isn't worthy of response. Kev 08:54, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Name calling my arguments "drivel" is a weak reponse. Do you have any citations re: Stirner and capitalism?--Silverback 09:07, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Be happy to dig up a quote for you. But before I do I would like to ask one very simple question. Have you ever actually read Stirner? I find it very hard to believe that you could have read him and still be unaware of his complete rejection of property. Kev 09:17, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I read him long ago, before he gained popularity. I viewed his work as an intellectual and rhetorically mocking reductio ad absurdem of any result of Hegelian criticism short of nihilism, showing that it like Cartesian criticism resulted in nihilism. Of course, he would give property no "respect" beyond what circumstances would require. My reading is that his criticism shed more light upon Hegelian criticism, and was aimed more at those Hegelians who either hypocritically or through faith or self-delusion, thought they had constructed something that could survive the criticism. I didn't think he communicated any insight into the workings of capitalism or any other non-Hegelianism. But if you think he has, I am curious.--Silverback 10:33, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Wait, you are saying that his rejection of property was merely a rhetorical device used to mock Hegelians? I mean, he wasn't actually suggesting any of that stuff? That reading is rather unique, sorta makes it hard to provide evidence. If I give a statement in which he dismisses or denounces property, you can simply say it is a reductio ad absurdum, right? So... how am I supposed to provide evidence here?

I'll make you a deal. I will provide a statement in which he declares that property is bogus. After I do so, you provide evidence that he doesn't actually believe this, but is merely making a point about a philosophy he disagrees with. Sound good? Kev 10:48, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I was hoping for something on Capitalism. On property, will you accept evidence that he didn't go around stealing as evidence he didn't actually believe it? I don't think he actually believed anything, other than what he chose to of empirical reality. He basically arrived at the same position all nihilists do, he just showed that Hegelian tradition did not have anything more to offer. But if you think at some point he offered a uniquely insightful criticism of capitalism, I'd like to hear it.--Silverback 11:06, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

I would think that a rejection of property would entail a rejection of capitalism, don't you think? Anyway, I certainly wouldn't say that it is evidence that one accepts property on an philosophical level simply because one is not a thief. I do not steal property even though I find the concept to be untenable, in part because my reasons for not stealing have little or nothing to do with the normative justifications for property relations. Anyway, again, I will supply the evidence I have indicated (that he rejected property), once you agree that afterwards you will supply evidence that this somehow does not entail a rejection of capitalism (either because he didn't actually reject property, or his rejection of property would not entail a rejection of capitalism, or whatever). Simply saying, "well yes, he was much like a nihilist in many ways, that doesn't mean he specifically rejected capitalism" is silly, because it assumes your point at the outset and seems somewhat insincere in the face of evidence that he rejected an institution absolutely and undeniably essential to capitalism. Kev 11:23, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand nihilism. Just because a nihilist realizes that in the broad scheme of things a human is no better or worse, or beautiful or ugly, or valuable or worthless than a chimpanzee or and insect, just because he realizes that, doesn't mean that this view affects his mating preference. A nihilist still has preferences, even though he doesn't have illusions. He still values, even though he has no values. Stirner mated and lived with a human female, and the evidence indicated that he liked it (the dedication to one of his books). He had property, and did what he wanted with it, because he could. I suspect that he didn't reject property, he just rejected any illusions about it, having it didn't make him any better than anyone else, the fact that other people thought it belonged to him just gave him more choices, and he did not acknowledge any prohibitions on his choosing what he willed. I may be projecting myself onto him, but I think he can be read this way.--Silverback 11:54, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Thats all fine and good. But first, this seems to be a non-normative reading of Stirner, and I don't see why I should accept it as compelling. And second, you seem to be implicitly admitting that the evidence I'm asking for doesn't exist. Basically, your position reduces in such a way that regardless of how many quotes or passages I can come up with to show that Stirner rejected property, you can always say "well he used property, so obviously he didn't." Its a circular bit of logic without any foundation, and could as easily be applied to every anarchist thinker in existence, "sure, Proudhon rejected property as coercive, but he still used it," "yes, Kropotkin advocated a society without property, but he still used it," etc, etc. I think you are confusing the fact that these individuals were all trapped in a highly coercive and codified society with their having someone tacitly consented to it. Kev 20:28, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Do Kropotkin and Proudhon claim to be nihilists? If not then that is probably the difference. For Stirner, there is no moral imperative other than perhaps a bit of outrage or derision towards those who think there is a moral imperative. Whereas, perhaps for Kropotkin and Proudhon, labeling something coercive or exploitive, gives them a sense of entitlment to outrage and action, rather like fundamentalists in the true faith. Any means, including the use of property, could be justified to achieve their ends, they are self-reighteous. As a nihilist, Stirner could never be a self-reighteous true believer, at most he could "pretend" and enjoy for awhile. If he associated with true-believers, he would merely be expressing a preference, and be trying to pass. None of this rules out Stirner having made some kind of incisive analytic point on the issues at hand, as a nihilist, he was ahead of his time. Proudhon and Kropotkin would be self-justifying hypocrits if they used property. Stirner could not be a hypocrit unless he started deceiving himself.--Silverback 00:22, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

So more fundamentally, you seem to be saying that Stirner not only did not "really" reject property, but that he did not "really" believe even in egoistic freedom. Now, while we may agree that he didn't believe in such "freedom to" as an absolute universal, I think it is wrong to then conclude that he did not advocate individual freedom at all, or that when he did he was merely "pretending". But now we are on a tangent of a tangent, none of this remotely relates to the article, and again I have to remind you that the purpose of this talk page is not a discussion forum. If you are looking for evidence that Stirner decried capitalism "more fervently" then collectivism, then I can't offer it, because I've never claimed to have it. But you already seem to know that he did in fact decry property and thus capitalism, you simply seem to think that even though he denounced property he must not have "really" denounced it because as an egoist you can't "really" denounce anything. And again, this leaves you nowhere. You want to say that Stiner would not have endorsed collectivist pressures on his sovereignty, well of course you are correct, I don't see anyone claiming otherwise. What leaves your statement meaningless is that you are attempting an implicit comparison to capitalism that doesn't exist. Stirner would also not have endorsed propertarian pressures on his sovereignty. Do you actually deny this? If not, right back to the start, you don't seem to be saying anything that isn't already on the table. Kev 00:58, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Egoistic freedom is not a belief, it is a feeling that one has after escaping all the positive -isms. He didn't acknowledge anyone's right to infringe upon his freedom. This does relate to the the article because Stirner is cited as a precursor to this positive anarchism that in addition to being without government, somehow posits the elimination of inequality. We have strange situation of "anarchists" claiming their own unanswered refutation as a pre-cursor. Anarcho-capitalism does not have the same problem, because it is not a positive -ism, but a spontaneous order that occurs under conditions of voluntary exchange. They would seem to have the stronger case for non-coercion, and to be the less self-justified in the use of violence to get there. Both will have problems explaining how any sizable society would work without government, but at least anarcho-capitalism can be approached as a perhaps unrealizable asymptope through minarchism, with pauses along the way. Equality that focuses upon the material is just an illusion anyway, after all, who wouldn't trade a little material wealth and power for increased sexual frequency, as the French seem to have done.--Silverback 01:45, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Will I ever meet a capitalist who can refrain from resorting to straw-men? Ceasing to enforce artificial hierarchies brought about by way of coercion is very different from positing the elimination of inequality. It is, rather, an attempt to elminate those inequalities which are unjustified and unnecessary, something anarcho-capitalists do as well in regards to government sponsorship of citizens and corporations.

Further, your characterization of anarcho-capitalism as "spontaneous order" is a joke. It is only "spontaneous" after you accept the blatant coercion of property, something Stirner also recognised. Again and again, you ignore the fact that Stirner rejected property as somehow irrelevant to a questions that hinges on the fact. Kev 00:57, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wow, how I can I argue against elimination of the inequalities which are "unjustified" and "unnecessary"? What can be more of a strawman than labeling all employment of wage labor, "exploitation" and all property "coercion"? The labored explanation and persuasion you have to resort to, to get others to recognize these strawmen is further proof of their illegitimacy. The "coercion" of property is so "blatant", that you have to explain how it exists even without the use of force, as you propose a society where people will have no security in their homes, something even most slaves have enjoyed thoughout history.--Silverback 04:45, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Not only is it clear that you are no longer interested in discussing the article itself, but now it seems you have even run out of tangential arguments and must now simply resort to attempts at vague smears. Knock yourself out. Kev 06:56, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Apologies, I meant the general "you" not the specific "you". I also did not intend to be vague. If you have any questions I will be happy to clarify.--Silverback 08:03, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Fact, POV, and acceptable verbiage

Fact: The traditional "anarchist" movement that overwhelmingly claims the title is an anti-capitalist movement separate from anarcho-capitalism. Anarcho-capitalist POV: Anarcho-capitalism is anarchist. "Traditional" anarchist POV: Anarcho-capitalism is not anarchist.

Those are the facts and those are the points of view presented. In order to preserve NPOV, Wikipedia must not pass judgment on whether anarcho-capitalism is anarchist. In order to preserve factuality, Wikipedia must make the factual distinction I noted above. In the latest versions of the articles anarcho-capitalism and anarchism this is the case. Since "anarchist" is the best (only) term to describe the anti-capitalist anarchists ("left-anarchist" would be a neologism and Wikipedia can't make up neologisms), I now have no problem with leaving "anarchism" as it is and disambiguating. Similarly, libertarianism disambiguates between the originally and predominantly American ideology of "libertarianism" and libertarian socialism. I offer this as a resolution to the POV dispute of the past few days.

Philwelch 10:29, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yeah ? Well that's Libertarianism, This is Anarchism and just about all encyclopediac explanations of the term exclude Anarcho-capitalism from Anarchism. Its's not Anarchism, nor is it an "american-tradition anarchism" . Sorry, Murray Rothbard and one or two others plus an appearance in cyberpunk novels such as Snowcrash doesn't make A/C worthy of inclusion in this article. - max rspct 12:28, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If you look at my edits, I've excluded it from this article and disambiguated. Philwelch 00:56, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"This page describes the traditional ideology of anarchism that opposes the state, capitalism and other forms of what it deems imposed hierarchy. For less common uses, see anarchism (disambiguation)." I approve this disambiguation. It's on the right side of the factual distinction (anarcho-capitalism is separate from the most traditional and common sense of the term "anarchism") as well as not outright stating the leftist POV that anarcho-capitalism is not anarchist. Philwelch 01:02, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Anarchism as understood by the libertarian movement

This article from Liberty magazine, illustrates the understanding of the terms "anarchy" and "anarchism" among people in the libertarian movement. It's not purely an "Internet phenomenon", as similar usage has been made in libertarian magazines and newsletters for as long as they have been published, going back at least to the 1970s.

The opening paragraphs of the article:

From the invention of "anarchism" in the 17th century, the word has almost always been employed as a pejorative. As a political theory, it has usually been befriended by a tiny minority of political cranks. It has, however, been popular with some libertarians.

Many, if not most, libertarians believe that it is always wrong to initiate the use of force. This leads them toward anarchism: after all, how can you have a government that does not initiate force, if only to collect taxes to finance its activities and to enforce its claim to exclusive jurisdiction? Some who advocate the non-initiation imperative, such as Ayn Rand, have tried to fudge the issue, by concocting arguments to the effect that government coercion is somehow not coercive or that government can somehow exist without coercion. But many who advocate the non-initiation imperative, most notably Murray Rothbard, have surrendered to the ineluctable logic that leads to anarchism.

Note that it's assumed by the author that anarchism means the absence of government without any of the anti-capitalist baggage, and that "traditional" leftist anarchism is not mentioned at all unless it's what's being referred to as "a tiny minority of political cranks". Anarchism is here contrasted with minarchism, the advocacy of a small, limited government. *Dan* 15:03, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

max rspct- A right-wing libertarian magazine established in 1987? ..Anarchism? Like your source comrade ... Anything a bit more NPOV? Read the >Anarchism< article -- The Greek philosophers Plato and Aristotle used the term anarchy negatively, in association with democracy which they mistrusted as inherently vulnerable and prone to deteriorate into tyranny. Plato believed that the corruption created by democracy loosens the "natural" hierarchy between social classes, genders and age groups, to the extent that "anarchy finds a way into the private houses, and ends by getting among the animals and infecting them". ('Republic', book 8). Aristotle spoke of it in book 6 of the 'Politics' when discussing revolutions, saying that the upper classes may be motivated to stage a coup by their contempt for the prevailing "disorder and anarchy (ataxias kai anarkhias)" in the affairs of the state. He also claimed it would give, "license among slaves (anarkhia te doulôn)" as well as among women and children. "A constitution of this sort", he concludes, "will have a large number of supporters, as disorderly living (zên ataktôs) is pleasanter to the masses than sober living". So Anarchism was invented in the 17th century? I think not! It's always been about slaves getting materialistically licentious- max rspct 16:44, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC) ......Also, Philwelch wrote "Wikipedia must not pass judgment on whether anarcho-capitalism is anarchist." We have to decide --- What are VFD if not open, equal deliberative judgements? It needs to be decided (not totalizing finalizing/ irreversable) Whether it deserves entry or not. And here on this discussion page we are doing that as part of the wikipedia process. A/Capitalists like yerselves and other arch-capitalists like Wheeler will only accept peer judgement up until a point ... then they start to cry foul.. and say wikipedia's not up to scratch, is being dominated my marxists and zionists.. and want to be judged their 'own' peer group (instead of other wikipedians within wikipedia) - max rspct 16:58, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Respect: The above is perfectly NPOV as an example of what it is billed as: "Anarchism as understood by the libertarian movement". I suppose the point is simply to demonstrate that some people really use the word this way, not to score some kind of political points or trick bystanders -- since this is an "inreach" magazine, by libertarians for libertarians -- but simply because they really think that the word means "anti-statist". I will leave it to others to address your dubious understanding of the concept of NPOV. - Nat Krause 17:10, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My dearest Nat, Please do not insult me or vandalize by deleting my text entries on the talk page, and please note that i am max rspct or mr rspct WITHOUT vowels. Please do not feel intimidated by my user name.. It is meant to be friendly :) To answer your point... Dtobias is bringing a chucklingly obvious NON-NPOV (i.e POV) link (Liberty mag) to back up Anarcho-capitalism-is-Anarchism argument. We all can accept that some folk will call themselves Anarchist ... He dosn't have to prove that some self-publicists in the great USA (where anything goes??) call themselves anarchist. Most neo-conservatives advocate 'freedom', resistance to big government plus want neocon/capitalist economy, privatization/selling off of public utilities, etc etc ... But i argue this doesn't make them eligable for inclusion in this Anarchism article - max rspct 17:29, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

max rspct - Some more .. I opened one of my old (1995) text books .. required reading on my university course in Politics. It's called Using Political Ideas by Barbara Goodwin ISBN 0471935840 One of the best overviews of political philosophy ... In it she talks about Anarcho-capitalism within the Anarchism chapter ... BUT ends saying - Most anarchists share the egalitarian ideal with socialists: anarcho-capitalists abhor equality and socialism equally. Their true place is in the group of right-wing libertarians described in Chapter 3. Well then, although this is only one set university book with a misleading title that makes it sound like a campaigner's handbook, I think it sums up what is really a very large ideological gulf between Anarchism and Anarcho-capitalism -max rspct 21:51, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Are you making some kind of point when grouping anarcho-capitalists with libertarians on the right? Where would you have them, with the totalitarians of the left? The unnaturalness of equality implies coercion. BTw, I hope that is a good quote from your text, because I've been trying to get libertarians classified as right wing on the Right-wing politics article, but the libertarians in some kind of act of rebellian against the uninformative 1-D spectrum are calling themselves centrists. -- thanx, --Silverback 00:04, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like that book basically adopts the same approach some of us are trying to bring to this article here... to include AC as one of the things covered in the anarchism chapter, using language such as "most anarchists" (instead of "all anarchists") to discuss what anarchism usually (but not always) stands for and how this is different from the ideals of AC, and also note the connection between AC and the libertarian movement. Note that the book doesn't say that anarchists are socialists, just that most of them share similar ideals to socialists. *Dan* 22:36, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So long as this article isn't disambuagated I think anarcho-capitalism should be mentioned. However, language that indicates that anarchism "usually" stands for something different than AC simply puts the ball in the AC court. Anarcho-capitalists want anarchism to mean something other than what it does, and what it has, and I don't think wikipedia should be a vehicle for their blatant soapboxing. Also, there have been many recent attempts to disambuagate the article, and while I have nothing wrong with the idea of clarifying different meanings of the word (because there are in fact different meanings), there is something wrong with the repeated attempts to both disambuagate this article from anarcho-capitalism -and- include anarcho-capitalism in it. Also, and this is rather important, the fact that not every source on earth states that all anarchists are socialists is one thing, but it certainly doesn't imply that anarchists can be capitalists. For many people, post-left anarchists in particular, a rejection of socialism is not an embrace of capitalism, and the constant attempts on the part of capitalists to create a false either/or in this case only serves to reduce the level of conversation by outright removing concepts that disagree with their worldview. Kev 23:03, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A/C should get a mention.. but not as a subheading, rather Anarchism and criticisms link.. if its not already there. I don't think Anarchism should get pasted up as part of socialism anymore than anarcho-capitalism getting branded part of traditional conservatism. I think its fair to say that libertarian socialism or anarchism is the original social liberation theory and practice, with parliamentary and state socialism being important yet precocious developments during the early phases of in the birth of industrial Capitalism and traditional liberalism as the stalled ideology of the capitalist/bourgeois class ascendent. - max rspct 23:37, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Left Anarchism

It should be mentioned in the intro or header that this kind of anarchism is also sometimes called "left anarchism". That's a popular term so it should be there. It comes up 3290 times on Googole. Also, Che deleted the mention of it but he's the one that created the article called "left anarchism" to link to here ..I thought that was odd. RJII 02:34, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

3200 is not enough. I did not create that page, I made it link here because someone tried to move this page there. Left-anarchism is not a widespread term, and has no basis in daily political discourse, either in the general public, or in the anarchist movement. Those results also include phrases like "post-left anarchism", which is not a mention of "left-anarchism" and is a strain of thought that argues that anarchists must break away from the traditional left, who in their views have become corrupted enough that they will never end capitalism or statism, such as the union bureaucrats and the like whose entire existance rests on this system.-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 02:43, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought you created the article. But, no, those results do not include "post-left anarchism" --I subtracted them from the results. "Left anarchism" minus "post-left" comes up 3290 times ("left anarchism" -"post-left"). It's a common terminology. By the way, "post-left anarchism" only comes up 166 times. If that's noteable enough to be in the article, then "left anarchism" certainly is. RJII 02:51, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The term "post-left anarchism" does carry a logical implication that there was a "left anarchism" to precede it, just like the term "postmodernism" (e.g., describing artistic or cultural trends and movements) implies the existence of "modernism" before it. *Dan* 02:54, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is not post left-anarchism, it is post-left anarchism. It is not something that comes after left-anarchism, but a form of anarchism that comes after "the left", which as I said, they see as too stodgy and corrupted to change anything. "Post-left" comes up 20,000 times. Anyways, you are inventing a term here on wikipedia and setting a bad precedent. Or at least, you are mainstreaming a term that is rarely used. "Left-anarchism" implies that there is a wide enough dispute within anarchism about the anarchism described on this page for this one to be the "left of anarchism". Anarchism is not, and never has been, divided in that way. Even if you do try to consider ancaps anarchists, which would be false, they are so minute that they would have to be called the "right of anarchism", and anarchism would remain without any qualifiers, left or right.-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 03:20, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

"Post-left" includes "post-left handed pitchers" and other unrelated stuff. "Post-left anarchism" only comes up 166 times. If you want to broaden it to sites that about anarchism that have the phrase "post-left" then you can say "post-left" +"anarchism" ..that brings up only 166 finds. "Left anarchism" comes up 3290 times. It's in much more widespread use than "post-left anarchism" or "post-left" used in the context of anarchism. RJII 03:28, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Then refer to wikipedia's warnings on using google as a bible.-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 03:30, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

At this point, it looks like you're being POV. You may not like the term "left anarchism" but it's actually a pretty common term, and as such should be noted. RJII 03:33, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, as pointed out, it may be common amongst ancaps, but they are a marginal group, and so this term is not common enough to justify its listing here.-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 03:37, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

yada yada

Very well. I've made my point, and now it's gone.-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 05:59, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Gee Wizz - max rspct 13:11, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I really don't understand this post-left thing. As far as I can tell, anarchists have always been post-left, by the above definition -- never reformists, always radicals. People can arrive at being radical many ways, by either being radical ("impatient") to begin with or getting fed up with the reformist path ("becoming impatient"). You might as well distinguish between radical anarchism and revolutionary anarchism (by that I mean let's NOT!!). If we somehow end up defining more branches of anarchism than there are branches of Marxism (Trotskyism, Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism, Uncle Ho-ism, Fidelism, SWP, RCP, CPUSA, ISO, etc.) then we will know for sure that we've gone too far. --albamuth 16:38, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No Criticism Section in this Article

Why is there no criticism section in this article? There are major criticism sections in anarcho-capitalism and libertarianism upon the insistence from anarchists and other leftists, but not here. Anarchists aren't allowing it? What gives? RJII 16:25, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well there is a large section on -Major conflicts within anarchist thought and an opposing views link section with a collection of critical articles link.. They could be merged ...What do the others think? -max rspct 17:03, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think there should be a criticism section. Disputes among anarchists is different from disputes between anarchists and everyone else. See the criticism section of libertarianism as an example and then compare it to the disputes section above it to see what RJII and I are getting at. Given that there are already critiqes in the links section, it shouldn't be all that hard to throw something together. Dave (talk)

I agree. The libertarianism article is a good example of a balanced and informative article. I appreciate that there are large differences between various anarchist schools, but surely there could be more here about criticism of the basic philosophy. 80.203.115.12 13:47, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree there should be a criticism section but we all have to be careful as zee article is quite long with the within anarchism section anyway - Personally i would like to see a huge article and never-ending talk page... but article is probably way over 64 kilobyte guideline ... so chopping may have to be done... But no vandalism. - max rspct 17:21, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It may be necessary to put all the schools on a separate "schools" page and leave something like "there are many schools of anarchism. See schools of anarchism" on the main page. And yes, it is way over. Dave (talk)

A while ago I attempted to shorten the section on Economics by moving it all to an "Anarchist Economics" section, but since then the "Anarchist Economic Organization" has ballooned up again with some new and some redundant information. It seems every attempt to move out sections is reversed by people trying to fit too much info in what is supposed to be a brief description with a link to the "Main Article".

As far as criticism goes, I think making a seperate article, "Anarchism and its Critics" or "Critiques of Anarchism" would be appropriate. We really need to shorten the article up overall as well. Every "School" of anarchism has its own article or should so 3 or 4 sentences for each in the main article should be sufficient. The "Conflicts within Anarchist Thought" should be moved to a seperate article. The main article needs to concentrate on anarchist history and the main ideological thrust, which it more than covers already. --albamuth 21:03, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm for shortening each school to a few sentences, but I think the criticism (or at least some of it) should stay on the main page. It's good for POV reasons. Dave (talk)

I don't see the point, other than to mention that there are critiques and point to another article. Otherwise, saying about five words about each critique will amount to about 1000 more words for the article. ;) --albamuth 21:38, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There is a good point to it. It seems most other controversial articles have a criticism section whose editors have seen the point of having it. It makes for a more well-rounded article. Criticism of anarchism itself is very noteable but there is absolutely no critique at all in the article. Don't give us the story about the article being "too long." What are the anarchists afraid of? RJII 17:22, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Anarcho-Capitalism on Schools of Anarchist Thought

Why is someone still putting anarcho-capitalism on schools of anarchist thought? It belongs with the liberatarian grouping, which it is listen on.

There is allready a dividing section located on "anarchism", (which AC is not), and I think that's good enough.

I don't see the problem with mentioning anarcho-capitalism in the 'schools' section. It is a notable political theory that calls itself 'anarchist', even if it disagrees with traditional anarchism. There should be a short explanation of just that. If I was researching anarchism, I would've appreciated it if it was mentioned in this article. 80.203.115.12 13:47, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

SNIP SNIP!

Okay, in the interest of brevity I moved large sections of the bottom of the article to Anarchism and Society because they were not really helping the main article much. As soon as I moved them (section on "Anarchist Conceptions of Society) I re-read them and realized that they are written POV. Please check out the new article and start hacking and weeding--I think those sections were ignored when in the main article simply because they were so large and blah blah blah. --albamuth 16:21, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Idea of Schools Of Anarchism

Okay, I've been thinking about this for a while: The thing that differentiates anarcho-syndicalists and anarcho-communists is not a matter of ideological distinction. The difference is only in how they pursue the overall anarchist goals (destruction of Capitalism and the State). I think this is an important distinction to made when discussing the Schools of Anarchism section, because currently people are getting the false idea that anarchists believe in wildly different things, which is not true. Syndicalists pursue their goals by trying to forge strong labor unions which will "take over" the means of production, whilest A-Communists form collectives and communes (creating means of production/living independatly of pre-existing ones). Primitivists attack civilization itself in order to bring down Capitalism/the State, anarcha-feminists concentrate their efforts on Patriarchy--so on and so forth. My Proposal is that the Schools section be re-framed/re-introduced to reflect the fact that these groupings are not ideologically different, but simply differentiate the tactics of anarchists. In fact, it is quite possible for someone to be anarcha-feminist-syndicalist-communist, which totally blows the whole "Schools" idea out of the water. (PS this does not mean Anarcho-Capitalism should be included, in fact, even less so) --albamuth 16:48, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Anarcho-syndicalism to me actually doesn't have much of a syndicalist approach to an anarchist society, rather, the syndicalism part is just a means of getting there. The reason every anarchist union is called anarcho-syndicalist is because if they're forming a union they must believe radical unions are the best means of fighting capitalism. --Fatal 03:34, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps if they were referred to as "Anarchist Viewpoints"? After all, each "school" really just encompasses a critique, within the overall anarchist POV. Here are some other ideas:

• Anarchist Critiques
• Anarchist Paradigms
• Anarchist Buzzwords
• Anarchist Labels
• Categories of Anarchist Critique
• Anarchist Branches
• Anarcho-suffixes/prefixes

--albamuth 05:40, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Anarchy, State, and Utopia

(Note: the below, up to User:Nat Krause's comment at 09:22, 13 Apr 2005 is cut-and-pasted from Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Che_y_Marijuana by User:Nat Krause)

Just a small point about all legitimate anarchists supposedly being leftwing: as an example of a study of rightwing anarchism, Anarchy, State, and Utopia — a famous and influential book by Robert Nozick — examines the idea of a minimal, anarcho-capitalist state, though the overall thrust of the book is libertarian, not anarchist. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:47, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Nothing surprising there, Nozick's book came into waters long since muddied by Rothbard and others who claimed the anarchist tradition while going out of their way to minimize or flat out dismiss all of the essential ideas of the tradition they were claiming. That Nozick makes a mistake in accepting the anarcho-capitalist attempt to redefine anarchism is not evidence, in itself, to any legitimacy of claims on their part. Evidence of legitimacy to anarcho-capitalist claims of tradition within anarchism would be evidence that the individualist anarchists who supposedly "inspired" anarcho-capitalists would have remotely accepted capitalist ideology as a genuine branch of the free-market anarchism individualists had developed. The only problem with this is that anyone who has ever read an individualist knows that they all denounced capitalism, usually quite explicitly. Thus we get the never-ending attempts to explain how one could, in theory, have capitalism without property, or capitalism without wage and rent, or how when so-and-so said "socialism" he meant something different than what modern anarchists means, or when so-and-so said "capitalism" he meant something different than what modern anarcho-capitalists mean, or how such-and-such single line out of a single essay should be read in isolation from the rest of the texts of the author because doing so just might put capitalism in a not-so-negative light if we squint our eyes really hard. Kev 14:40, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Kev, as usual, assumes the answer before he begins. Nozick's use of "anarchism" isn't relevant because, well, he's not using it the way anarchists use it. Well, we already know he's not talking about anarchism in the sense that you use it. But, what we have here is an excellent example of the word "anarchism" being used in a different sense in a high-profile book by an author who is taken seriously in mainstream academe (although the author is not the libertarian most worthy of acclaim, we'll take what we can get). Nozick's readership, to my knowledge, did not react with confusion or derision at his "mistake", and I would be surprised to learn that anyone had ever suggested he change the title to Statelessness, the State, and Utopia, or something like that. This doesn't show, nor do I claim, that Nozick's use is the only acceptable use of the word "anarchy", but it is evidence that it is one acceptable use. Nat Krause 09:22, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(After I wrote this, it occurred to me that I was getting confused between "anarchy" and "anarchism". However, Amazon's "searchin' inside the book" does indicate that there is at least one place in the book where he uses "anarchism", and it is as a synonym for "anti-statism). - Nat Krause 14:08, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Benjamin Tucker

It's interesting that this article mentions individualist anarchist Benjamin Tucker. "Anarchism is a word without meaning, unless it includes the liberty of the individual to control his product or whatever his product has brought him through exchange in a free market --that is, private property. Whoever denies private property is of necessity an Archist." -Benjamin Tucker

Wendy McElroy

RJII, you yourself added a link to the "left anarchism" page that stated that wendy mcelroy is an "individualist who supports capitalism". The link was posted ont he ludwig von mises institute's site, and it clearly said she supported his ideas. Anarchism: Two Kinds. Her place is not on this page, and I'm going to ask you to stop adding links to her on every page related to anarchism, it's spam.-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 21:01, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

I wrong to say that before. She's an individualist anarchist. I don't see here supporting capitalism anywhere. I see her supporting the ideas of individualist anarchists such as Tucker and Spooner, and talking about mutualism. If it's clear that she supports capitalism I'd like to see evidence of this. RJII 23:20, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

From the link: The schism between the two forms of anarchism has deepened with time. Largely due to the path breaking work of Murray Rothbard, 20th century individualist anarchism is no longer inherently suspicious of profit-making practices, such as charging interest. Indeed, it embraces the free market as the voluntary vehicle of economic exchange. McElroy, in supporting usury and capitalist practices, has no place in this article on anarchism Also, the article is not much more than an Op/Ed piece. Frankly I'm getting really tired of people citing maybe three major writers (and I would hardly call McElroy more than a journalist with a stated bias) to draw on for the A/C "tradition". What about Kropotkin, Proudhon, DeCleyre, Parsons, Berkman, Goldman, Makhno, Malatesta, Rocker, and hell, even Chomsky and all the others I can't name off the top of my head? How can anyone even mention an A/C writer when the history for anarchism is so prolific with with the common use of anarchism? --albamuth 16:46, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ok, so she's not suspicious of profit-making then. But then that still leaves a further issue. Is anarcha-feminism necessarily against profit making and charging interest? I don't think so. Therefore, it this article is about anti-capitalism anrchist philosophies, then anarcha-feminism should be taken out of this article. RJII 20:59, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Uggh... RJII, are we gonna have to go through this every time? Anarcha-Feminism, as listed on this page, is anti-capitalist.-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 23:07, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

I understand that. I'm saying it's wrong to list it as that. Anarcha-feminism isn't an anti-capitalist philosophy. RJII 23:52, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Anarcha-feminism is simply an application of feminist theory to anarchism (did you even READ it?). Anarchism is anti-capitalist, so by extention, so are anarcha-feminists. Insofar Wendy McElroy is concerned, I have no idea what her individual theories are, but based on context and content of the article cited, she is clearly biased, presents NO EVIDENCE, and is clearly pushing an agenda..--albamuth 23:34, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Disambig

Please stop trying to POV the disambig, thanks, Sam Spade Apply now, exciting opportunities available at Spade & Archer! 13:00, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is not POV to mention that it this is the most common usage of the word anarchism.-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 17:37, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

It's not the most common usage of the word. If you want to see common usage look in a popular dictionary. That's the common usage by default. RJII 18:31, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

THIS IS FINE - "This article describes a political philosophy that opposes the state, capitalism, and all forms of social hierarchy. For other uses, see anarchism (disambiguation)." Unless it has changed. U can't seriously have a problem with that?? Anarcho-capitalism is simply not regarded by dictionaries or academics, as an integral part of Anarchism (if thats the tip yer on or are u thinking of Anarchy?)... How long are the A//c's gonna keep this up?... -max rspct 19:46, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with it. I was just pointing out that it wasn't "common usage." Never mind, I misunderstood what was said above. RJII 19:54, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yeah? Maybe the dick above can agree that it's a case solved! - max rspct 20:03, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is the version of the disambig header I and others will accept. Lets move on to the intro, shall we?

Sam Spade Apply now, exciting opportunities available at Spade & Archer! 21:49, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Intro

What's that? - the 'current revision'? (it's dated 15th april) ... changes an IP numbered user has made to your edits? or are u talking baout the italicized start - the disamb' header? Perhaps less common uses should be on there ... but perhaps the content of the disamb' page itself can be concentrated on for the time being.. (more important?) . As for the intro - first para ... Elimination too strong a word (smacks of reaction and/or the Daleks). How about abolition? -> Anarchism is a term which encompasses a variety of political philosophies, social movements, and political ideologies that advocate the elimination of all forms of imposed authority, including social hierarchy and coercive power - max rspct 14:13, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Anarchism is a term which encompasses a variety of political philosophies, social movements, and political ideologies that advocate the abolition of all forms of imposed or involuntary authority.

Seems good to me. Coercive power and social hierarchy are better left out, since they are at the heart of objections to left anarchism. If this is to be the anarchism page, it should be agreeable to all (re: NPOV). I liked the dalek reference BTW. Sam Spade 14:35, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I made some substantial edits to the intro, see what you think, consulting the history if necessary. Sam Spade 14:43, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

max rspct -> No no! Anarchism, the political philosophy is well documented (and part of the main tenet of anarchism) as opposing coercive power and social hierarchy Its your POV and dedication to your wanting Anarcho-capitalism to replace it.. stop getting all Weimar and "revisionist" with the article. You don't have to agree with Anarchism ... but just don't try to get it replaced by A/C huh? -max rspct 15:06, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually I'm nowhere near anarchist, I'm a populist authoritarian. I'm not here to push anything other than factual accuracy and NPOV. What I'm trying to do is bring all verifiable POV's into the article an impartial manner. If you read NPOV, it will encourage you to write for your opposition, and to create an article all reasonable, informed readers can accept (even if not enthusiastically). A/C and Nationalist anarchists along w other non libertariuan socialist anarcho's desire voluntary hierarchy and potentially coercive powers (like $ and guns and drugs). Sam Spade 20:13, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You maketh no sensa.. U want dollar/gun/drugs? U want POV or NPOV? or/and representation of angles and philosophical opinions? - max rspct 20:44, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sam Spade wrote: If you read NPOV, it will encourage you to write for your opposition, and to create an article all reasonable, informed readers can accept (even if not enthusiastically). So what does it tell you if you write something that readers do NOT accept? Most of the regular editors are very well informed indeed, and seem to be unwilling to accept A/C as a part of "anarchism," either by definition, by history, by argument, or insistence by vocal proponents of A/C. For my part, the term "anarcho-capitalism" hardly warrants much more than an explanation in the Austrian School article, or the entry on Rothbard, so limited is the scope of the topic. The intro should reflect that this article is on the ideology of anarchism, and I would hope after so much discussion we would all know what it is by now. --albamuth 21:40, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The fact that a number of people disagree means that we need to accomadate all reasonable persons. Have a look @ NPOV sometime, its our central policy. Sam Spade 06:15, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The key phrase you used was all reasonable persons. Quibbling over whether to say "most" or "many" (as in anarchists) does alter the meaning significantly, but you have to ask what purpose does it serve? One serves the bias of the A/C perspective, and one serves the bias of the anarchist perspective. Any reasonable person should be able to observe at this point, after all our attempts to resolve this dispute that most people understand anarchism as being anti-capitalist. To say otherwise reflects not just a clear bias (in your shorthand, "POV"), but still you insist. It is unreasonable to insist on including Nationalist and Capitalist sects in an encyclopedic article on anarchism simply because there's a writer or two with a handful of followers who make absolutely no sense whatsoever. I've read the NPOV policy and the main issue stands: The notion that Nationalism and Capitalism can be compatible with anarchist ideas only exists from the Point of View of those sects. So yes, even if you are from any of the aforementioned groups and biases, you are championing the wrong cause if NPOV is truly your goal. --albamuth 23:28, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't see the relationship between your argument and your conclusion. IMO definitions of terms are based on usage, current and historical. "Anarchism" has been used to describe a far wider scope than the Left Anarchism which dominates this page. NPOV insist that we discuss all signifigant verifiable POVs. Maybe you define "signifigant" differently than I do, but I have to tell you, the bar is pretty low on the wikipedia. Our goal is to be comprehensive, not limited by our demographics. Sam Spade 23:39, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Take a look at What Wikipedia is not. Anarcho-capitalism, being an oxymoron, should be regarded as patent nonsense. We need to stay on topic. Therefore, the article is about the commonly understood usage of anarchism and the disambiguation page/intro points to such off-topic things so as to avoid Nationalist and Capitalist flamebait. Still you persist in arguing for inclusion based on an incorrect assumption, that there is some sort of "Left Anarchism" somehow different from regular anarchism, and that the factions of that sect are daily waging battle with the A/C faction. And I don't see the relationship between your arguments and your the articles you point to, either. Especially the Left Anarchism article, possibly the worst excuse for an article I've seen, and I'm glad to see it in votes for deletion. I have yet to see you make a valid justification for any of your arguments.--albamuth 03:14, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

signature

PS 'What's with the big signature, Sam Spade?' --albamuth 23:28, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Seriously, it's bad form to call so much attention to yourself on talk pages.-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 23:36, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

I suppose you could say its an indication of my hierarchical status as an alpha male ;) Lets discuss it on my talk page, eh? Sam Spade 23:39, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There are no human alpha males. That's what separates humans from animals, humans by nature are very non-violent compared to many other animals and humans have an amazing ability to cooperate, but I suppose you're one of the ignoramuses that would say humans are primal wild beings that must be controlled right?

From the article cited - "An alpha male or alpha female is the individual in the community to whom the others follow and defer." (emphasis added) I certainly don't see that happening. I recall that more than one political analyst pointed out that Al Gore's method of debate with Ross Perot was to annoy/irritate until he lost his temper and couldn't argue calmly. Would it annoy you if I edited the talk pages to remove all the "big" tags? We could take it to my talk pages, if you wish--they're not as full as yours. ;) --albamuth 03:36, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)