Talk:Anarchism/Archive 10

message: This page is one of the oldest and most hacked-up pages on Wikipedia. It's gone through several major revisions and several rounds of repeated arguments, including this same stupid argument about anarcho-capitalism and left-anarchism, several times. It's current form is due to the efforts, mostly, of Sam Francis, who is a very committed left anarchist who put a lot of hard work into updating many of the articles on anarchist theory and history on Wikipedia.
Therefore, please take a moment to pause and consider that things might have reached their current status for a certain reason, especially if you've been on Wikipedia for a period of only weeks or months (or days?). While it may insult your ideological purity, I assure you that that is not a consideration that matters to Wikipedia. What matters is presenting a cogent picture of what 'anarchism' is in as neutral a manner as possible.
If you are new to Wikipedia, I strongly suggest you back off from articles you feel passionately about and get involved in other areas that you can deal with unheatedly first. So long as you are more committed to anarchism than you are to Wikipedia, you won't be able to do justice to this article.
It's not uncommon for a Wikipedia article to be overrun by a group of people with an ideology  (e.g. freepers, or as in this case their lefty counterparts from Infoshop.org) who are eager to change the article to conform to what they want. However, as anarchists I hope you will appreciate a few things:
# You are in a new community, and you should respect the norms of that community.
# Thrusting your nose into a new place and baldly asserting that you know what's right is not very anarchist at all.
# You are not the first anarchists on Wikipedia, or the first anarchists to edit this page.
Here's hoping you'll cool down and take things more slowly. This article doesn't have to change NOW, this VERY INSTANT. If you're interested in improving Wikipedia, take it easy. Take it slowly. Learn to love it, first. I promise if you do, you'll become a much better editor and you'll do much more for the quality of this article. Graft 19:51, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  A bit of backstory 

message: Snowspinner: Why do you continue to take the side of Sam when he is (a) clearly biased, and (b) miserably ignorant and ill-informed about anarchism?
"From what I read of anarcho-capitalism, I am one. I reserve the right to defend myself, my values, and my property and will not hesitate to utlize every means necessary to do so, regardless of the desires or presence of a state. Also the definition of Libertarian Socialist (an oxymoron whose mention has lead to hearty amusement amongst many I have discussed it with) is so convoluted and bizarre as to possibly include myself as well, I wouldn't know, I don't understand it any better than that ass Chomsky who advocates it." (Sam Spade 17:48, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evidence of Sam's bias 

message: deletionism is anti wiki. This is a content related link. Put it on VfD or fix it if you think its bad. Censorship isn't very anarchist (in case anybody cares) either. Sam [Spade] 23:25, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The link you insist on keeping is to a "totally disputed" page that is widely acknowledged to be biased and inaccurate. I support attempts to improve said page by removing bias, but currently, I can't understand how this link helps do anything save for propagandize readers. Nevertheless, because you finally explained yourself on the talk page, I won't remove the link. We can work around it if necessary. I would suggest the following qualifier, however: "[some, many, most?] anarcho-capitalists oppose left-anarchism". Not all anarcho-capitalists actively oppose left-anarchism, although they may disagree with some of its tenets (see http:/www.anarchism.net). BTW, I am not a deletionist, as I generally oppose deleting articles except in the most extreme circumstances. (And even if I was, "deletionism is anti wiki" is not wiki policy, it's an opinion held by some.) I was not trying to imply I wanted the "critique" article deleted by removing your link. I would much rather refine the article than delete it. And I welcome any good faith attempts on your behalf to help in that process. Oh, and when did you suddenly become the expert on what is and "isn't very anarchist"? Hehe. -- Spleeman 00:09, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate your current embrace of civility. Sam [Spade] 20:37, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text:   This is not a matter of deletionism, as I have done nothing to remove the article itself from wikipedia.  This is a matter of relevant links.  It is relevant to post a blatantly POV article meant to serve as a soapbox for anarcho-capitalism to the anarcho-capitalism page, it is not relevant to post this to the anarchism page as a means of introducing anarcho-capitalism.  Kev 20:16, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The link is relevent, and will remain so unless the article it links to is deleted. Sam [Spade] 20:37, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:   It is -not- relevant in the context of an introduction to anarcho-capitalism unless we are positing that opposition to libertarian socialism is a primary tenet of all anarcho-capitalists.  It would be relevant in a section detailing the conflict between the two ideologies, but that is not where you keep inserting it.  And to be clear, ac does not necessarily stand in opposition to libertarian socialism, as some anarcho-capitalists are neutral or even sympathetic to libertarian socialism.  Peppering the anarchism page with links whose relevancy to a given passage is tenuous is a great way to ruin this article.  If we posted such links every couple of sentences to libertarian socialism you would oppose that as well, and so would I.  The link already exists on the anarcho-capitalism page, it is far more relevant to the anarcho-capitalism page, and the anarcho-capitalism page is already linked to from anarchism.  If you -insist- on keeping this link the only way to balance it would be to provide similar links to libertarian socialism wherever it is remotely relevant to the subject (not even the particular text).  I sincerely hope this is not the case, as it will not help this article at all.  Kev 21:15, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  As you might expect, I tend to agree with Kev on this; I've said from the beginning the link adds very little to the "Anarchism" article, especially since the linked-to page is so clearly biased. I'm willing to work with folks on this issue, though. Sam: perhaps you could define for us all more clearly why you think this link is necessary. In other words, what does it add to the reader's understanding of anarchism? As I mentioned previously, I think that it is also important that we focus on working out the bias issues with the linked-to article. That will probably help both sides come to a reasonable conclusion on this. Might I suggest as well that the name of the "critique" article be changed to "Anarcho-capitalism vs. left-anarchism" or something like that, and that the content be changed accordingly, providing a more balanced discussion of both philosophies? -- Spleeman 21:52, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: To be honest I think it was probably better off where it was, as the paragraph you moved it to seems to have little to do directly with left-anarchism. However, it doesn't fit in much better with the original paragraph the way it's currently written. Perhaps we should rewrite said paragraph to make it fit better, or possibly rewrite the sentence itself to say something like this: "This difference has in some cases led to intense ideological debate between anarcho-capitalists and other segments of the anarchist community, particularly left-anarchists." I was actually considering "intense animosity", but didn't want to be hyperbolic. -- Spleeman 00:05, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:   Again I have to challenge the relevancy of this link on the main anarchism page.  Are we to put every dispute concerning anarchism on the main page and clutter it with links?  As it stands it clearly belongs at the anarcho-capitalism page as a POV exposition of anarcho-capitalism.  Spleeman is attempting to reform it to make it more balanced, in which case it would belong on both the anarcho-capitalism and the libertarian socialism page as relevant to each theory.  But to overload the main page with this sub-section stuff is to invite in all sorts of petty disputes between every concievable group that might get the urge to call themselves anarchists, and between all the different factions of anarchism.  Whether the main page is to exist as a historical disambugation page, or a minimalist disambugation page, or even as a brief introduction to each theory, these dialogues/rants belong on the sub-pages.  The only criticism links that belong on this page are those directed toward anarchism as a whole, not a particular facet of it, or of a particular group claiming to be anarchist.   This -is- the anarchism page, not the libertarian socialist page, nor the anarcho-capitalism page, and certainly not the anarcho-capitalist critique of libertarian socialism page.  Kev 00:56, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hehe. Good points. -- Spleeman 02:29, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text:  What are people's thoughts on this? Can we keep the links to this page focussed on anarchism on general, since people will be able to find their way to the critique page by way of the "Anarcho-capitalism" and "Libertarian socialism" pages anyway? As I understand it, this page is going to undergo a major rewrite in the near future...this will likely be settled then. -- Spleeman 02:41, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  deleting links 

message: This sentence is still an unjustified narrowing of the defintion of "anarchy". It is also structurally incorrect, as it compares "anarchy" (not "anarchism") to three "-isms", statism, totalitarianism, and fascism. All three of these are theories of government, while "anarchy" refers to a social condition. Even if the sentence were not grammatically and analytically flawed, it would still imply that anarchism is more or less a reaction against the three "-isms" mentioned, which, again, is misleading to say the least. What we imply is often just as important as what we say explicitly, and this is perhaps even more true on wikipedia. For example, it could be argued that this sentence reinforces the societal POV that anarchism is defined primarily by what it opposes. Additionally, it implies that the three "-isms" mentioned are uniquely representative of what anarchism opposes, when in reality, many anarchists are just as opposed to bourgeois "democracy" as they are to fascism, for example. The original sentence was intended simply to give the anarchist defintion of the word "anarchy". Adding an faulty comparison to three specific ideologies that anarchism opposes is purposeless, especially when the things anarchism is "revolting against" can easily be discussed elsewhere in the article. -- Spleeman 19:49, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad comparison 

message: Spleeman wrote (quoting me): "Firstly, you 'don't see how ["anarchists without adjectives"] can [be] sensibly described as belonging to one persuasion more than to another' apparently because you know nothing about anarchism."  Good explanation.  Wait, I'm being sarcastic.  I still maintain my point, which is that they can call themselves anything they want, but if they are "leftist" or "post-left" or "anti-capitalist" then those are all adjectives, and thus, in my opinion, for them to describe themselves as "without adjectives" is misleading.  If, on the other hand, they are not any of those things, then what possible conflict can there be with anarcho-capitalists?  Note that this is deductive logic, not requiring any specific knowledge of the movement.  I will point out, though, that, in an effort to learn more about "anarchism without adjectives" I found this article, on what appears to be a left-leaning website, about Voltairine de Cleyre, which says that she praised the U.S. "founding fathers" as precursors to her sort of anarchism.  I don't suppose you will tell me, then, that Washington and Jefferson were part of the same movement with you and Kevehs and Bakunin?
As for the rest of Spleeman's comments about the individualists, I'll respond further to this sort of stuff on Talk:Anarcho-capitalism when I get a chance. - Nat Krause 18:01, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Nat, you are fast becoming a waste of my time.  I've actually read the article in which de Cleyre "praised" the founding fathers of the U.S.  This means that, unlike you, I know something of the context of her comments and the implications she was drawing.  When you decide to get off your ass and study this subject a bit, then perhaps I will take your analogies more seriously.  Kev 02:37, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: Oh, and I failed to comment on your impeccable use of deductive logic.  Really brillant.  Indeed, if we all agree with your premise at the outset (i.e. that anarchism means nothing more than anti-statism) then it does follow that anarchists without adjectives could not possibly be against capitalism!  Why, that just blows me away, if we agree with the parts of your position that we don't agree with, then it turns out that we must logically agree with the implications of your position as well.  This is where a little knowledge of actual history would go very far to aid your deductive reasoning Nat.  Now back in reality, apart from rhetorical circles like the one you have demonstrated, the anarchists without adjectives held a very different definition of anarchism than the one anarcho-capitalists and sympathizers like yourself began to push in the 1950s.  If I was to take your logic, I could easily argue that anarchists without adjectives cannot be anti-state because anarchism means nothing more than chaos in the streets and anti-statism is an adjective.  Thankfully, I don't use your logic, and can see that those people who called themselves anarchists long before the anarcho-capitalists attempted to subvert the title are completely justified in considering themselves to be anarchists in general when the philosophy itself rejected capitalism and all other forms of human domination.  Kev 20:41, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Responses to Nat Krause