Talk:Anarchism/Archive 9

message: Here is an example of how inaccurate this page is in representing left-anarchist views:
:"Mikhail Bakunin saw a need to...overthrow the ruling class as a means to dissolve the state."
As I stated above, most left-anarchists do not see "abolition of the state...as the end in itself, but as the means to achieving a free society". Bakunin saw abolition of the state as a means to "overthrow the ruling class", not the other way around.
This is only one example of the way in which anarcho-capitalist logic has permeated this article, confusing left-anarchist views. And this is why I think the two philosophies should be treated separately, so that both can be portrayed as accurately and neutrally as possible. Spleeman 05:28, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  What I'm trying to solve 

message: "What strains are you thinking of? I see a need to break them into three articles: left (which would subsume syndacalism, green-anarchism, and anarchafeminism), right, and individualist. There are clearly ties between both of the first two and the individualists, although the degree of the ties and the fidelity of their interpretations are debatable (and voluminously debated). And then there are the 'anarchists with adjective' -- I don't see how they can sensibly described as belonging to one persuasion more than to another." (Nat Krause 05:23, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:   The problem goes beyond post-left.  As you mentioned yourself, there is a long tradition of anarchist-without-adjectives which consisted of anti-capitalist folk like Voltairine de Cleyre and Malatesta.  The idea that this tradition would include a capitalist off-shoot is ridiculous given the positions of its adherents and their belief in what anarchism meant, yet it does not necessarily belong under libertarian socialism or individualism.  Furthermore, the current tendency in many articles to distinguish between "left-anarchism" and individualism is no more accurate, given that folks like Tucker considered themselves socialist, putting them firmly on the left by our standards today.  I think most of this can be resolved with careful use of terms by people knowledgable in the field and a precise delineation of how the definition of anarchism changes when it is used by different groups.  More on that below.  Kev 21:04, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  I know the problem goes beyond "post-left". I was even about to mention Voltairine de Cleyre in my post. Good points. I agree with pretty much everything you just said. Spleeman 22:21, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Responses to Nat Krause 

message: I think all of this is really about how each group is defining the word "anarchism".  So the solution is simple, the main page details the history of meaning for the word itself, and as that meaning branches it links to the articles relevant to it.  While arguably no two anarchists today hold the exact same definition of anarchism, it is fairly uncontroversial that the word "anarchism" originated to mean something different from the word "anarchy" that predated it.  So this should be mentioned and a quick link provided to shove folks interested in that word to the anarchy page rather than the anarchism page, thus clearing up the endless qualifiers and counter-examples that plague this page from people who mistake the "anarchy" for "anarchism".  Then we can relate that Proudhon meant the word "anarchism" to mean something along the lines of freedom from coercion and authoritative hierarchy, and that this particular use of the word held more or less the same for both the individualists and the communists who soon followed him.  Thus uniting this disparate groups of mutualism, individualism, and communism under a general banner.  The exact interpretation of this definition might have changed from one faction to another, but there were always mutual signs as to the application {i.e. anti-statism, anti-capitalism, etc).  
Then anarcho-capitalism arrives and uses a different set of definitions.  They call the "free market" something different than the individualists did, a market free from government interferance, rather than one free from arguably exploitative relations like usury, rent, and wage.  They have their own unique definition of the "state", as a monopoly on the use of force, something which again sets them apart from many previous traditions anarchist and not.  And finally, they hold a different definition of "anarchism", which for them is about a particular rejection of domination in the form of the state, rather than a rejection of the various social institutions which led other anarchists to reject both the state and capital amongst other institutions.
It seems to me that if we are to split this article into multiple parts (*sigh* again) then this method would be the most accurate and balanced way of presenting the differences in interpretation and definition that are present before we lead readers into their respective ghettos- er, pages.  It does not marginalize the anarcho-capitalists, as no one will be claiming ownership of the word or including some forms of anarchism on the main page while excluding anarcho-capitalism, and I don't see why they would object to holding a different set of definitions and interpretations (they often insist this themselves), and it avoids their tendency to glaze over the differences between anarcho-capitalism and ideologies like individualism or anarchism-without-adjectives.  Furthermore, it gives a good foundation to explain why primitivism is generally accepted by the other factions when anarcho-capitalism is not, and prepares us for the inevitable arrival of a national-anarchist page.  Rather than simply sitting back and watching as the fascists intentionally mislead and disrupt while claiming fair representation under NPOV, we can simply acknowledge that they use a different set of definitions and interpretations when claiming the title "anarchism" and push them off into their own page just as we are doing to ourselves.
:I should note that my personal preference is for the minimalist "disambiguation" page we once had. VV 22:02, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  A matter of definition 

message: I reject the new dictator, and recommend he review wikipedia:truce Sam [Spade] 07:12, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice choice of terms, given that you so loved VV, the "old" dictator.  But this little spat is meaningless.  There seems to be pretty broad support for this initiative to reform the page, in case you didn't notice.  Given that all the info you have added in recent days is copied word for word from the anarcho-capitalism page (adding nothing at all to the informative content of wikipedia), it will be lost when all this information is moved into separate pages and your additions thus become redundant.  Kev 19:18, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: Oh please, Sam. You just don't like it that someone is standing up to your anarcho-capitalist crusade. Spleeman 22:05, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, Sam seems to be more of an anti-intellectual evangelical Christian, who sees everyone who doesn't beleive in God, nationalism, or private-property as being his enemy.  Since left anarchists don't really care for all three, he's been especially viseral to them. millerc 22:39, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, I made my comment below about him being "right-wing, pro-capitalist, and anti-left" without reading this first. I agree with your interpretation. Although he has identified himself as an anarcho-capitalist (see below) I think he's more of an A-cap sympathizer. BTW, he also trolls LGBTQI-related pages and changes them to fit his moral viewpoints. And he's a racist: "Primitive man is also backwards, diseased and superstitious, having many obvious drawbacks which incline most indigenous people to embrace the modern life." (Sam Spade 17:48, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text:  I can't speak for Sam, but what I don't like is that your user page declares your intent to edit pages to fit your POV, that you're referring to other users as "motherfuckers," that you engaged in a five-revert revert war, and that you are discouraging attempts to expand and work on this page through reference to a "truce" which, I should note, I was skeptical of from the start particularly as it seemed to be being used to protect your preferred version of the page, but which I was willing to let go through at the time in good faith. My good faith is pretty much used up now.  Snowspinner 22:11, Jun 27, 2004 (UTC)
I don't mind the "crusade" part, but I am no kind of anarchist (maybe I'm an anarcho-facist?). I'm more an imperialist, which is kinda opposite and stuff... ;) Sam [Spade] 22:11, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: "From what I read of anarcho-capitalism, I am one." Your words. Not mine. Imperialism and capitalism go hand-in-hand. Spleeman 22:40, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coup