Talk:Anarchism/Archive 18

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Disambiguating and mentioning

message: 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)
thread_title: "Oslo IFA"

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  New editor 

message: 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)
replies: text: If you look at my edits, I've excluded it from this article and disambiguated. Philwelch 00:56, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fact, POV, and acceptable verbiage 

message: ::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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: yada yada

message: 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)
thread_title:  Anarcho-Capitalism on Schools of Anarchist Thought 

message: 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)
thread_title: SNIP SNIP!

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: The Idea of Schools Of Anarchism

message: (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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: (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)
thread_title: ''[[Anarchy, State, and Utopia]]''