Talk:Anarchism/Archive 30

message: : Anarchism has always been defined as an opposition to all forms of authority, capitalism, and "the state". The idea that anarchism is simply non-state is absurd. The inclusion of historically irrelevent anarchist non-schools is a POV assault on this page. And we indeed can play the numbers game. Historically the membership of anarcho-syndicalist (still share common definition) unions, whose political affiliation was electorally determined by membership have reached into millions; circa-1900 CGT (France) 1.2mil, circa-1936 CNT (spain), 1.5-3.1mil. These two alone dwarf in size the following of 'agorism' or any of that nonsense. More contemporally, CGT (spain) 3.0mil alone destroys user:MrVoluntarist non-argument. I'm more than willing to dig in and research concrete numbers, but the general scope should be obvious. As claimed in "what wikipedia is not", this is not a place to soapbox for small, irrelevent groups or positions. --FluteyFlakes88 05:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The claim "Anarchism has always been defined as an opposition to all forms of authority, capitalism, and "the state"" is false. Both etymologically and according to virtually all dictionaries, anarchism is defined as opposition to the state and (generally) authority. See the discussion on definitions. Hogeye 03:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anarchos=No Rulers. Not "No Government". No Rulers, that inlcudes bosses. The Ungovernable Force 06:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

text: If you'd like to go back in time and edit the 1936 Wikipedia, I'll fully support such a claim.  The CGT/CNT today total 60-80 thousand... assuming everyone's joined for the ideology and not for the benefits. (That was discussed in the archives you did read.   ) MrVoluntarist 05:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article should take into account the history of anarchism. Wikipedia is not about making assumptions. Wikipedia  is about stating facts and citing sources. Oh, and please try to keep discussion out of the disputes section :) Thanks - FrancisTyers 06:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point, I'll put comments where they're tangentially relevant instead of directly relevant.   Belay that, I see what you're doing.  See my talk page.  Keep up the good work. MrVoluntarist 06:02, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Anarchism has always been defined as

message: ::That's because most of these older anarchists saw government as more powerful (and by extension, more threatening), and there was no concept of "anarcho-capitalism" with which they felt they had to distinguish themselves. In their works, they very often elsewhere note an intrinsic opposition to capitalism and sometimes describe it as a form of socialism. The vast majority of the followers and thinkers following these same anarchists make it clear that anarchism is opposed to all structures of power. This shouldn't be a surprise to you, considering all the users here flatly arguing this to you. Anarcho-capitalists and some individualists might define anarchism as simple anti-statism, but it's very clear that most people here do not, nor is it hard to surmise that a number of people offering definitions on that page would have, in retrospect. The definition (as that page also evidences) has been honed by later theorists, and not at the expense of earlier ideas. Sarge Baldy 06:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article should take into account all historical considerations. - FrancisTyers 06:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not true that "There was no concept of anarcho-capitalism." There was voluntaryism, which was the same thing as anarcho-capitalism. Auberon Herbert was a Voluntaryist. Benjamin Tucker said of Herbert: "Auberon Herbert is dead. He was a true anarchist in everything but name. How much better (and how much rarer) to be an anarchist in everything but name than to be an anarchist in name only!" Anarcho-capitalism has been around as long, or longer, than labor-value individualist anarchism. It just wasn't named that until the definition of capitalism started changing to mean what it means today --laissez-faire. Tucker even argued that anarcho-capitalism (voluntaryism) would collapse into labor-value individualism: "Mr. Herbert proved beyond question that the government of man by man is utterly without justification, but is quite ignorant of the fact that interest, rent, and profits will find no place in the perfect economic order. Mr. Ruskin’s error is by far the more serious of the two, because the realization of Mr. Herbert’s ideas would inevitably result in [a profit-free society]"  So even though Herbert supports stateless capitalism, Tucker still believes him to be an anarchist. RJII 06:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The earlier anarchists, like their followers, were opposed to systems of power, but saw this power as mostly contained within the state, which had their focus. Capitalism in those days was hardly what it has become, and even if voluntarism was noticed, it might not have been seen with hostility, because by and large they were making the same fight. Today the anarchists following them see capitalism as much more powerful, even more powerful than government, which in many ways is looked to more as a tool of capitalism than an autonomous power. Not surprisingly, this leaves a very large gap between these anarchists and anarcho-capitalists, who simply want to terminate this final weak structure and possibly give capitalism still further power. Sarge Baldy 06:48, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Give capitalism still further power?" Capitalism has no power. How are you defining capitalism? RJII 17:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Quick note it might not have been seen with hostility, Wikipedia is not concerned with might. Unless you can attribute this to someone it doesn't belong in the article. Wikipedia is about writing encyclopaedic articles, not about pondering on philosophical questions (well, at least not on talk pages!) :) - FrancisTyers 06:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Then the article should certainly take the historical impact of voluntaryism into account. I have consulted the full Oxford English Dictionary to which I have a subscription. It states that the first usage of anarcho-capitalism was in 1969 Libertarian Childs..has made the paradigmatic progressive transition from Randianism to Lefevrian pacifism to revolutionary anarcho-capitalism. I'm not entirely sure what labour-value individualist anarchism is. But for now, lets not discuss that (this isn't a bulletin board!) and lets focus on the dispute :) - FrancisTyers 06:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By labor-value individualist, I mean the individualist anarchists who adhered to a labor theory of value. RJII 06:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: RJII's emphasis on 'labour theory of value' is much overstated. Whereas Marxits may see this as a defining feature of their politics, economic theory of value has never assumed a central place in anarchism. Dividing individualists into pro- and anti- LTV probably comes from Rothbard, or may be RJII's original research. (Where did Sterner stand on LTV by the way?)Bengalski 21:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You literally don't know what you're talking about. Anyone who has read the works of the anti-profit individualist anarchists (Tucker, and others) knows that that the labor theory of value is central. They talk about it so much that it's almost nauseating. If they didn't adhere to the labor theory of value, they'd be anarcho-capitalists. RJII 16:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed. I've never considered it in any way a central tenet of anarchism. In fact, I can't recall any of the anarchists I've read mentioning such a thing. Economics in general seems extremely overplayed here. I see anarchism as being a philosophy opposed to domination, with economics assuming the role of a methodology in approaching this goal, and anarchists in general open to economic ideas in line with these aims. The opposition to capitalism is assembled around it's dominating power structure, not some petty system of value underlying it. The argument we're trying to make here is that A/C diverged from the primary goals of anarchism into supporting the exact thing it was designed to fight. It's actual methodologies are not as important. Sarge Baldy 22:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's how I feel Sarge. I've never been too interested in economic values and sciences and all that. Anarchism is about opposition to domination and hierarchy, and as far as I (and virtually all anarchists) can tell, a capitlist system based on private competition for profits creates winners and losers, who have to dominate or submit to someone else. That is why anarchism (which mean "no rulers") is inherently anti-capitalist as far as I understand it. The Ungovernable Force 06:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: older anarchists saw government as more threatening than capitalism

message: Ok, so I've been asked to provide sources to my claim (#7 I think it was) that anarcho-cap does not have much of a movement. If you want to see my talk page, there is more discussion there about my lack of resources for cites, but this is all I could find for now . It isn't great, but it's a start. The second and third questions/answers are what I'm looking at (the second in particular). I would appreciate it if Aaron or anyone else could add to this, because I know the info is out there. The Ungovernable Force 07:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The claim "anarchism is both a philosophy and a movement" is false.  In virtually all dictionaries and most encyclopedias, and according to most theorists, anarchism is a philosophy. Perusing the definitions from Wikiquote (via Onelook), anarchism is described variously as "a political theory, "theory or doctrine", "ideology", and "political belief", but never a "movement." This whole movement thing is a cheap diversion from the real issue - the definition. We don't leave Jeremy Bentham out of the liberalism article because there's no Benthamite movement; liberalism like anarchism is a philosophy, not a movement. I suppose it's okay to have a section in the anarchism article about movements, but anarchism is not defined as a movement. Hogeye 03:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

text: exactlyThe Ungovernable Force 19:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: that "exactly" is NOT in response to hogeye, it was originally below Aaron's comment. For future reference, hogeye, you might want to pay more attention to formatting, because it give the impression that I support your claim, which I obviously do not. As a member of the supposedly non-existent anarchist movement, I find this hard to swallow. Maybe I'm just on crack or something, imagining that anarchists helped shut down the WTO in Seattle, or organized workers in the IWW, or died in Spain fighting the fascists, or served countless meals to the hungry under the motto "Food Not Bombs", or hung from the gallows after Haymarket, or were deported for opposing WWI, or have engaged in radical direct action to end animal and environmental abuses (btw, why does the article not mention anything about animal liberation?). Yeah, anarchism is just a philosophy, not a movement. There is no Socialist movement either. Or Communist. Just philosophies. Anarchism is a philosophy and a movement, whereas an/cap is just a philosophy. The question then is, "is this page about anarchism as a theory, or a movement, or both". I think both, but the movement is interlocked with the philosophy, and the fact that A/C is not at all a part of the movement (which you said yourself), shows that it does not deserve nearly as much attention as it has been receiving. The Ungovernable Force 06:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I second the Force. And note this also ties into discussions on 'individualism vs collectivism', 'labour theory of value' etc. above. The ancaps see these as the crucial issues because they are working from a point of view where anarchism is a kind of parlour philosophy - Rothbard was an academic economist after all. In fact I think the vast majority of anarchists in history and today have never identified themselves around theories of property or economic value - but as part of a living, active movement opposed to capitalism. Yes there is going to be a strong element of the theory in an encyclopaedia article, but we can't forget the vast majority of active anarchists who were never theorists but were historical actors. Also note there is a separate page on anarchist economics which needs a lot of work, and we could have one on anarchist philosophy too if merited - but these topics shouldn't take over this page.Bengalski 13:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're making the same accusations that were launched against the original labor-value individualist anarchists. As Murrray Boochkin points out, "Anarcho-individualism was largely marginalized by mass socialistic workers' movements, of which most anarchists considered themselves the left wing. In an era of stormy social upheaval, marked by the rise of a mass working-class movement that culminated in the 1930s and the Spanish Revolution, anarchosyndicalists and anarchocommunists, no less than Marxists, considered anarcho-individualism to be petty-bourgeois exotica. They often attacked it quite directly as a middle-class indulgence, rooted far more in liberalism than in anarchism." Some of you collectivists need to realize that not all anarchism are so-called "social movements" where people riot, smash shop windows, and kill people. Anarchism also includes philosophical anarchism. Philosophical anarchism is extremely significant. RJII 16:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Anarcho-capitalism as a Movement

message: To all who are interested in anything that calls itself anarchism! You/we will find the link below amusing. --Christofurio 18:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Interested in anything that calls itself anarchism

message: I'm wondering how this process is actually going to resolve anything.  This same argument has been going on for years, and lack of communication is not the problem. 216.99.217.92 23:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if informal mediation doesn't work (I hope it will) :) It can always be taken to the formal dispute resolution process. - FrancisTyers 00:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Yep, it's the same old thing. The "formal" process is yet another poll or some such.  But at least the frozen version of the article and template is quite good this time! Hogeye 03:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Grrrr :).Voice of AllT|@|ESP 03:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "mediation"?

message: Regarding:
6. Better yet, use the Neutral Disambiguation Page.
This is inherently POV as characterising any movement that is anti-capitalist must be socialist. This is not the case. - FrancisTyers 17:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "neutral" disambig page