Talk:Anarchism/Archive 35

message: The presentation of anarchism section in english Wikipedia is the worst of all the other ones.
It names guys that are related to ultra-conservatives ideologies and to exploitative economics; and I´m sure it´s because of ignorance, imprecitions or vandalism of "anarcho"-capitalists.
I recomend to put in the presententation o beggining of this section the real, phylosophical and historical meaning of Anarchism: A society based in voluntary asociation of autonomous individuals, that is oppose to any form of hierarchy or political oppression and explotative economics.   
That includes Capitalism, State, Institutional churches, Army, etc.
You could put here the relation between anarchism and Liberalism (that is not new) , and explain that anarchism is more related to "Anticapitalist" Liberalism like Hodgskin, Jefferson, Emerson, George, Penn, Twain, Paine, etc, than to the "official" Capitalist Liberalism.
Then you can name few lines about anarcho-capitalism (to don´t interrupt the develop of the anarchism article); and link and new article about the relations and differences between Anarchism schools and the non-anarchist school (but libertarian) called "anarcho" capitalism.
Why ?
Because, anarchism is anti-authoritarian school that include both radical liberal and radical socialist that oppose both  Statism and Capitalism; in contrast "anarcho" capitalist have in their list of "prophets" many people that in the anarchist perspective aren´t anti-authoritarian. That could confuse a lot of people that don´t know about the issue. 
P.D. Anarchism not only oppose to the State, Anarchism oppose to all Authority - bosses included-. Also there is not a virtue to opposse State and not to Capitalism when States in Globalization are controlled by Capitalist.
I´m a firmly individualist, near to mutualism and post-left anarchy but in any way I consider that "anarcho"-capitalists are anarchists. But at same time anarchism always have been related to Liberalism, in special to "anticapitalist" radical liberalism. So "anarcho" capitalism is part of Liberalism we should take a word about the theme, always be clear than they are libertarians not anarchists.--192.188.52.98 19:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yet another dumbshit who doesn't know the meaning of "anarchism."  Get a clue. Read a definition or something. Hogeye 19:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No need for insults. He has good points, and promoting your own FAQ isn't "getting a clue". Infinity0 talk 20:30, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

text: He makes a good point. Very few people here do any real research beyond pulling up FAQ's, written by non-credible POV-pushing authors. RJII 04:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody has time when they're dealing with all of the disruption 24/7. Also, unlike some people here, we don't get paid to edit Wikipedia. But it's still no sweat. --AaronS 05:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What causes the "disruptions" is a lack of knowledge and bad faith. If more people sought out, read, and thoroughly understood real sources instead of POV FAQ's, there would be less "disruptions." But, there's not much one can do about bad faith. There will always be a few rotten apples in the barrel screwing it up for everyone else. RJII 05:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're always so quick to throw around insults and accusations, RJII. Maybe if you tried to listen once and a while, instead of assuming that everybody who disagrees with you is evil, you'd see a lot more progress. --AaronS 05:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

text: The Anarchist FAQ is widely seen by anarchists as an "authoritative" contemporary source on anarchism. The FAQ is the result of over a DECADE of writing and research. Many people have contributed feedback. The FAQ is mirrored by numerous anarchist websites and its links page includes hundred of links from anarchist websites who have asked the FAQ collective to link to them. The discussion on this page about the FAQ shows some ignorance, but mostly it shows the lengths to which a few people will go to deny reality. If you think that your take on anarchism is correct and valid, then I invite you to get your words published by AK Press, the biggest anarchist publisher and distributor in North America. Otherwise, let people who know something about anarchism get this mess fixed. Chuck0 04:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Prove that "the" Anarchist FAQ is "widely seen by anarchists as an "authoritative" contemporary source on anarchism." The fact that the website it's hosted on get a lot of hits doesn't prove that. I don't consider it "authoritative" at all. I think it's a shoddy piece of work. Bad writing, bad interpretations of primary sources, etc. All it's doing is feeding people propaganda that don't know any better. And, how about non-anarchists? Do they "widely" see it an "authoritative." There's no way that would be true. Anyone citing that thing in a scholarly paper would be laughed at. RJII 05:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Can you find a better source? I can't find anything near as extensive or better sourced.
=== No personal attacks ===
All editors should be aware that wikipedia has a strict policy regarding personal attacks. - brenneman{T}{L}  05:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why don,t use an different section to make an article about the relation beetween anarchism and "anarcho"-Capitalism

message: All editors should be aware that wikipedia has a strict policy regarding personal attacks. - brenneman{T}{L}  05:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No personal attacks 

message: i oppose to directly stating that Leo Tolstoy "was an anarchist". In the article one book is mentioned, and surely that book, The Kingdom Of God Is Within, has inspired many anarchists and has related kinds of thoughts. But in it Tolstoy also directly criticises anarchists and it is clear that he does NOT consider himself anarchist. I think it is a case of excess arrogance to coin him as "anarchist" when he himself makes it clear that he does not consider himself one. I do not oppose saying that his thoughts have inspired others to formulate an ideology called "christian anarchism", but as far as i know, he himself never proposed such an ideology!
greetings.
Juha Uski, Denmark
:Does Tolstoi satisfy the definition of an anarchist?  Did he believe that the State was oppressive and should be abolished?  Yes, he did.  Therefore he was an anarchist.  It doesn't matter what he called himself.  A lot of anarchists didn't call themselves "anarchist," since at times in certain cultures anarchism was thought to mean violent bombthrower or stupid anti-property socialist. We know better, and go by the definition.  (Except for the a dildo is whatever has traditionally been considered a dildo crowd.) Hogeye 14:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Therefore, Marx was an anarchist. What is your obsession with dildos? --AaronS 15:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Straw man.  Hogeye doesn't think Marx was an anarchist.  You need to respond to his specific argument why Tolstoy was an anarchist. MrVoluntarist 15:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Geez, are you forgetful!  We've already discussed why Marx  was  not an anarchist, i.e. he wanted to use a State to mold his 'socialist man.'  Ergo, he is a statist - the opposite of an  anarchist.  I know a guy who says that, when he gets old and his teeth fall out, he'll quit eating meat.  Would you call him a vegetarian? Hogeye 15:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're not obligated to respond anymore, Hogeye, because by Aaron's use of the term, his argument is a straw man.  You never said Marx was an anarchist, so his argument doesn't apply. MrVoluntarist 15:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I guess I should take it as a compliment that I can rile both of you up so easily. MrVoluntarist seems to be veritably obsessed with me. I'm flattered, really. But you're both wrong. Marx wanted communism, which has no state. He believed that the state would disappear after the proletariat seized it. That's the bottom line, really -- and your analogy doesn't really work, Hogeye. --AaronS 16:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a strawman though.  Hogeye isn't talking about Marx, so your argument is invalid on straw man grounds.  And the topic I created was also for Sarge Baldy and I think someone else. So that's another strawman.MrVoluntarist 16:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

text: You're using the term straw man incorrectly. In a hilarious ironic turn, your use of it is actually a straw man. It's very funny. --AaronS 16:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I'm using it correctly.  When you claim Hogeye thinks Marx was an anarchist, and he doesn't think that, you're misrepresenting his position.  That's a strawman. MrVoluntarist 18:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

text: No, he isn't claiming Hogeye thinks Marx is an anarchist, he is claiming that Hogeye's position implies that Marx is an anarchist, which Hogeye disagree with, so his position is contradictory. Reductio ad absurdum. Infinity0 talk 18:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you!!  Finally, someone who disagrees with me yet understands the difference between a reductio and a strawman!  You might want to clue Aaron in at some point. MrVoluntarist 18:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't get it. AaronS never said it was a straw man... Infinity0 talk 18:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *burying face in hands* MrVoluntarist 18:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leo Tolstoy 

message: Just follow these easy steps:
#Subscribe to a very limited definition of anarchism; i.e. that anarchism is mere antistatism
#Select quotes that make a person appear anti-statist
#Only use primary sources; do not quote scholars unless they are from partisan organizations
#When no scholars can be found, quote supporters of the person in question
#If all else fails, fall back on the very limited definition
Try it, it's very simple!
:Isn't "anarchism is mere statism" a strawman?  At least, I've never ever heard anyone who claims that mere anti-statism - being against relatively more government power - is anarchism.  I -have- heard people who say that absolutist anti-statism is anarchism.  And they are right.  An anarchist is not simply someone who thinks particular policies or officials are bad. An anarchist is someone who has -principled- opposition to government in general, the institution itself, all governments of all types. AnarChrist
::AnarChrist, I was talking about "absolutist" anti-statism. Those who who do not seek the abolition of the State, but merely its extreme limitation, are usually called minarchists or, in the U.S., libertarians. --AaronS 03:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, everyone with a brain knows that.  The problem is, the roles were reversed just a few weeks ago, and I'm trying to make him feel exactly how I felt when he called a reductio a strawman (without saying how it was a strawman).  I made sure to include the condenscending internal link and request that he educate himself.  Let's see how he responds to his tactics when the tables are turned! MrVoluntarist 23:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I apparently hurt his feelings pretty badly. He's still reeling. --AaronS 23:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  :\\ Well, if you did do that you should probably apologise or something. Infinity0 talk 23:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, sir, I sure did. But of course I already understood what the term meant before I read the article. You made the following fallacy with regard to attacking my high standards for this article: "Present a misrepresentation of the opponent's position, refute it, and pretend that the opponent's actual position has been refuted." You tried to generalize my standards, applying them to other Wikipedia articles, when I have always said that my standards are specific to this article, because this is a highly contentious article. High contention requires high standards of proof. You misrepresented that position. Voilà. --AaronS 23:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aaron, this is the first time you've tried to differentiate between the maps and the tree on "contentiousness" grounds.  (And of course, as I'll explain in the other topic, they're not different along that dimension.)  You may have stated that the article was unique in being contentious some time before, but you you didn't mention it at all when you should have -- when you were trying to use the term "straw man" properly.  I'm trying to be reasonable here: how should one respond, on Wikipedia, to someone (like you before) who completely and totally reveals inability to properly use the term "straw man"?  I responded to you exactly as you did to me.  Now, you're accusing me of inappropriate behavior.  Let's back that up.  Show me precisely how to respond to the boneheaded argument that "Hogeye didn't say Marx was an anarchist, so it's a strawman." I really want to learn, seriously. MrVoluntarist 00:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My original comment explains it all: "As for Sarge's position on your argument being a straw man, allow me to reiterate it. I have basically said as much, anyway. The fact of the matter is that you're presenting our position in a weakened form, and then attacking it. That's what a straw man is. Obviously, it would be ridiculous to suggest that a map outlining which nations supported or did not support the U.S. invasion of Iraq violates WP:NPOV. And it would be equally ridiculous to suggest that a map displaying which states allow for gay marriage/civil unions and which states punish homosexuality as a criminal offense is reductionist. The thing, MrVoluntarist, is that we're not talking about these maps. These maps are uncontroversial. We're talking about a "chart of anarchist schools and influences" that is mired with problems that have been explained and re-explained numerous times. Please address our points that this chart is reductionist, that this chart violates WP:NPOV, that this chart is original research." Are you read to stop wasting time? This is the last time that I'm going to talk about this non-issue. --AaronS 00:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, sorry.  There was nothing "origin"-al about that comment.  It came at the very end of that topic.  I want to know how I was supposed to respond to the initial ill-posed strawman accusation, not the one you eventually hobbled together.  (And by the way, this last response misses the point -- the gay marriage map classifies certain penalties as "minor" vs. "maximal", which is POV/OR, and the Iraq war map "reductionistly" tries to condense entire governments' positions into a few words.  You wouldn't allow that on the anarchism article would you?  Oh, that's right, because unlike gay marriage and the Iraq war, anarchism is highly controversial, it's so hotly debated, every single day.) MrVoluntarist 00:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh my God, you are incorrigable. That was the first time I ever said that your argument was a straw man. Now I'm starting to think that you're just full of shit. --AaronS 00:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please refrain from personal attacks. I've added your "nazist-anarchism" and "marxist-anarchism" to the Uncyclopedia because they made me laugh :) - FrancisTyers 00:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Surprise surprise: this wasn't always about you.  When I lecture on how to use "strawman" properly, Sarge Baldy should be listening as well.  You critiqued my responses to his ill-posed strawman accusation.  Let me hear how you would have replied to a Sarge Baldy-like incorrect strawman accusation.  I'm not full of shit.  I want to know how to handle people like you and Sarge.  Seriously. So the tables are turned; see how it feels and tell me how to respond. MrVoluntarist 00:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The difference is that you don't have reasoning to support your conclusions, actions and accusations. --AaronS 01:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not the one that has been on a week-long crusade, here. It's no sweat to prove MrVoluntarist's accusations baseless. I just wish that we could spend our time discussing real issues. --AaronS 01:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to make anybody you want an anarchist 

message: Marxist-anarchism was first espoused by Karl Marx in the 19th century, although it was not called marxist-anarchism at the time. Marx argued that the State was merely a tool of class oppression. "Political power," he claimed, "is merely the organized power of one class for oppressing another." (31) He claimed that, if the proletariat "makes itself the ruling class" by seizing the State from the bourgeoisie, it will "have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class." For, capital, according to Marx, is a not just a personal but also a "social" power. (24) Moreover, he noted that Communists "are further reproached with desiring to abolish countries and nationality." (28) Marx's goal, like other anarchists, was to abolish the State. The main difference between marxist-anarchists and other anarchists is that marxist-anarchists believe that the State can only be abolished "when class distinctions have disappeared." (31) It is only then that free association can exist and the individual can cease to be alienated, according to Marx: "we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all." (31) It is in this way that marxist-anarchism is a form of individualist anarchism; the free development of the community is superceded by the free development of every individual.
--AaronS 22:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Marxist-anarchism

message: Nazist-anarchism was first espoused by Adolf Hitler in the 20th century, although it was not called nazist-anarchism at the time. Hitler argued that the State was merely a tool of Jewish oppression. "Political power," he claimed, "[is merely the organized power of] the Jews." (31) He claimed that, if the Germans "[makes itself the ruling class]" by seizing the State from the Jews, it will "[have swept away the conditions for the existence of] Jewish antagonisms [and] Jews [generally]" For, Jews, according to Hitler, "killed Jesus". (24) Moreover, he noted that Jews have "half Judaized" America. Hitler's goal, like other anarchists, was to abolish the State. The main difference between nazist-anarchists and other anarchists is that nazist-anarchists believe that the State can only be abolished when "the German race" has taken over "the world" and the "Jews" are "dead" (31) It is only then that free association can exist and the individual can be racially pure, according to Hitler: "This pride of race is a quality which the German, fundamentally, does not possess [because of the Jews]" It is in this way that nazist-anarchism is a form of individualist anarchism; the free development of the community (without hindrance from Jews) is superceded by the free development of every individual.
----
This is a straw man (make sure to read the article).  No one's arguing that Marx is an anarchist. MrVoluntarist 22:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, everyone with a brain knows that.  The problem is, the roles were reversed just a few weeks ago, and I'm trying to make him feel exactly how I felt when he called a reductio a strawman (without saying how it was a strawman).  I made sure to include the condenscending internal link and request that he educate himself.  Let's see how he responds to his tactics when the tables are turned! MrVoluntarist 23:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I apparently hurt his feelings pretty badly. He's still reeling. --AaronS 23:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  :\\ Well, if you did do that you should probably apologise or something. Infinity0 talk 23:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, sir, I sure did. But of course I already understood what the term meant before I read the article. You made the following fallacy with regard to attacking my high standards for this article: "Present a misrepresentation of the opponent's position, refute it, and pretend that the opponent's actual position has been refuted." You tried to generalize my standards, applying them to other Wikipedia articles, when I have always said that my standards are specific to this article, because this is a highly contentious article. High contention requires high standards of proof. You misrepresented that position. Voilà. --AaronS 23:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aaron, this is the first time you've tried to differentiate between the maps and the tree on "contentiousness" grounds.  (And of course, as I'll explain in the other topic, they're not different along that dimension.)  You may have stated that the article was unique in being contentious some time before, but you you didn't mention it at all when you should have -- when you were trying to use the term "straw man" properly.  I'm trying to be reasonable here: how should one respond, on Wikipedia, to someone (like you before) who completely and totally reveals inability to properly use the term "straw man"?  I responded to you exactly as you did to me.  Now, you're accusing me of inappropriate behavior.  Let's back that up.  Show me precisely how to respond to the boneheaded argument that "Hogeye didn't say Marx was an anarchist, so it's a strawman." I really want to learn, seriously. MrVoluntarist 00:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My original comment explains it all: "As for Sarge's position on your argument being a straw man, allow me to reiterate it. I have basically said as much, anyway. The fact of the matter is that you're presenting our position in a weakened form, and then attacking it. That's what a straw man is. Obviously, it would be ridiculous to suggest that a map outlining which nations supported or did not support the U.S. invasion of Iraq violates WP:NPOV. And it would be equally ridiculous to suggest that a map displaying which states allow for gay marriage/civil unions and which states punish homosexuality as a criminal offense is reductionist. The thing, MrVoluntarist, is that we're not talking about these maps. These maps are uncontroversial. We're talking about a "chart of anarchist schools and influences" that is mired with problems that have been explained and re-explained numerous times. Please address our points that this chart is reductionist, that this chart violates WP:NPOV, that this chart is original research." Are you read to stop wasting time? This is the last time that I'm going to talk about this non-issue. --AaronS 00:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, sorry.  There was nothing "origin"-al about that comment.  It came at the very end of that topic.  I want to know how I was supposed to respond to the initial ill-posed strawman accusation, not the one you eventually hobbled together.  (And by the way, this last response misses the point -- the gay marriage map classifies certain penalties as "minor" vs. "maximal", which is POV/OR, and the Iraq war map "reductionistly" tries to condense entire governments' positions into a few words.  You wouldn't allow that on the anarchism article would you?  Oh, that's right, because unlike gay marriage and the Iraq war, anarchism is highly controversial, it's so hotly debated, every single day.) MrVoluntarist 00:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh my God, you are incorrigable. That was the first time I ever said that your argument was a straw man. Now I'm starting to think that you're just full of shit. --AaronS 00:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please refrain from personal attacks. I've added your "nazist-anarchism" and "marxist-anarchism" to the Uncyclopedia because they made me laugh :) - FrancisTyers 00:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Surprise surprise: this wasn't always about you.  When I lecture on how to use "strawman" properly, Sarge Baldy should be listening as well.  You critiqued my responses to his ill-posed strawman accusation.  Let me hear how you would have replied to a Sarge Baldy-like incorrect strawman accusation.  I'm not full of shit.  I want to know how to handle people like you and Sarge.  Seriously. So the tables are turned; see how it feels and tell me how to respond. MrVoluntarist 00:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The difference is that you don't have reasoning to support your conclusions, actions and accusations. --AaronS 01:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not the one that has been on a week-long crusade, here. It's no sweat to prove MrVoluntarist's accusations baseless. I just wish that we could spend our time discussing real issues. --AaronS 01:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nazist-anarchism

message: Very little discussion seems to be happening with the current topics. Shall we do some archiving? --AaronS 01:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Go for it. Hogeye's on a 24 hour ban for malicious conduct and none of the current discussions are going anywhere anyway. Sarge Baldy 01:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The ban is actually for a month, now. I wasn't trying to get him banned, but he pretty much sealed the deal for himself. I'm going to wait a bit longer and see if anybody has any problems archiving the current discussions. Then I'll go ahead. Strawman. --AaronS 01:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I just noticed the extension. Sarge Baldy 01:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archive time?

message: I believe that AnarChrist and 69.50.208.11 are Hogeye sockpuppets. They also seem to have the have the same IP addresses. If this is true, then Hogeye recently vandalized the primary sources template (evidence). Just a heads up. --AaronS 04:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, they are. He's trying to be sneaky about it, but it's pretty obvious. And you're right, those are pretty sad changes. I think a RfC or RfAr are probably in order. Sarge Baldy 04:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was hoping that it wouldn't come to that. RJII is already 1 vote away from getting das boot. I suppose it's their own fault, though. Their disruptiveness is inexplicable. Most of us have strong opinions, but, when we don't get our ways, we certainly don't resort to the kind of acting out that has been exhibited by Hogeye. That's the kind of stuff I used to do when I was 13 years old. --AaronS 04:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't you dare accuse me of being disruptive. I'm certainly not. And, I'm not going to get "the boot." And, there's certainly nothing you can do to censor me. RJII 04:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I personally find your quickness to accuse others of bad faith to be disruptive. It doesn't help the discussion. And you've held a grudge against me ever since the first time I ever disagreed with you. And you will get the boot if that RfAr does not bode well, and it's already 5-0. To be honest, I think that it's harsh, but, hey, you earned it. --AaronS 05:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not about disagreement. There are a lot of people I have disagreements with here that I think operate in good faith, and I think are really cool people. I would even hang out with them. And, I know what the vote is. The arbitrators have been misled by a few people upset because they couldn't get their way because I provide sources, so they scoured the years worth of history to find personal attacks to try to censor me. Very immature. Whatever. I'm not going to banned. The arbitrators know how silly the arbitration is. They have to put on a display of concern to pacify the babies. I'm not going anywhere on anyone's terms but my own. RJII 05:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a strange attitude to have. Also, I don't buy your whole "you're the only problem" schtick. I've seen how you play with others. And it isn't nice. --AaronS 05:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever. I'm not going to get into a bickering match with you. We all know how much you're into that. Conversation over. RJII 05:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not ending this conversation on anyone's terms but my own. --AaronS 05:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Hey does this mean if I have the time and can go and vote RJII off! They certainly seem to find it hard work on wikipedia. No-one is concerned whether they are "disruptive" in some abstract [[world composed of rights, constructed as much from moral platitudes as rhetorical ethics - "the world is everything that is the case" - No. Whilst imagining what such a world would be like is very dear to our hearts, as human beings, our actions are not those of a machine. Our deliberations disturb the cosmos. I am sure RJII is ready for a Quantum Leap in terms of interpersonal maturity so that he does not succomb to the Hell of banishment. But then I am ever the optimist.Harrypotter 19:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Very very innovative. I like it. RJII 17:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hogeye sockpuppets

message: Yes, separating Anarchism (theory) from Anarchism (movement) may have some good consequences.
* Some people seem to define "anarchism" in terms of movements (a dildo is whatever had traditionally been considered a dildo). Separating articles would allow these editors their own sandbox. I, for one, wouldn't touch a movement article with a 10-foot pole.  I'm in it for the political philosophy.
* As mentioned, there is a good chance that at least one will be unprotected.
* It is possible that the socialist faction and the open-tent faction will informally agree to work on "their own" article, and not fuck with the other one. Let the socialists have the movement article, and the open-tents have the theory article.
* It may help shorten the articles.  All the movement shit, like e.g. the Spanish Civil War trivia, could be cut from the theory article and put in the movement article.
:A separation of articles probably wouldn't help. We're dealing with dildoism, rather than dildos. Ideologies develop in ways that are a little more complex than, say, improvements in sex toys. If we go ahead and just deal with the anarchism as something with a complex history, then there are problems, but not insurmountable ones. From what I can see, the movement people are mostly concerned that oversimplified, presentist schemes of categorization simply don't fit the historical facts. For instance, if you make Proudhon, De Cleyre or Greene submit to the customer either collectivist or individualist standard of most current debates, you're simply not going to be able to correctly account for their position—either in philosophical or movement terms—because they depend on a principle of synthesis or balance. At least scupulous attention to historical development lets us come to grips with why particular labels and languages of explanation were picked up and discarded at particular times. Libertatia 22:42, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Separating movement from theory

message: The Mutualist Anarchist FAQ uses the terminology that RJ and I prefer - individualists vs collectivists.  The InfoshitFAQ is clearly influenced by Guerin - that's where they got the neologism "social anarchism." Interestingly enough, Guerin was French and actually used the word "societaire." Thus, a better translation would be "societarian anarchism."  But Guerin is really not reliable, since he is a hardcore partisan anarcho-syndicalist.  In his scheme, the only significant individualist was Max Steiner (he doesn't even mention American IndAs) who really had little influence.  For Guerin, there is no tree, but a single linear evolution to (of course) anarcho-syndicalism.  I.e. Proudhon-Bakunin-Kropotkin-Anarcho-syndicalism.  Good news: Guerin's whole book is online. Anarchism: From theory to Practice by Daniel Guerin. The stuff I just wrote about is mainly in the Preface. - Hogeye
:I think you're right. I think "collectivist" is better. I suggested using "social anarchism" before because I know how much people are into their FAQ's, but I can see now that makes things even more complicated. RJII 05:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds about right. Everbody over there got swept up with the influence of Marx. In the meantime American liberal anarchism was brewing, then the Euro-communists came over and, as Wendy McElroy puts it, "flooded the country like cheap imports" preaching expropriation and bombs. And, the two schools clashed philosophically and were critical of each other, with both claiming the other wasn't real anarchism. American mutualism was attacked as being too much like liberalism. And American individualist shot back that anarcho-communism was unnatural, "pseudo-anarchism" and required violence to achieve due to its unnaturalness. Individualism carried on, though, through philosophy, with most individualists eventually adopting the subjective theory of value due to innovations in economics. Hence, modern anarcho-capitalism. And, left anarchists today are attacking anarcho-capitalism as being liberalism, still refusnig to acknowledge the possibility of private property being consistent with anarchy. RJII 05:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More classification of schools

message: Right.  It seems to me that whilst infoshop host the FAQ, they did not write it. Therefore, can we agree it does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the site.  It is also unclear that the source supports the allegation that wage slavery is coercive.  However, would we agree it supports a statement that "Whilst anarcho-capitalists have argued that banning consensual relationships is a violation of the principles of anarchism, and that the prohibition of profit, trade, and employment is itself unanarchist, some anarchists have countered this, offering that capitalism is a coercive system, and laboring for wages, or wage slavery, is a byproduct of that system."?  Does the source support that?  I believe it does, When power is exercised over one's self, it is a source of freedom, but under capitalism it is a source of coercive authority and  Thus the only "difference" between slavery and capitalist labour is the "mode of purchasing." The labour itself and its product in both cases is owned by the "great capitalist." Clearly this is a case of, to use Rothbard's words, during working hours the worker "has little or no right to self-ownership; his person and his produce are systematically expropriated by his master." Little wonder anarchists have tended to call wage labour by the more accurate term "wage slavery.".  Would we also agree that the citation can cite the Anarchist FAQ as hosted by infoshop.org, as a primary source for this opinion. Hiding  talk 14:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, reading that quote regarding When power is exercised over one's self, it is a source of freedom, but under capitalism it is a source of coercive authority, I believe that supports a statement that wage slavery is coercive.  The opinion offered is that an offer for employment at low wages is a coercive power, since it comes from a source of power, in this case monetary advantage, and the exploitation of that advantage is here cited as being a source of coercive authority. Thoughts? Hiding  talk 14:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "When power is exercised over one's self, it is a source of freedom, but under capitalism it is a source of coercive authority." The incoherence of that sentence is just indicative of the lack of qualifications that those who wrote the FAQ have --the FAQ was written by a bunch of internet-anarchist kids and it's not credible. Power exercised over one's self under capitalism is a source of coercive authority? What??? And, it is putting words in Rothbard's mouth. Rothbard is not talking about employees in that quote. See for yourself:  And, they're referring to "capitalism," rather than anarcho-capitalism. Moreover, they're not defining "capitalism." RJII 15:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your argument does not address the point at hand RJII.  Whether the statement is well written or not is of little matter.  Whether the statement is creditable is of no matter.  Those things are for the reader to decide, that is why we source things.  Does the statement support the argument that the authors of the anarchist FAQ are of the opinion that wage slavery is of a coercive nature?  Hiding  talk 16:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I honestly don't see the quote you're providing saying that. Maybe you can explain it to me a little better. RJII 14:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

text: But social relations between capitalists and employees can never be equal, because private ownership of the means of production gives rise to social hierarchy and relations of coercive authority and subordination, as was recognised even by Adam Smith - the point is made clear by this. Infinity0 talk 19:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Private ownership of the means of prodution may "lead" to "coercive authority," in a sense, if the state grants monopoly privileges. The state would be the coercive authority in that case. But, private ownership itself isn't "coercive authority." And, that sentence doesn't say it is either. RJII 14:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

text: The sentence says "social hierarchy" which is what the article refers to - "relationship between workers and employers". Infinity0 talk 17:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A suggestion

message: How do people feel about the following text, including a direct quotation from the FAQ, which would then be a primary source:
* Anarcho-capitalists argue that banning consensual relationships is a violation of the principles of anarchism, and that the prohibition of profit, trade, and employment is itself unanarchist.  This view has been countered by writers of the Anarchist FAQ,[cite] who believe "that for choice to be real, free agreements and associations must be based on the social equality of those who enter into them, and both sides must receive roughly equivalent benefit. But social relations between capitalists and employees can never be equal, because private ownership of the means of production gives rise to social hierarchy and relations of coercive authority and subordination".[31]
This would replace the statement:
*"Opponents argue that the relationship between workers and employers is a form of authority; anarcho-capitalists disagree, arguing that banning consensual relationships is a violation of the principles of anarchism, and that the prohibition of profit, trade, and employment is itself unanarchist. Opponents argue that such relationships are not fully consensual, but coercive in nature (for example wage slavery) [31] and that it is essential to anarchism for them to be abolished."?
That makes it sound like they are the only people who have that view. I typed out three printed sources, somewhere above, we can also include them. How about "this view has been countered by their opponents, such as [source] [source] and [source], which says [quote]". Infinity0 talk 17:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a compromise. RJII has indicated he will respect it.  The other sources are available at the anarchist FAQ.  I am also unclear if the sources you quote are opposing anarcho-capitalism or if their words are being used to oppose anarcho-capitalism. Hiding  talk 18:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

text: If you want to suggest a better direct quote, feel free. Hiding  talk 19:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, I wasn't suggesting including all those big quotes. I was just copying and pasting them for you to see and read. Infinity0 talk 19:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So what are you suggesting? Hiding  talk 19:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh right, sorry. "Opponents argue that employment is itself unanarchist, such as (FOO), who stated (DIRECT QUOTE), and that it is essential to anarchism for it to be abolished." Infinity0 talk 19:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, so what's your quote?  Hiding  talk 19:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I object to your editorial.  You say "opponents argue that employment, and hence capitalism..." You're making up your own definition of capitalism. Just because there is employment, it doesn't make it capitalism. Also, I think it needs to be specified that the quote you're giving is coming from communist/syndicalists. Individualist anarchists do not oppose private ownership of the means of production or employment. RJII 21:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

text: No they don't. "essential institutions of Commercialism are in themselves good, and are rendered vicious merely by the interference by the State," and that "the system of employer and employed, buying and selling, banking, and all the other essential institutions of Commercialism" would exist in individualist anarchy. -Voltairine De Cleyre RJII 21:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I know it's not. It's a support of it. It was to counter your claim that individualists want to abolish employment. RJII 21:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

text: But, that's not using the term in the same way as communists use it. It's being used in the sense of not being paid the full product of one's labor --the deduction of profit from wages. They don't oppose wages ..they WANT wages: "Not to abolish wages, but to make every man dependent upon wages and secure to every man his whole wages is the aim of Anarchistic Socialism. What Anarchistic Socialism aims to abolish is usury. It does not want to deprive labor of its reward; it wants to deprive capital of its reward. It does not hold that labor should not be sold; it holds that capital should not be hired at usury." -Tucker RJII 02:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A compromise position

message: I'm not disputing that they're anarchists. I believe that they're anarchists. But, being an anarchist is not good enough. You have to be an anarchist that is qualified to comment on anarchism if you're going to be cited as a source in an encyclopedia. RJII 22:32, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not hypocrisy. You still don't understand how Wikipedia works. The SOURCES have to be credible, but WE the editors don't have to have any credentials. RJII 17:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Chuck0 and Iain McKay IS the source. :| Infinity0 talk 17:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't recognize either of them as a credible source. Chuck0 says he's "writing several books." It's great that he can multi-task, but so what? Let us know when they're actually finished, published, and reviewed. RJII 17:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

text: McGregor is wrong. It's a futile attempt to redefine coercion. But, at least you're looking for a real source instead of that stupid FAQ. But, alas, McGregor isn't an anarchist. You may be able to work that in somehow though. It would be nice to see that ridiculous position exposed. RJII 17:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hypocrisy 

message: This just keeps getting better...
RJII, there are huge numbers of people who acknowledge that economic coercion (work for me or starve) is coercion. Stop being stubborn; you haven't provided any sources saying the opposite. Infinity0 talk 19:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You haven't provided any sources that say that. RJII 02:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

text: McGregor is wrong. It's a futile attempt to redefine coercion. But, at least you're looking for a real source instead of that stupid FAQ. But, alas, McGregor isn't an anarchist. You may be able to work that in somehow though. It would be nice to see that ridiculous position exposed. RJII 17:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

text: But the author McGregor IS wrong. She's futilly attempting to redefine coercion. It's ridiculous. I'm not saying you can't use that as a source for something. I would love to see that added to Wikipedia simply to expose its awkwardness to the world. RJII 18:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

text: No, I wouldn't admit that. I'd admit the opposite --that very few would acknowledge that. The article says :"While the details of her account of bargaining strength may raise difficulties, her attempt to incorporate a measure of the coercer's power into the account of coercion seems a useful if relatively under-explored approach." RJII 18:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't have to give a source that "work for me or starve" isn't coercion. I'm not making the claim in article.  It's up to you to provide sources for whatever you put in the article. RJII 18:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

text: According to the article you site, it's a minority view --apparently an extreme minority. So that's my source for that. As far as me finding an actual source that says employment is not coercion, I'm not going to bother. Obviously those who support it don't think it's coercion. RJII 18:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Ok, whatever. "Under-explored" then. The point is, it's an unpopular view. RJII 19:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hypocrisy 2 

message: My gosh this discussion is tedious. With Hogeye away I'd have thought we might have a chance to do some proper work on the article - and it's being frozen because of this? Dear comrades, don't you think arguing every last point like this with RJ only encourages him and holds up the article? Is this really what we should be doing on this talk page? As Libertatia says above, there are plenty of online forums more suitable for this kind of stuff. Bengalski 22:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What *can* I do apart from arguing with RJII? If I don't defend my edit, he'll just walk all over it. Infinity0 talk 22:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Looking at his talk page, RJII anyway seems now to concede that the infoshop FAQ can be used as a primary source for a quote giving an argument in opposition to anarcho-capitalism. If I understand it there were maybe two issues getting involved here - can the infoshop website be taken as authoritative for the views of all 'true' anarchists? No, of course not. No source can. Is infoshop a credible source for a particular argument made by particular anarchists in the same way that a named individual is? Yes. It is plainly big in the US-oriented internet, and such a recognised anonymous collective is as notable as a recognised individual author. RJII now concedes this, so the relevant debate is over. We can move on?Bengalski 00:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well said. Yes. Let's. --AaronS 00:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Concede? I said from the very start that I had no problem with the FAQ being used as a primary source. I have a problem with it being used as a secondary source --I don't think it's a credible authority on anarchism or on interpretation of primary sources. Infinity was disagreeing with me on that. I don't know if he's conceded yet or not. RJII 02:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Can I unprotect then? --cesarb 00:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: get a chat room