Talk:Anarchism/Archive 46

message: I have just now (finally, you may all well say) blocked User:Doctors without suspenders  indefinitely as a wolfie sock. Along with User:Radiant hedgehog, User:Aithérios, and, I expect, more to come.  It's very difficult to keep so many socks going and never slip up. Bishonen | talk 20:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hooray! Blockader 22:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Finally some wolfie sockblocks

message: Anarchists input would be appreciated at Talk:End_of_civilization. There seems to be some disagreement what the end of civilization actually means. nirvana2013 00:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion on end of civilization 

message: Why is the communism para in the issues devoted 90% to explaining which and why some anarchists OPPOSE communism while the capitalism para in the same section is devoted 90% to explaining which and why some anarchists are FOR capitalism. this is an obvious POV issue to anyone of an even remotely neutral stance and i challenge anyone here to review the 2 paragraphs and maintain there is not a POV problem. one deals with which anarchists are pro-capitalism while the other deals with which anarchists are anti-communism. what the fuck? if the majority of the communism para is going to explain why certain anarchists have a problem with communism than the majority of the capitalism para should likewise explain why certian anarchists have a problem with capitalism. this is common sense. i thought i would bring this up here before i do anything about it. Blockader 20:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. That is kind of strange. It does say "Most anarchist traditions not only seek rejection of the state, but also of capitalism, which they perceive as authoritarian, coercive, and exploitative." But, probably a few sentences more can be said in criticism.Anarcho-capitalism 20:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Because this page is now dominated by disruptive POV-pushing right-wingers who have exhausted the patience of virtually every other editor on this page. For example. Donnacha 23:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with that. I think most of the POV pushing is coming from anti-anarcho-capitalists.Anarcho-capitalism 01:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well if the POV-pushing is coming from anti-capitalists it is indeed odd that the bulk of most of the articles on non-capitalist ideologies are spent on answering criticisms. Anti-capitalist articles have far more criticism from capitalists and right-wing elements on them than vice versa. The Anarcho-Communist page is underdeveloped compared to the Mutualist, Individualist and Capitalist Anarchism pages and half of it is criticisms from non-anarcho-communists and responses from anarcho-communists. However, the Anarcho-Capitalist page as well as the Individualist and Mutualist Anarchist pages have most of their space dedicated to explaining the theory with a relatively small section of criticism. Full Shunyata 01:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

text: That would involve citing any number of anarchist magazines, journals and books. I have a whole basement full of these materials containing anarchists writing about capitalism. Of course, citing this vast body of written works would involve doing actual research, which is anathema to Wikipedians who prefer to pull "facts" out of their collective asses. Chuck0 23:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now its your books, so youll have to do it ... Unless you want to send em all to Denmark if you wants me to help, which is silly --Fjulle 12:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issues Section 

message: i live in the uk, and i have never heard of chumbawumba, on the other hand bands such as the sex pistols (who use anarchist themes) and the Clash, are world famous. I think this is a joke. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by  (talk • contribs).
:Please, you clearly have no idea what you're talking about. The Clash were Marxists and supporters of the Sandinistas. The Sex Pistols were an elaborate joke. Neither were active anarchists. Chumbawamba, on the other hand, were politically active in Leeds AFA, Class War and numerous other anarchist campaigns. Also, there is no way you've never heard 'Tubthumping' ("I get a vodka drink, I get a whiskey drink"). Donnacha 13:11, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yikes, if your a Brit and never head of Chumbawamumba you must live under a rock or something. Perhaps your a starfish? I'm an American and they've only had one hit here and it was when I was way younger, probably in elementary school but I know them. Most people in the States are pretty suprised to here they are anarchist though. And I agree with Donnacha, neither the Clash nor the Sex Pistols were anarchist. If there were a more popular UK anarchist band it would probably be Crass or Subhumans (my mom's even heard of the Subhumans, and she's not at all into punk). I still think Chumbawamba is more popular though. Ungovernable ForceGot something to say? 07:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about The Levellers? Fairly big following over there, I thought... Brennen 04:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They're cool, and from what I know they are big in the UK. Chumbawamba is by far more popular here in the States, but I'm not sure about in the UK, which is where they are both from. Ungovernable ForceGot something to say? 06:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the UK, I'd say they have largely the same level of following these days, but the Levellers were more popular at the height of their popularity. However, that bleedin' vodka drink, whiskey drink song was one of the biggest hits of the 90s worldwide, so I think it wins. It was definitely more popular than the Levellers' "One Life" (and tha-at's your own, it's your own, it's your own!). Donnacha 09:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How can what any one of you think is the most popular anarchist band be relevant on wikipedia? Give sources that have made assesments that are trustworthy (And i can hardly believe thats possible) then there might be written which bands are the most popular. Else, anything about this should be rewritten! This is a very nice example of whats going wrong with the way this article is taken care of.  A little respect for the wikipedia project please! --Fjulle 12:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For Jaysis sake, it says arguably the most popular band. It's not what I think, but I can find refs as to what chart positions Tubthumping reached if you really think it's that important. Donnacha 12:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

text: From a U.S. pop chart perspective, Chumbawamba (which some people above seem to be having trouble spelling correctly) appears to be a one-hit wonder. *Dan T.* 13:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not quite, Chumbaliwumbalies album Tubthumper went triple platinum in the US, far more than any other UK anarchist group has achieved. In contrast, the Levellers sold hardly any copies of "Levelling The Land" in the US and that was their most successful album. Donnacha 13:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Chumbawamba are one-hit wonders in the US, which is much better than the Levellers ever got here. No one freakin knows who they are. Ungovernable ForceGot something to say? 01:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Chumbawamba were also a one-hit wonder here in Australia, despite being a great band, but they have enjoyed much more success than The Levellers. You can still buy Tubthumper in some record stores. The Levellers, despite some popularity, were never big here. I can't think of a more famous anarchist band from the UK. Crass and Subhumans might give them a run for their money, but they never achieved mainstream success like the Chumbalies did. Chumbawamba even got referenced in an episode of Family Guy, which probably puts them on top. -Switch t 18:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Is chumbawumba really the most famous  UK Anarchist band??

message: Intangible, i removed your POV tag becuase you did not list specific concerns regarding the article that you find in violation of NPOV on the talk page, which you are supposed to do when placing a POV tag. I will continue to do so as you are in violation of wikipedia conduct. If you don't state what you have a problem with than no one will be able to address it. I agree that there are POV problems, though likely not the same ones you identify. If anyone is guilty of vandalism it is you. Blockader 22:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The discussion is already there. No doubt you can find it. Intangible 22:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sound familiar Intangible? -- WGee 02:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV Tag

message: I'm surprised that there is no mention of Chuck Palahnuik in the Anarchism in Culture section.NinzEliza 02:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Chuck Palahnuik

message: Why is this removed, this is an important notion Sanders makes about terminological issues around the word "capitalism." Intangible 16:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was wondering the same thing. I don't think the removal is justified.Anarcho-capitalism 16:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: FWIW, I didn't think the Sanders stuff was very clear. Libertatia 17:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  removal of sanders 

message: Ive changed this paragraph:
"Many claim that anarchist themes can be detected in works as old as those of the Taoist sage Lao Tzu,[7] though this is a controversial topic.[8] Zeno of Citium, the founder of Stoicism also introduced topics which contain anarchist themes.[7]"
to:
"Some claim that anarchist themes can be detected in works as old as those of the Taoist sage Lao Tzu,[7] though this is a controversial topic.[8] Zeno of Citium, the founder of Stoicism also introduced topics which contain anarchist themes.[7]"
And why? Because first of all i think its about time we got a better look at all those many'ses and some'ses around this article! This problem always seems to pop up around the neverending anarcho-capitalism discussion, so we might as well get some practice elsewhere. Second i dont think one single reference is enough to back up the many-word. After all just how many is many enough to be many? Is it over half the people who has ever written about it, or is it enough that its only a third. Anyways then we might as well use the majority and minority concepts instead of many or some! When it all comes down to it if such investigations had been made somebody might probably be able to pull it out of a hat right? I hope that youll go for the word some as its always some even if its only one or its many! --Fjulle 18:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. If there is only a few sources for something, then it should say "some." To say "many" then there needs to be many sources.Anarcho-capitalism 18:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And id say many isnt enough, because we can only say theres many if we know of every possible source, but this is ofcourse something that might be irellevant if there just isnt anymore sources or the sources there might be left is very few. But just how do we know when theres few possible sources left or any it all thats not been used? I dont know what wikipedia councils in this case though. --Fjulle 19:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Also there this paragraph: "Anarchism in the modern sense, however, has its roots in the secular political thought of the Enlightenment, particularly Rousseau's arguments for the moral centrality of freedom.[9] The word "anarchist" was originally used as a term of abuse, but by the French Revolution some groups such as the Enragés had started to use the term in a positive sense,[10] seeing the Jacobin concept of a "revolutionary government" as an oxymoron. It was in this political climate that William Godwin would develop his philosophy, which is considered by many to be the first expression of modern anarchist thought.[11]" Who are those many people? It would be more conclusive to write that some considers him the first or just that he is considered (which doesnt say anything about how many there are). --Fjulle 19:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What you're talking about is what I think they call "weasel words" on Wikipedia..."some" and "many." There is a policy or guideline against that. What you're saying it correct.Anarcho-capitalism 19:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you :) ... ive just counted the word many 17 times in this article as of this moment. This reminds me of Fox news! This cannot put the article in a respectable light, when theres this many (you see: 17) claims that is well as impossible to verify! --Fjulle 19:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is impossible to talk in absolutes about a consciously non-dogmatic political ideology. No view is held equally by "all" anarchists (for example, some post-left anarchists do not oppose the state as such, they prefer to ignore it completely). All you can refer to is the dominant view - thus many or few. They're not weasel words in this context, they are the most accurate assessment of the reality. The Marshall quote, in particular, is absolutely fair. It does not incorrectly attribute a view to all anarchists, instead, on the basis of his research, he has found that most, but not all, anarchists reject anarcho-capitalism, thus it is absolutely correct to say that few accept them. To request certainty and absolutes where none exists is no way to write an article about a living breathing tradition with many facets and differences. Donnacha 11:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How many is enough to be many? 

message: The article states "Most anarchist traditions not only seek rejection of the state, but also of capitalism, which they perceive as authoritarian, coercive, and exploitative. For American individualist anarchists, this opposition does not include opposition to the product of labor or capital goods..." what User:BlackFlag keeps adding is redundant, and why is Sanders being removed? Intangible 11:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think if it's said someone opposes capitalism then capitalism should be defined. That sentence above look meaningless to me, because anartcho-capitalists also support private property in the product of labor.Anarcho-capitalism 14:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But its defined, as something thats perceived by most anarchists as authoritarian, coercive and exploitative. My only problem is the most anarchist in front when the lines not a quote. --Fjulle 19:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that "most" is ok, because it doesn't say "most anarchists" but "most anarchist traditions." Most types of anarchism are opposed to capitalism.Anarcho-capitalism 19:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah thats right, i didnt catch that one :) --Fjulle 16:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  capitalism 

message: OK. We really need to get ourselves back to work. We've probably clarified as much as we are going to in the current debates. I'm afraid I'm as pessimistic about a simple solution to our deadlock as several others are. On the other hand, having just spent some time involved in the "debates" on several other political pages, I have to say that we have a lot more to work with here in terms openness. Nobody seems to be insisting that any perspective be suppressed, despite strong personal feelings. Congratulations to everyone—and I mean everyone—among the regular editors here for doing as well as we have with an extremely divisive topic. 
I've been an opponent of "neutral disambiguation pages" and the like in the past. I'm having a slight change of heart, as a result of recent debates. It seems quite clear to me that we are attempting to do very different kinds of work, both appropriate to a serious encyclopedia, at the same time and on the same pages, with the result that we're always working at cross-purposes. Some of the difficulties are ideological, and those are hard to deal with, beyond holding ourselves to the NPOV policies as best we can. But some of the problems are structural, and perhaps we can get around some of those. In my recent, brief sojourn on the pages for communism and socialism (abandon hope, all ye that enter there), I noticed that there were separate pages for ideologies and for their histories. In both of those cases, it's currently a distinction without any difference, as orthodox Marxist-Leninism dominates all the pages. But maybe something like that could be made to work for us. In fact, we have a history of anarchism page that appears much neglected and has been proposed for merger into this page. What if we agreed to reassign the functions of the various pages in something like this fashion:
*Anarchism: The ideology page, emphasizing the sort of "pure" and minimal definition Anarcho-capitalism prefers, with the understanding that we would really attempt to keep it minimal and pure. "Issues" sections addressing the various ways in which questions like "hierarchy," "violence," etc. have been addressed would be appropriate, as long as we keep to the task of showing the variety of anarchist responses to various problems. It should include a few links to various schools and a prominent link to the history of anarchism page. 
*History of anarchism: the history page, giving an overview of those movements that have called themselves anarchist, or have subsequently by identified as anarchist, with the goal being a survey, rich in links to pages for individual schools, persons, theories, projects, etc.
*All those sub-pages: where most of the work gets done and details listed. 
*Terminology pages: where the basic terminological issues could be summarized, allowing us to easily reference those debates (in footnotes, or in the body of pages when it can be done relatively unobtrusively).
(I would also suggest that, if this structural arrangement can be made acceptable to the current active editors, we might work up a sort of joint policy pact for dealing with specific kinds of editing controversies, to which anyone might voluntarily subscribe, and which could be an evolving document of "community standards" and current consensus.)
I would appreciate any feedback on this proposal. Libertatia 21:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was pointing out a few minutes ago that one of the major problems of this whole dispute is that Anarcho-Capitalist users (especially User:Anarcho-capitalism) want to be very flexible with the definition of "capitalism" for it to include the Individualist and Mutualist schools of Anarchism under the umbrella of "Anarcho-Capitalism". But they want to be very specific and strict with the definition of "socialism" for it to exclude anything that believes in private property or doesn't fit with status quo-accepted definitions of socialism (User:Anarcho-capitalism keeps saying "socialism is understood today as......."). I say that if an-caps can be loose in interpreting what capitalism is, non-cap-anarchists should be able to be loose in interpreting what socialism is. It's not fair to give the power of individual discretion to say "That's their definition of capitalism" but then turn around and limit discussion to groupthink and consenus by saying "Socialism is understood by many as....". Full Shunyata 08:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anarcho-capitalists are not "loose" in the definition of capitalism. They use the ordinary mainstream definition, such as the definition in the authoritative Merriam - Webster Third New International Dictionary Unabridged dictionary: "an economic system characterized by private or corporation ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision rather than by state control, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly in a free market." Socialism, on the other hand, is defined like this: "1 : any of various theories or social and political movements advocating or aiming at collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and control of the distribution of goods. 2 a : a system or condition of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state. c : a stage of society that in Marxist theory is transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and payments to individuals according to their work." As anyone can see, the nineteenth century individualist anarchist who were confused by the labor theory of value do not fit in the ordinary mainstream definition of socialism. They don't believe in collective ownership but private ownership. So, this article cannot state that they are socialists without pointing out that this could only be true by an unorthodox definition of socialism. "Whereas collectivist anarchists derive their ideas from socialism, individualist anarchists derive their ideas largely from classical liberal thinking." (Grant, Moyra. Key Ideas in Politics, Nelson Thornes (2003), p. 3)Anarcho-capitalism 17:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "As anyone can see, the nineteenth century individualist anarchist who were confused by the labor theory of value do not fit in the ordinary mainstream definition of socialism." Not all Individualist and Mutualist Anarchists today believe in the labor theory of value. So it's a more minor point of their philosophy. Hell, even Capitalists believed in it back then (and some still do). So that's beside the point. But you keep saying "the mainstream definition of socialism". What is the "mainstream" definition of it? If by "mainstream" you mean statism and collectivism, then by that definition no Anarchist is a socialist. No anarchist is a statist and Anararchist, even Social Anarchists, are more concerned with individualism than collectivism (including myself). Also, if you want to hold up the "mainstream" definition of socialism when it comes to Mutualism and Individualism, then why do you complain when people hold up mainstream definitions of capitalism that you don't agree with when talking about Mutualism and Individualism. I just want you to be consistent and fair. It's inconsistent and unfair of you to loosen up the definition of capitalism to scoop Individualism and Mutualism under the banner of capitalism, but then tighten the definition of socialism to exclude them out of the banner of socialism. If you want to define whether or not they are socialist using the "mainstream" definition of socialism, then it is completely fair for us to judge whether or not they are capitalist by using the mainstream definition of capitalism (ie. a non-Anarcho-Capitalist definition of Capitalism). Be fair and I'll stop complaining. Full Shunyata 00:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

text: "Loose" definitions or not, there are fairly simple definitional problems with a few key terms, all of which we could, I think, clarify on a page of Definitional concerns in anarchist theory or some such. Anarcho-capitalism and I just managed a compromise on one of the anarchist pages, using an explanatory footnote to cover divergent definitions of "capitalism." The attempt at clarification can, of course, be stymied if any of the factions demand that their preferred definition be noted as "standard" or "current" (when it appears that multiple definitions of these key terms have been a constant factor in debate, from the 1830s on), but none of this will work if we're not a touch more committed to NPOV than we are currently. Libertatia 20:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

text: What about the history of anarchism being the anarcism article, and anarchism as an ideology a secondary article (It might be called "Theory of anarchism" or something). That way the first page that people enter wont be the one constantly changing and under protection thus making the first article more unreliable. History of anarchism is less likely to be discussed in a way that affects how the article stands out on wikipedia. All in all i suppose this would be a better and more comfortable way for all, both new and old, for those interested in discussion of the principles and those interested in an overview of anarchism that cannot and will never be more or less self-defeating than it as it was in earlier times. --Fjulle 17:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What I'm hoping is that the "theory" page can actually be a lot more stable, if we agree to work on minimum definitions and key theoretical conflicts. The basic page would say: Anarchism is, minimally, opposition to rulers, though anarchists differ as to what "rulership" consists of, and what practical steps should be taken in that opposition. If you want to see how those ideas have played out in history, here is a page, and if you want to know about the various schools, here are some more pages. We could probably give basic anarchist theory and its key disputes very good general coverage without getting too embroiled in trying to resolve or refight those conflicts. Initially, we'll probably just push the battles off to the history page, but if we pursue a strategy of dealing with details on sub-pages, where they can be dealt with without undue weight, and where "Criticisms" sections can be added appropriately, we should be able to get the main pages relatively conflict-free. That means all factions backing off a bit on editorializing on the top-level pages, but the ideological retreats ought to be worth it for all concerns, if it means we actually get around to getting the detailed sub-pages compiled. As personal as the debates here get at times, I don't have much doubt about the interest that the regular editors have in the subject. What I would like to see if a structural adjustment which lets us all do something other than engage in debates I got sick of on Usenet ten years ago or more. Libertatia 20:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Else i forgot to write that your proposal seems a new idea just when thats whats needed :) I support it! --Fjulle 17:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I support the restructure. -Switch t 11:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

text:  It just boggles my mind that this anarcho-capitalist crap is still in these entries on anarchism. What do we need to bring in from the real world to demonstrate that anarcho-capitalism is not part of anarchism? Should I bring a truckload of anarchist books from the Labadie Collection or the Anarchy Archives? Do you want me to survey anarchists and show that most of them see anarcho-capitalism as an oxymoron? Anarchists are opposed to wage slavery and private property, which are essential to capitalism. Are anarcho-capitalists in favor of wage slavery? Chuck0 03:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Perspective, and a proposal