Talk:Anarchism/Archive 12

message: I don't want to get blasted by a few individuals for editing the page now, but it has now been unprotected and is now lingering there unedited since then in all it's capitalist glory.  As the last entries of this Talk page have shown, the vast majority of editors here agree that anarchism is against hierarchy and that outside of wikpedia, it is very very likely that this is true for the general anarchist population.  I propose that we now, with this resolution, return the article to its former version which stated that anarchism is against hierarchy and such.  REMINDER:  The longer this article lingers like this, the more people who visit it will be misinformed about anarchism. --Fatal 01:15, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Resolution and unprotection of page

message: I have edited the wording of this section that made it seem as if there is a big "divide" amongst Anarchists, when in reality there is the movement, then there is anarcho-capitalism. It is clear what the majority thinks, and if we are going to include anarcho-capitalism despite that, we cannot make the mistake of allowing grandiose claims of importance into the article. Obviously, I'm not perfect, so feel free to phrase it better and edit as you see fit, or calling me out for this edit.
:The majority? Surely a key point of anarchism is that majority rule is bad. It is a form of tyranny; authoritarianism is considered wrong no matter what the means of consent, ergo the very WORD "an-archa" (without authority). In fact, one error I see here is people focusing on the cosmetic trappings and propoganda of anarcho-socialism as if those were "anarchism" itself. Anarchism...any form of it...is not about opposition to government per se, but opposition to authority. It is, essentially, anti-authoritarianism. Anarcho-capitalism therefore obviously is a legitimate form, as it has at its core the opposition to authority. Kaz
Furthermore, I have moved this paragraph to the talk page so we can talk about it:
Other anarchist traditions with respect to private property
Anarchists of other traditions vary in their appreciation of the respective socialist and classical liberal arguments. Some of them will consistently side with some of the above arguments, thus adopting the socialist or classical liberal tradition, though without forcibly doing it formally. Others will mildly side with some of the arguments above, though without considering them a defining stance for their flavor of anarchism, and will consider the question as secondary. Still others do not care about this debate, and consider it a waste of time; they think that by getting rid of government, such problems find a natural solution.
What other traditions are there? as far as I know, there are no traditions other than the anarcho-capitalists who stand with the classical liberal definition. This paragraph does nothing to convince otherwise, names no such traditions, quotes no major thinkers, backs it up with no sources. The vast majority of anarchists (or all of them, depending on definition), are not a part of this movement without roots, without important political organizations, without strikes, protests, political actions or any activity beyond lectures and websites. Again, this is an attempt to make what is not a big issue amongst Anarchists into a "great divide amongst anarchists". It isn't. If this paragraph can be rewritten to eliminate delusions of grandeur, then I have no problem with it being reinserted, in its current state, I don't see a place for it.--Che y Marijuana 04:31, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
:Agreed, if we are going to get rid of anti-statist capitalism from the article (Which should be done), we should also get rid of the remaining residue that points back to that subject, namely, this property issue you've pointed to. --Fatal 22:06, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Private property 

message: My change was not a minor change, so your rv of it wasn't minor either.  You need to state that it was a rv next time.  You also gave no explanation for your rv.  I think other wikipedians deserve more respect than you've shown me.
So why are you for just "opposing hierarchy" and not for calling anarchists anti-authoritarian as they surely are?  I was trying to make the statement more clear, while hoping that no "anarcho" capitalist would take such offense as to rv it.  Don't turn this into the battle of factions that has ruined this article so many times in the past.  I understand that "imposed authority" may run into the same problems that "coercive authority" did, but I would think the word imposed would be clearer than coercive since many people think of "coercive" as being necessarily enforced by violence.  Wereas "imposed" suggests that the authority of an individual comes from social or physical dominace, as opposed to the respect that is given to an expert (like Bakunin's boot-maker). millerc 23:43, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: OK sorry if that was misinterpreted.  My reasoning was simply that authority and hierarchy are the same thing, so it's like saying "hierarchy and imposed hierarchy and coersive hierarchy."  Doesn't the word hierarchy pretty much cover it?  Yes, of course anarchists are anti-authoritarian (and by authoritarian i'm not implying statist).  I just saw it as extra unneeded wording since the two words mean the same thing.  However, if you feel it makes the point more clear to readers, then maybe you're right, I just don't see how it does. --Fatal 22:08, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct, imposed authority implies hierarchy (and visa versa); however, I don't think that this is clear to people who don't already agree w/ anarchism, libertarian socialism, etc.  This is a feeling I get just from talking to people in general, so I may be incorrect, but personnally I think anarchist=anti-authoritarian is the most direct way of stating what anarchism means (its that direct statement that finnally made me get it when I was younger), while hierachy is an odd way of stating it (and never made the same sort of impact on me).  Also, it may just be me again; I feel like hierarchy is sort of a buzz-word in anarchist literature, it always has a wierd feel to it.  Stating things in terms of authority seems much more natural. millerc 01:19, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I suppose you're right.  I've found recently though that explaining anarchism very simply as "against hierarchy" was short, to the point, and covered everything necessary.  When before one could write an essay for pages upon pages upon pages about the corruptness of every social institution and really beat it into the reader that the system has failed in every imaginable way, it suddenly all became unnecessary when one said that hierarchy was the problem.  You could say something like "The problem with economics is money", "The problem with capitalism is exploitation for a privileged class", or "The problem with govt is political control for only an oligarchal group", etc.  or you could instead condense 50 pages into one sentence: "Hierarchy is the cause of all these problems."  The domination of humans over each other is the cause of the state, capitalism, racism, sexism, consumerism and other negative -isms.  Something about simple declarations is fascinating.  As a social experiment often you can watch the news, or sit in school, or look at anything in society and ask yourself what that space and time would be like without hierarchy, and suddenly a door opens to a different way of thinking. -Fatal 03:23, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: To [[User:Fatal]]

message: I started this article, mainly pulling the critique of capitalism from the Anarchist FAQ section, trying to clean up all POV statements (but there are a lot of POV statements!). I created other sections but right now I'm hungry so I will save and get back to it later. Please help! --albamuth 02:14, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Be more specific. --Fatal 02:50, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The anarchism article has a section entitled monetary systems that states that "the relevance of this section is disputed". Anarchist Economic theory is actually a hot topic among anarchists and is relevant to contemporary anarchist movements, and since there is so much to cover, it would best be in its own section. --albamuth 04:16, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Funny you should mention that, since I wrote that section.  The relevance was called into question a while ago but there has been no discussion about that for a long time. --Fatal 21:26, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Anarchist economics|Anarchist Economics]]

message: Anyone have an idea on why this particular passage is relevant? 
"Anarchists do not believe, as Jean-Francois Revel wrote in Democracy against Itself, that "... anarchy leads to despotism ... despotism leads to anarchy ..." 
It seems it is just redundant to what is said in the paragraph above it, and it does nothing to illuminate the anarchist position or even criticism of that position (which wouldn't belong in this section anyway).  Perhaps someone could justify it, else I will remove in an attempt to aid those trying to tidy up the article.  Kev 05:02, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Condensing article 

message: This quote seems to be disconnected with the passage before and after.  Any ideas on its relevance?  
"It seemed as though a giant grate composed of bayonets shuttled back and forth across the region, from North to South and back again, wiping out all traces of creative social construction. [Arshinov]"  Kev 09:51, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misplaced Quote? 

message: I have an article in which Wendy McElroy states that if they had known of the arguments of anarcho-capitalists and understood that the labor theory of value was (supposedly) a dead end, then the individualist anarchists of the past would have been anarcho-capitalists themselves.  While this conjecture is debatable in itself, I wonder if it is appropriate for wikipedia to list McElroy as an individualist when (even though she does in fact refer to herself as an individualist), her own arguments entail that individualists and anarcho-capitalists are one and the same?  Wouldn't it avoid confusion to list her as an anarcho-capitalist, given that there are still existing individualist anarchists who do not consider themselves capitalists and do in fact reject capitalism?  Kev 10:32, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Individualist anarchism and anarcho-capitalism should not be mixed up. Would she fall under the [non-]label of "anarchism without adjectives" as advanced by Voltarine De Cleyre? --albamuth 01:04, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:   Given that Malatesta and de Cleyre and Tarrida del Marmol all rejected capitalism in the very definition of anarchism I think this would be problematic.  I'm speculating here, but I would guess that McElroy is trying to distinguish herself from anarcho-capitalists and present a broader faction which believes that anarcho-capitalism is compatible with individualist anarchism without actually subscribing to anarcho-capitalism in particular.  The problem with this is that I believe she is overwriting the pre-existing individualists who believe that anarcho-capitalism is not compatible with individualism, and would thus be best presented as an entirely different (but related) faction altogether.  However, since we can't go making up titles here on wikipedia, and since it is a fact that she considers herself an individualist, maybe it would be best to present it as "Wendy McElroy describes herself as an individualist", which is undisputable.        Some might think it would then require an advisory that not all consider this claim valid, but even without such an advisory I think it would be better to present it this way than what is currently written.  Kev 01:17, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:   Wendy McElroy 

message: This article states:
:Such "propaganda of the deed" was not popular among anarchists, and many in the movement condemned the tactic. For example, McKinley's assassin, Leon Czolgosz, claimed to be a disciple of Emma Goldman, but she disavowed any association with him.
However the Leon Czolgosz article states:
:He frequented the speeches of Emma Goldman, who later wrote a piece justifying Czolgosz's assassination of McKinley.  It is possible that Goldman may have convinced Czolgosz to assassinate McKinley.
Which is correct? Taco Deposit | Talk-o Deposit 01:57, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
:I would call the first passage (the one in this article) historical revisionist, and contrary to general opinion amongst historians and books of reference. When I first read about anarchism (Maybe 15yrs ago) that incident featured prominently in my funk & wagnalls encyclopedia, portrayed as an act of anarchism. Similarly, the Unibomber could use more emphasis on this page, as an example of a "propaganda of the deed" anarcho-terrorist. Sam Spade Wants you to vote! 10:52, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Emma Goldman did not approve of his action, but refused to condemn Czolgosz; she was virtually alone amongst anarchists of the time in this regard. As for her relation to him, he had attended a few of her speeches and asked her once for anarchistic literature. Her defense for him as a person was "sympathy for a doomed human being"; she felt that anyone moved to such an act was perverted by the evils of the society in which he lived. But she certainly did not encourage the act or "[convince him] to assassinate McKinley," and any account saying such is referencing unreliable sources from the time (many newspaper articles, etc. made up stories like this, and a veritable (wo)man-hunt ensued). For her account, read her article "The Assassination of McKinley." --Tothebarricades.tk 22:00, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: Czolgosz tried unsuccessfully quite a few times to join groups of other anarchists but apparently wasn't friendly enough to be welcomed by any of them.  I remember reading that Goldman didn't care much for the guy, however I don't think Goldman would've condemned it.  Goldman's friend was Alexander Berkman and together they plotted to kill Frick, a union-busting capitalist.  So they were both involved in the "propaganda of the deed" movement.  Berkman, however, did afterwards criticize propaganda by the deed as foolish so many other anarchists may have felt the same  way. -Fatal 22:39, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Goldman later criticized it as well. You can see a certain "maturation" in their ideas on the topic. I think anarchists now and then have viewed political assassinations as tactically ineffective; they realized that the American public would not accept it, that it would not ferment but weaken revolutionary fervor, etc. I certainly doubt she ever held any sympathy for Frick or McKinley. --Tothebarricades.tk 22:49, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  McKinley's assassin