Talk:Anarchism/Archive 38

message: I've moved the Criticisms of anarchism section to its own page to cut down the length of this one. Seems reasonable to have one page deal with what it is and another dealing with the criticisms / responses to it.
Chaikney 13:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticsms of Anarchism

message: The wikipedia article on Wilson itself describes him as a libertarian, though his work certainly shows a strong left-leaning tendency.  I didn't remove him from the list on this page, but added a note that he may be better described as a left libertarian. This is consistant with every interview and discussion of his politics I've seen, though if someone has something definative, I'm certainly open to concede the point.
:I actually changed the link on his page to reflect that prior to your change here. If you look on the talk page, he says that he would use the term anarchist if it weren't for its association to terrorism, and would use the term libertarian if it weren't for "the people who got their grip on that word". Seeing as he's in the United States where libertarianism has become synonyomous with libertarian capitalism, it seems pretty explicit to me that he's on the libertarian left. (But as someone suggested, it might be a good idea to mail him personally to find out.) Sarge Baldy 20:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You could do that, but his response couldn't be cited here. That would be original research. RJII 20:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well technically speaking it would but just gathering information doesn't appear to be against Wikipedia policy, which is concerned with new ideas. Sarge Baldy 20:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Robert Anton Wilson

message: User:Nikodemos/Asymmetric controversy - a few points we noticed about some issues and events on wikipedia. -- infinity0 22:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that all seems fairly obvious. Consider how long it took before we introduced a section on criticism. Not many people who aren't anarchists feel safe coming in here, partly by a lack of interest, partly by a lack of knowledge, but also in part because it just isn't a welcoming place to be. I know I make it a point to stay out of articles like anarcho-capitalism for that reason. It's pretty obvious who's going to take the effort to edit that article. And I suppose I'm guilty of the same thing hanging around here. Although considering that less than 1% of my edits have been to this page I don't think it's too problematic. The only real way I've found to avoid POV editing is to do most of it through the random page function, and that's often very boring. Sarge Baldy 02:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wouldn't it be interesting if you could only edit pages randomly? In other words, instead of an "edit this page" button, an edit button that just opens up a random page? There would be huge downsides, of course, but it would be interesting nonetheless. --AaronS 03:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments requested 

message: You know, it's interesting how much attention is being given to the exact wordings of guys who have been dead for over a hundred years.  And the thing is, it doesn't matter exactly what they said or believed, but what others took away from them. You see, who would care what Proudhon or Bakunin wrote, unless they influenced hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people?
I suggest shifting the focus of debate to how certain ideas were adopted by anarchists, not the particulars of those ideas. It is more interesting to see how the Spanish anarchists of the 1860's and the Parisian communards of 1871 largely embraced Proudhon's Mutualism, and that this idea was brought to Spain by Bakunin, actually. It is more interesting so see how certain ideas were applied (like the Makhnovschinka creating worker-run communes in 1917-1920) and how those ideas have changed (like the new form of "mutualism" which embraces alternative economic strategies).
The battle over semantical nuances is only a distraction from the greater things the article can do, and just another obsession of the fanatical-factionalists. --albamuth 01:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's easier to talk about the "embrace" of mutualism if you can clarify what mutualism was. (It's not obvious, nor really much discussed in anarchist circles.) But don't be fooled, these debates are mostly very presentist. They're about what we are taking from these historical figures. The mechanics of cooperatives may be more interesting to you than the development of theories of property, but both are applicable in the present, and both have their place. So start that entry on the Makhnovschinka, if that's what turns you on. Chances are at least some of us will pitch in. Libertatia 02:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree. People get really caught up in the details of a few "notable" anarchists, as if the whole of anarchism is somehow within their text. I see it as something far bigger, and do not see these writers as having "formulated" anarchism so much as tried to assemble it in a sensible, readable fashion. Certainly I came to a conclusion of anarchism before reading any of the people mentioned on this page, and I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one. Anarchism is dynamic and not static, and anarchists are theorists rather than ideologues. Sure, the theorists listed on this page are important, and have attempted to piece together the heart of the philosophy. But to say their theories represent anarchism isn't to say that the entirety of anarchism exists in their theories. Well my attention span is short, but I would agree we should be focusing more broadly on anarchism and anarchists as a whole and less on a few "key thinkers" (a social history approach, as you suggest, would be a much more informative read). Sarge Baldy 08:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

text: But at the same time, we have to all understand where we are coming from in terms of debate.  Whilst we may have moved beyond Bakunin, Thoreau, Kropotkin etc., it's still useful to have a clear idea of what they wrote and believed, as this enables us to debate their merits properly, rather than with different ideas of what they wrote.  For example, if two people wish to discuss the concept of mutual aid, then it is useful if they all understand what is meant by the term, and what Kropotkin and others wrote on the subject.  To do otherwise just lowers the tone of debate and leads to confusion.  I'm perhaps being unclear but my basic point is that we must clearly understand what those before us wrote in order that we can move on. --Graius 09:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proudhon, Kropotkin, Bakunin, blah blah blah

message: I am not allowed to edit the main page (apart from minor edits) as per my agreement to be unblocked, but I don't think this edit is a good idea. Whilst the change to the first paragraph is good, the additional paragraphs bloat up the section - and one of the paragraphs is a complete quote, which is unnecessary. -- infinity0 21:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change of section 

message: Why is it being deleted that Proudhon favored "individual" possession. In What is Property he specifically says "individual possession." Proudhon wants to make it clear that he's not a communist. We should represent him as accurately as possible. RJII 17:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The entry alway says he opposed communism, that is enough. To use the term "individual possession" is redundant and confusing as the entry notes that workers would possess and run their own workplaces as a group (and lets not mention the "agro-industrial federation"!). As for RJII wanting to "represent him as accurately as possible," what a joke. That is the last thing RJII wants (as can be seen by the "wage labour" thread). So no change is required as the entry already makes the points RJII wants to make and does so in an accurate and less confusing way. User:BlackFlag 08:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it is important to say "individual possession." You were saying in the article that he and communists were the same on "possession," but that's not the case. RJII 16:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  How do they differ? Oh, yes, Proudhon argues that possession does not apply to the products of labour (i.e. workers will sell the product of their labour) while communists disagree. As the article states that Proudhon rejected communism, no change is required. User:BlackFlag 09:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: individual possession

message: We should find a way to incorporate the history of American anarchist participation in the First International. Individualist anarchists were prominent in the English-speaking New York Section 12 (Stephen Pearl Andrews) and the French-speaking Boston Section 1 (William B. Greene). The "Yankee" sections were censured and then finally expelled at the Hague Congress. Timothy Messer-Kruse' The Yankee International covers some of this, and the Address of the Delegates of the Boston section n° 1 (French) of the Working People’s International Association (mostly written by William B. Greene, and published by Ezra Heywood) gives a contemporary account. 
I'm a little hesitant to mess with the flow of the section as it is now. Perhaps a paragraph at the end, noting this other lesser-known history would be appropriate. The facts are of considerable interest, as they link the individualists organizationally with the much broader movement. But the Yankee Internationalists' struggle with Sorge's group is perhaps still best presented as a sort of "side-show" to the Marx-Bakunin conflict. Libertatia 18:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This sounds fascinating. I would love to see more of this sort of information incorporated into Wikipedia articles. If it doesn't warrant significant space here, then American individualist anarchism would seem an appropriate place. - N1h1l 22:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  American anarchists in the First International 

message: I've managed to track down RJII's article by Richard Sylvan. It was, to say the least, an interesting read. As well as the claim that anarchists are not opposed to government, I discovered that "hostility" to the state "is not a feature of anarchism." I think that we need to ensure that any definition of anarchism should read "anarchists are not opposed to government or the state", that seems very accurate!
In addition, I was impressed to discover that anarchism "is in fact the most recent and novel of political philosophies"! And there I was, under the impression it pre-dated Marxism by at least 8 years! Obviously 1840 comes *after* 1848, silly me. I was also impressed to discover that the "notion has recently been  extended beyond political arrangements." Silly me, to have thought, for example, that Goldman and de Cleyre had "extended" the "notion" to attack sexism in the 1880s and 1890s! I suppose it all depends on what "recently" means! After all, Proudhon had "extended" the "notion" to attack wage labour in 1840 but, then, I forgot 1840 comes some time *after* 1848 so, maybe, it is more "recent" after all! 
So, what to conclude? Well some may conclude that the article is pretty flawed and, consequently, not really a firm basis to change the definition of anarchism. After all, "no government" government is an oxymoron of the highest order. Moreover, if we accept that we need to accept that anarchists are also okay with the state. Which makes the definition of "anarchism" a bit tricky as it no longer means what most people (and anarchists) would think it means. Or we may conclude, with RJII, that based on this one article the definition of anarchism should be changed and, as a result, anarchism becomes compatible with government, state and numerous other "voluntary" arrangements (such as dictatorship, contractual slavery, and such like). 
I would suggest that changing the definition of anarchism would be a mistake based purely on this article. BlackFlag 08:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I already suggested leaving opposition to "government" in the definition in the article because most sources use that term, even though I think it's wrong. The correct thing would be to say opposition to "the state" or "coercive government." Government can conceivably be voluntary. Government, in this sense, is any institution or organization of people that uses defensive force to protect liberty, and which may include judicial functions. The State, on the other hand, is coercive (initiates coercion) by definition --it has a forced monopoly on the use of force and it forces you to fund it. Defending oneself from aggressors is certainly compatible with anarchism, as is voluntarily paying someone else to protect you from them. "defense is a service like any other service; that it is labor both useful and desired, and therefore an economic commodity subject to the law of supply and demand; that in a free market this commodity would be furnished at the cost of production; that, competition prevailing, patronage would go to those who furnished the best article at the lowest price; that the production and sale of this commodity are now monopolized by the State; and that the State, like almost all monopolists, charges exorbitant prices" -Benjamin Tucker. RJII 23:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If we remove government, we need to remove state. As evidence, I present your own reference, Richard Sylvan. Feel free to argue that he is not a valid reference but I won't be impressed. As for the possibility of a government being voluntary, I can quite agree. But it is not *anarchist*, which is the point (as I've shown). As for "government" being "defensive force to protect liberty", well, I would suggest we do not start changing the meanings of words. I think most people (never mind anarchists) would agree that this is *not* the usual definition of the term government. I think that most people would expect an entry on anarchism to start with at least some shared language with the rest of humanity rather than the non-standard definition of one person. I hope most people would agree. BlackFlag 08:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It certainly is anarchist to have private defense of liberty and private courts, etc. You deny that the American individualist anarchists, like Tucker, are true anarchists? RJII 17:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Change the record, eh? Who defines "government" as "defensive force to protect liberty" in the real world? So stop muddying the waters by introducing strange definitions of words so that you can prove your own pet little theories. BlackFlag 10:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Richard Sylvan as a valid source 

message: If government is that which organizes and constrains human behavior, then it must include custom and contract as well as the coercive authority.  Most people think of the latter as the source of all order, and thus it's natural that government is commonly a synonym for state.  Natural but unfortunate.  Now: to be a good anarchist, would I have to oppose custom and contract?  —Tamfang 20:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Depends on whether you want to be a "good" communist anarchist or an individualist anarchist. Communists like Kropotkin want to abolish all contracting. On the other hand, contract law is the very basis of individualist anarchism. RJII 21:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You really don't understand anarchism, do you? Free association is its basis in all its forms. BlackFlag 10:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

text: My own take on the words "government" and "state," -- which I submit isn't merely my own but has a great deal of history behind it, is this: the state is the legitimating authority, the government is the legitimated institution. The state is, so to speak, Queen Elizabeth. The government is Tony Blair. In a republic, the state is "we, the people" -- the government consists of the duly constituted branches of elected and appointed persons. Anarchism at its heart is the view that the state is a myth, and one best forgotten, so that government will lose its cloak of legitimacy. Elizabeth is just an elderly woman who loves her dogs and lives in nice houses. Tony Blair is the head of a mob, like Tony Soprano, and thinks will start to change for the better once a lot of people see that similarity. --Christofurio 13:19, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  government and state 

message: I have tidied up Anarcho-syndicalism section:
*removed the grpahic of the flag, as it was disrupting the text flow of the article, and in any case doesn't really add anything here (it appears on the main page for anarcho-syndicalism, though it must be said it is one of the dullest flags in history)
*replaced the introduction of this sub-section with (a tidied up version of) the introduction from the anarcho-syndicalism article - otherwise it really isn't clear what anarcho-syndicalism is at all - I realise this is somewhat duplicative, but then so is the whole section, which could really just be a redirect/merge to the main anarcho-syndicalism article - I wasn't bold enough to do that.
*removed a fair bit of hard-to-decipher, speculative, or original fluff. To be candid, more could be removed, but I didn't want to overdo it. ElectricRay 23:32, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Anarcho-syndicalism

message: Removed the following sentence: Because it does not oppose profit or capitalism, most anarchists do not acknowledge anarcho-capitalism as a form of anarchism, apropos the discussion above, as not only is it totally speculative (in terms of "most anarchists..." and utter nonsense, but it is also a total non-sequitur - anarchism has nothing whatever to say, per se, about profit or capitalism. ElectricRay 23:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Every anarchist I've ever talked to consider opposition to capitalism to be an integral part of anarchism, and many authors have defined it as such. The fact that most other encyclopedias don't even mention anarcho-capitalism in their articles on anarchism is telling. The Ungovernable Force 04:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, every one except me, and I guess you never met famous aarchist writers such as Murray Rothbard and Robert Nozick. Anarchism is about the absence of certain forms of societal coercion. The fact that people who call themselves anarchists, as a group, don't tend to like capitalism is neither here nor there. On the merits, as set out above, anarcho-capitalism is an entirely credible account (and for what it is worth, in my view it is the only credible account) of anarchism. ElectricRay 07:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't anarchism, it's right libertarianism on steriods. Anyways, the article merely says that most anarchists don't think it's a form of anarchism, not that it isn't (which it's not). The Ungovernable Force 08:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

text:  Just to state the obvious, Nozick is *not* an "anarchist writer," famous or not. And Rothbard is considered an anarchist (by some) because he called himself one! As it stands, most anarchists reject the claim that "anarcho"-capitalism is a form of anarchism. That should be reflected in the entry (just as other anarchist opinions should be). BlackFlag 12:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Anarcho-Capitalism

message: "As has been indicated, many writers about anarchism have taken opposition to government to be the most distinctive characteristic of the theory...However, there is further reason for questioning such a characterization: the distinction that some anarchists have themseleves made between government and state. While there runs through all anarchist writings an unmitigated contempt for the state, the anarchist position on government is far from unequivocal hostility." (What is Anarchism, John P. Clark)  I think we need to note somewhere in the article that government is not necessarily incompatible with anarchism. It's only government that initiates coercion that is incompatible. RJII 02:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this using my broad definition of government above, then?  —Tamfang 05:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is getting silly. "No government" government? Please! Anyway, I'll have a read of Clark's essay and put that quote in context and see what he is really talking about. I'm 99% sure it is not "private defence agencies"! BlackFlag 09:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I have to confess I don't understand what the difference is between anarcho-captialism and individulist anarchism. Doesn't the latter imply the former? Also, I don't understand at all Clark's description of A-C. Why would A-C require the "affluent" to voluntarily associate with each other against the poor and weak? why would it try to perpetuate the class system? He sounds like a dude who doesn't understand free market capitalism very well.ElectricRay 23:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

text: You miss the whole point. The point is that some anarchists use the term "government" in an "unusual" way. So, the difference between state and government needs to be mentioned in the article. By some anarchists' definition of government, government is compatible with anarchism. State is government that initiates coercion. That's why some definitions of anarchism choose to use "opposition to the state" instead of "opposition to government." RJII 22:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  So, based on Clark's assertion that Nock is an anarchist, we must now change the definition of anarchism to include "unusual" and "atypical" uses of the word! I'm impressed. There I was thinking we should try and *generalise* the meaning of anarchism to draw out its typical and usual use, as Clark himself notes. No, that is wrong. We must define "anarchism" in such a manner that any one who ever used a word in a particularly strange, atypical and unusual way must be included! Impressive. I'm sure I can find someone who thinks that a suitably defined "state" is compatible with anarchy (Sylvian springs to mind, of course!). So where does that leave us? With "anarchism" being for everything and against nothing.... BlackFlag 08:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know why you're not getting this. The point is that some anarchists make a distinction between "government" and the state, and I think it's a good idea to note that in the article. RJII 13:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Then why even bring it up? BlackFlag 08:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

text:  yes, some anarchists (like Kropotkin, say) did make a difference between government and the state (and opposed both). A few people (usually described by others as anarchists) make a difference too, but support one or the other. As a definition of anarchism, in the introduction to an entry about it, it would make much more sense to use the *typical* definitions most anarchists use rather than the "atypical" definitions a few people have used (particularly if these definitions are themselves "unusual"). This is what Clark does and he provides more than enough evidence to support this position. And as I noted, if you say anarchists support "government" I will use your own reference to say that they also support the state. You cannot have it both ways. Let's just stick with the typical, usual and common definition of the word in the introduction rather than change it to suit one person's pet theories. BlackFlag 14:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not suggesting to change the definition. I support the definition that says opposition to government, because so many sources use that terminology. I am saying to note in the article the distinction between the state and government. RJII 13:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  And then note that 99.9% of anarchists oppose both? Why even bother? BlackFlag 08:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

text: By the way, using coercion against the poor is perfectly consistent with anarchism, as long as it's defensive coercion. There is nothing anarchist about allowing the poor to steal from the rich who acquired their wealth through honest labor and trade. RJII 22:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  And where would they be? If you read anarchists (like, say, Proudhon, Kropotkin or Tucker) you would be aware that the rich do *not* (and have not) acquire(d) their wealth "through honest labor and trade"! Other people's "honest labor", more like! And, yes, "anarcho"-capitalism is based on the wealthy using violence to maintain their social and economic power against those who use their wealth. That is one of the many reasons why it is not anarchist! BlackFlag 08:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anarcho-capitalism advocates that private property is only created through labor and is only properly tranferrable through honest trade or gift, so of course it's anarchist. Keeping a poor person from stealing your honestly-produced property is anarchist. RJII 13:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nope, (anarcho-)capitalism is based on paying a poor person less than the produce by their labour. This is how the rich get rich. And the state exists to keep the poor from taking back their honestly-produced property. Read Proudhon... BlackFlag  08:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

text:  And according to Stirner, the poor should unite and take wealth from the rich. And anarcho-capitalism advocates the rich keeping the property created by the labour of others. Read Proudhon, he is very clear on how "property is theft." BlackFlag 14:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anarcho-capitalists do not advocate taking the property produced by others; they are dead-set against that. They believe property is only properly tranferred by trade or gift. RJII 13:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

text:  Before I forget. As for, "there is nothing anarchist about allowing the poor to steal from the rich." I would suggest reading Stirner. He thought that was perfectly acceptable. Stirner, as RJII notes, was an anarchist. So it *is* anarchist to allow the poor to steal from the rich (it would make a change!). Better include that in the definition of anarchism! BlackFlag 09:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You misunderstand Stirner. RJII 13:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  ROTFL! I would suggest you read Stirner. BlackFlag 14:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You really do misunderstand him. For Stirner, property is merely a matter of force. If the rich can hold on to their property by force, that's fine. For him, property is not a moral entity. "Whoever knows how to take, to defend, the thing, to him belongs property." And, "What I have in my power, that is my own. So long as I assert myself as holder, I am the proprietor of the thing." --rich or poor. RJII 13:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  So, steal from the rich or steal from the poor, it's all good for Stirner if you get away with it.  Where is RJII's disagreement with Blackflag, exactly?  —Tamfang 01:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  My point exactly. It seems, for RJII, the rich stealing from the poor is fine and anarchist while if the poor steal from the rich, it is very, very, very wrong and un-anarchist. To prove this all that is required is to quote Stirner and then ignore what he says. BlackFlag 08:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Stealing from the rich or the poor is "un-anarchist." Stealing is by definition the wrongful taking of the property of another. There is nothing anarchist about that. RJII 15:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not according to Stirner, so stealing is perfectly anarchist. I would suggest you read Stirner, he was not concerned whether something was "wrongful" or not and he was not into respecting property. BlackFlag 08:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: another source for government being consistent with anarchism

message: I see there have been several new debates over anarchist theory again. Please keep in mind that you are not obliged to answer someone's points. This is the talk page for the article anarchism, not for anarchism. Understand that not answering does not automatically make the other person right. Furthermore, if you think the opposing view is ridiculous, why bother dignifiying your opponent with a reply?
In short, these sort of debates are pointless, you can't win, they waste a lot of time and they aren't productive. Please don't start them, and please don't carry them on. -- infinity0 23:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You argue like a married couple! Just leave each other alone. Just because you have different opinions doesn't mean you have to get into arguments on trivial things. Focus on the issue. This looks like it will get out of hand soon. As for the actual issue, most self-described anarchists don't consider it a form of anarchism (even if you include an-caps, who do describe themselves as anarchists). Of course there is no poll to prove this, no citation that isn't POV, but the lack of attention paid to an-cap by encyclopedia entries on anarchism and my own direct experience and the experience of others leads me to believe that the vast majority of self-described anarchists are anti-cap and consider that a necessary part of anarchist beleifs. So it goes back to the comment above, that including a big long list will be ugly and a waste of time. If that's what you really want to do, do it, but I suggest you just leave it be. Do you really want me citing a dozen or more prominent anarchists who say that (which will only prove the point more than now by providing an abundance of resources). The Ungovernable Force 06:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't really matter if "most anarchists" don't consider anarcho-capitalism to be a form of anarchism. That's to be xpected. There are anarcho-communists who don't think anarcho-syndicalism is a true form of anarchism. There are labor-value individualist anarchists who don't think anarcho-communism is a true form of anarchis, and there are anarcho-capitalists who don't think anarcho-communism is a true anarchism. These are all biased sources and not really credible. Is it any surprise that anti-capitalists claim anarcho-capitalism is not real anarchism? Get real.
More like a grumpy old man and a wise-guy teenager. Look, all I want to know is this: why is there so much resistance to saying "a number of prominent anarchists think" - which is a defensible assertion - and not "most anarchhists think" - which, even you now concede, isn't? ElectricRay 08:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

text: There is no resistance to saying that. I just hesistate to remove "most anarchists think" because it's quite true. I cannot prove this mathematically or with sources, but saying it isn't is just not being realistic. There's no need to be unscrupulously picky; we're humans, not robots. -- infinity0 10:12, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Nonsense. It would be a "sourceable" source, but a doctorate doesn't not eliminate bias, nor does it guarantee your work is adequate or accurate. RJII, most of the most engaged historians of anarchism are folks like us, who don't do their work in peer-reviewed journals. In a specialized field such as anarchism, peer review is designed really just to catch really flimsy arguments and obvious mistakes. Now, "what most anarchists think" is relevant to the extent that "anarchism" is a social movement, the tenets and boundaries of which are subject to struggles. I've surveyed major databases, Yahoogroups, websites and such, and been involved in libertarian circles for over a decade, and there doesn't seem to be any doubt that individualist anarchists and anarcho-caps are outnumbered by social anarchists. But, barring a competent demographer with credible access to the anarchist movement doing a study, i'm guessing this debate will continue in the realm of stubborn individual assertions to the contrary. Libertatia 19:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not my point. Even if it were indisputably true that most anarchists are collectivists, the word of "most anarchists" is not reliable as a credible source. Wikipedia has standards as to what is regarded as a credible source. "Most anarchists" just doesn't do it. "Most anarchists" have not written scholarly papers. The opinion of "most anarchists" is largely irrelevant. RJII 20:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most anarchists don't like the state either, but I guess since it's merely the opinion of some anarchists it doesn't matter. Get real, the opinion of most anarchists definitely matters--this is an article on anarchism after all. It's not saying an-cap isn't anarchism because most anarchists don't think it is, it merely says that most anarchists don't think it is and lets the reader know that there is a major schism between the two ideologies. The Ungovernable Force 00:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I had to comment on this: "'Most anarchists' have not written scholarly papers. The opinion of 'most anarchists' is largely irrelevant." So, an entry on anarchism does not have to reflect the opinions of (most) anarchists? Interesting. And these people who write "scholarly papers", do they not take the opinions of (most) anarchists into account? And as for "many anarchists" or "some anarchists", they also have not written "scholarly papers" Does this mean the opinion of "most" or "some" anarchists is also "largely irrelevant"? BlackFlag 08:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The flaw in anarchist theory is that social co-operation cannot be wholly voluntary. 
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761568770/Anarchism.html
http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/anarfaq.htm
--88.155.0.123 16:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Debates about anarchist theory 

message: It's just a suggestion, but hasent there ought to be a section on the red scare, where anarchy was protested and communism was feared, with V.I. lenin asking the world to revert to communism, i have nither the time nor writing skils to write one, maby just a link to the red scare.--Teh Teck Geek 01:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add-ins 

message: I don't have any non-circumstantial evidence for this, but it seems very clear that when user:BlackFlag wants to say something that he doesn't have a source for, he goes and writes something and creates new sections for a FAQ or contrives articles on the net anonymously then comes back and cites them. Look at the new sections tailored explicitly for the arguments I've been having with him on the Auberon Herbert article, that didn't exist a few days ago. There is a whole new section called "F.7 How does the history of "anarcho"-capitalism show that it is not anarchist?"  that is not on the FAQ on the Infoshop copy.     Is this how the FAQ works? Anyone can make things and sections up and anyone can come back here and cite them? I don't think so. He's been citing these things as sources on this article as well. Here is another article that magically appeared just a couple days after a dispute about Herbert for which he had no sources: . It looks like BlackFlag is this "Anarcho" character. If what it appears to be true, is true (it appears to be too much of a coincidence to not be), then this is fraudulent. RJII 19:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is a response I received from an administrator on the matter: "They don't look like credible sources to me. The first one (the geocities site) definitely isn't. The anarcho directory in anarchism.ws looks like a personal directory. Anything that looks like a personal website is disallowed, in part for the very reason you've given above, viz. that anyone could add whatever they want to a personal website then use it as a source for Wikipedia. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Anyone can make things and sections up"? So the sections in question are not referenced with the appropriate sources? As for who I am, it is not that relevant as it is the quality of my contributions which count, based on the evidence I supply. BlackFlag 08:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hang about: It's very relevant if you're Anarcho. Are you? ElectricRay 13:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

text: That's not how Wikipedia works. You have to cite "credible" sources. An anonymously written article by someone with no apparent academic qualifications that has never been published is not a credible source. You can't go contrive your own internet article then come back here cite it because you lack sources for your assertions on Wikipedia. RJII 14:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm more than happy not to reference any new sub-sections of section F of "An Anarchist FAQ" in the future -- I would hate to be considered "unethical" by RJII (whose grasp of facts is well known). However, I do wonder what will happen when "An Anarchist FAQ" *is* published. Does it become a valid source then? And what of articles written by anarchists who have "no apparent academic qualifications"? Does that mean we cannot quote anarchists who have only been published in anarchist papers? Just wondering... BlackFlag 16:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Reliable sources RJII 15:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, and the FAQ is obviously a "primary" source. It is written by anarchists, linked and mirrored by anarchists, referenced by anarchists (and at least one academic book) and is being published by the leading anarchist publisher (AK Press). What else is needed? BlackFlag 11:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

text: RJII, who are you saying has no academic qualifications? Why is that relevant on whether they understand anarchism? Anarchism isn't exactly a subject taught in universities. -- infinity0 15:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, maybe not at Devry. RJII 15:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Wikipedia notion of "credible" sources is much, much narrower in most senses, than the prevailing scholarly standards. On the other hand, it grants much more authority to credentials than it does to competent work. In essence, the Wikipedia system really sees all us "editors" as doing little more than sifting the published opinions of "credible experts." It tends to give a high priority to the simplest sources—the sort that make the baldest, boldest statements—because careful reading of nuanced works and synthesis of primary sources can be too easily dismissed as "POV" or "original research." In short, structurally, Wikipedia has to be thankful for our labor, but doesn't care much for our knowledge, unless, of course, we're tucked away in a credentialled position somewhere. As for the facts of the matter, they sometimes sneak into an article. Unfortunately, with so many folks using Wikipedia as if it was itself "credible," it's necessary to hang around and do damage control. Libertatia 16:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia will never be a credible source. I think it would be laughable to quote it in a scholarly paper. You're right that we just serve to rehash the opinions from credible sources. As far as we know, none of us here has any qualifications to comment on anything. That's why Wikipedia will never be a credible source. But, yes your right --apparently a lot of people look to Wikipedia for information. I think the "An Anarchist FAQ" suffers from the same thing. People who don't know about anarchism to look for information pull that up in Google searches, but I don't think the "small collective" who writes the FAQ is qualified to comment either. I don't see any reason to trust their interepretations. But, Wikipedia has one thing going for it than that FAQ doesn't --it's truly open to all information available that can be sourced from a credible source. RJII 16:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: RJII, please don't make it appear that I agree with Wikipedia's notion of what a "credible" source is, because I don't. IMHO, this is the weakest aspect of the Wikipedia concept, and the one which makes is almost entirely useless as a reputable encyclopedia. I like your multiply-qualified "open to all information available that can be sourced from a credible [sic] source" (and the number of edits it took for you to get something that wasn't obviously false on the face of it.) It shows how little openness there really is here. Now, if folks really cared about accurate content, as you claim you do, it wouldn't be all that hard to maintain a certain number of quite accurate (if not terribly detailed) entries, which would serve as clear and useful starting points for further research. That would mean not perspective-pushing at every possible point—not, for example, feeling the need to insert an-cap content in every social anarchist page and vice versa. We would probably all be much better off—in terms both of the accuracy of the pages we edit, and of the partisan value of the various sub-pages, if we warred less and decentralized more. Let pages like anarchism be simple conduits to more detailed pages. Highlight conflicts in a sentence or two per page. Emphasize primary sources on detailed sub-pages. The most frustrating thing about the current situation on the anarchism-related pages is that all of the research being done is essentially being wasted, except to the extent that it ends up informing other work elsewhere. BlackFlag is obviously a good researcher. You're obviously engaged enought to be tracking things down. I won't take a back seat to very many people when it comes to anarchist history. But we battle each entry into POV-contested, fragmented, unreadable nonsense. And that can't be good for anyone, NPOV or clear political agenda. There are a few sections of pages, like the section of the Mutualism (economic theory) page, where we've managed to do some good, collaborative work. But those pages are few and far between. Libertatia 20:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Are you Anarcho? ElectricRay 15:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Caution: BlackFlag's sources

message: As RJII has "proven" that supporting governments and states (aka Auberon Herbert) is compatible with anarchism, I was wondering why Ayn Rand is listed as a minarchist in the "anarcho"-capitalist section. Like Herbert, she supported an elected "central agency" to define and combat crime. Like Herbert, she was in favour of limited government and the state. Like Herbert, she was in favour of free market capitalism. Like Herbert, she was in favour of voluntary taxation. Like Herbert, she was against "the initiation of force". And, like Herbert, she explicitly denied being an anarchist. It seems highly illogical that one should be listed as a "minarchist" while someone with identical politics should be classed by RJII as an "anarchist." It suggests one of two things. That Rand should be classed as an anarchist or that RJII is wrong. Obviously, the latter is not possible so perhaps people could explain why Rand should not be re-labelled as an anarchist. BlackFlag 12:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Government is only compatible with anarchism if the definition of government includes private defense of liberty and property and adjudication of disputes --some define it in this inordinary way. But, states by definition are definitely not compatible with anarchy. States are coercive government (government that initiates coercion). Rand is not an anarchist because she believes in government having a coercive monopoly on coercion, in other words, she favors what is defined as a state. Read Our Enemy the State by individualist anarchist Albert Jay Nock to learn about the differences some anarchists make between government and state. Then, go add it to your FAQ. RJII 14:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  So Ayn Rand *is* an "anarchist" then? If Herbert is one, then so is Rand. Herbert argued for an elected "central agency" and so did Rand. If you bother to read, say, Rothbard you would know he criticises Herbert precisely on this issue. And states, from your own sources, are perfectly compatible with anarchism. Herbert talked about "the state" providing services, Sylvian talks about the state being compatible with anarchism. You really cannot have it both ways. You have a choice, make Ayn Rand an anarchist (and show that you know nothing about anarchism) or admit that Herbert is not an anarchist. BlackFlag 08:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I know, Herbert never advocates that competition in defense and adjudication should be forbidden. He just says it's a good idea for people to get together and agree on a central institution. In other words, he doesn't advocate a coercive monopoly on coercion. RJII 14:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Btw, please provide some quotes by Nock and Herbert where they express support for private defence agencies and courts. In other words, please provide a quote that shows that either meant by “government” anything other than a standard elected (minimum) government which would specify the law and what was legitimate property. Secondary sources will not do. Herbert, for example, argued for a "central agency" which was "formally constituted by the nation, employing in this matter of force the majority method." Like Rand, he believed in voluntary contributions to fund his state. So why is Herbert an anarchist and Rand not? BlackFlag 09:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rand is not an anarchists because she believes in a coercive monopoly on coercion. That is, she believes others should be forbidden from setting uptheir own defense agencies and she doesn't oppose taxation. Herbert opposes all taxation and doesn't say that the defense institution should have a "monopoly on coercion" (Rand's words, I believe). RJII 14:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Rand argued that a lottery could be used to fund her minimum government ("Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal"). I've seen one book quote one of her ex-followers arguing that she was wrong to advocate voluntary taxation ("The Ayn Rand Cult"). So, from what I can gather, she was in favour of voluntary taxation -- unless you can prove me wrong, of course. I'm also not aware that Rand opposed private security guards ("defense agencies") or that Herbert advocated/opposed them. And Herbert argued that without a government there would be "pandemonium" -- his argument is the same as Rand's on this issue. So, why is Herbert an anarchist and Rand a minarchist? Their arguments are nearly identical, even down to their argument against competing states. Both argue for a state and central government and predict anything else would result in chaos. Why is one an anarchist and the other a minarchist? And what about Nock? BlackFlag 08:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Opps, I made a *slight* mistake. Rand's support for a government funded voluntarily, without taxation, can be found in "Government Financing in a Free Society" ("The Virtue of Selfishness", pp. 116-20). She suggests a lottery and contract insurance as possible means. Clearly, as RJII argues that Rand is not an anarchist due to her support for a government to specify what is and is legitimate property and coercion, neither can Herbert. He *also* advocated a voluntary supported government to specify what coercion is. Sadly I won't be here to see how RJII gets out of this, but I'm pretty sure he will quote Herbert: "I deny that A and B can go to C and force him to form a State and extract from him certain payments and services in the name of such State." Which simply shows that Herbert opposed compulsory taxation rather than his clearly stated aim of an elected minimal central government. But, then, anarchism is apparently compatible with government -- so welcome to anarchism Ayn Rand! And so Wikipedia becomes a laughing stock... BlackFlag 11:22, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can find a credible source saying Ayn Rand was an anarchist, feel free to put it in this article. Good luck with that. But, Ayn Rand explicitly argued against the philosophy of "competing states." She was adamantly opposed to anarcho-capitalism. She felt that government should enforce a monopoly on coercion. Herbert does not say that that a defense agency should forcibily bar competition but rather that it's simply a good idea for people to get together through mutual aid and form a central agency. RJII 14:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

text:  ROFL! So Herbert and Rand have the same political ideas, both dismiss anarchism as leading to chaos but one is an anarchist and one is not! Lovely logic. BlackFlag, 08:46, 08 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rand supports taxation, Herbert doesn't. (as far as I know --I'm not an expert on Rand). Also, Rand advocates an enforced monopoly on coercion --minarchism. As far as I know, Herbert does not. He advocates a single private defense provider, but I've never seen him say that competition should be forcibly prevented. If he does say that somewhere, then I wouldn't call him an anarchist. But, that's not my call to make as far as content is concerned --we have to reflect what the sources say whether we agree with them or not. Again, I don't know much about Rand so I'm not one to discuss this with. RJII 12:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  Before I forgot. I did see a book about anarchism which did claim that Rand was a proponent of anarcho-capitalism. It meets RJII's usual standard for credibility, so I'm assuming that we can change the entry? It is Ruth Kinna's "Anarchism". Personally, I would say that this shows that Kinna does not know the subject, but I said that about Sylivan and RJII rejected the obvious. I wonder how RJII will reject Kinna as a reference? BlackFlag, 08:46, 08 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again, if you can find a credible source that Rand was a proponent of anarcho-capitalism, feel free to put it in. RJII 12:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Just out of curiousity, is counterfeiting well and good in one of these so-called anarchist societies with a government? Seems that police breaking into your home and confiscating things wouldn't be acceptable, especially if you never gave them access to do so, and nor could they really do anything to you for spending counterfeit money. For that matter, there wouldn't be any problem selling machines to easily counterfeit money, would there? I bet the economy would be really really stable. Sarge Baldy 16:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Do you distinguish counterfeiting from other forms of fraud? —Tamfang 18:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, sure. I suggested counterfeiting because unlike insurance scams or pyramid schemes there isn't even a hint of coercion. Sarge Baldy 18:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't speak for anarcho-capitalists on this because I haven't read anything by them about counterfeiting. But, the market would decide what the most popular forms of money are. The money most difficult to counterfeit would be chosen by market participants (printed money or electronic money, possibly, but not necessarily, backed by a precious metal --like E-Gold). I would think that counterfeiting money and then presenting it to the bank in payment for gold, or buying goods, would be fraud. Remember, that individualists (market anarchists) are not only opposed to the initiation of physical force, but also are opposed to fraud ("force and fraud") --taking value from someone else through deception (making one side of the transaction morally involuntary). Note that private money E-Gold has encryption protection against counterfeiting.  RJII 18:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

text:  Baldy, what's the hint of coercion in an insurance or pyramid scam? But anyway — In any economy that uses documents, there's going to be forgery (which includes counterfeiting), and practices designed to prevent forgery or limit the damage.  (You might like to read up on cryptographic signature protocols.)  It's not clear to me what question you're raising here.  Probably "counterfeiting equipment" exists in Anarchotopia, because the alternative is to deprive artists and engineers of some of their best tools, but equipment specialized for counterfeiting has a limited market.  —Tamfang 22:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is Ayn Rand listed as a minarchist? 

message: List of anarchism web resources is up for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of anarchism web resources. I doubt many of you know this, so here is the news. -- infinity0 18:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  AfD 

message: I meant singular, of course.  —Tamfang 02:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  too quick the click 

message: Hey Hogeye, have you even noticed that you're using the wrong syntax for the image?  An unexplained link is nearly pointless.  —Tamfang 19:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "schools" image 

message: I'm amazed that 88.152.120.125, whose contributions usually amount to "boo capitalism," should insert a link to that a-c Bryan Caplan!  —Tamfang 00:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  88.152.120.125 converted? 

message: I think the sense of the sentence in the entry is that, since Proudhon understood "anarchy" as a kind of unreachable limit, and came to privilege justice over any of the things that would be balanced to achieve it, he is "more distant" in the later writings, where this is clear, than he is in the writings where he will boldly say, "I am an anarchist!" Since all of Proudhon's work was written before "anarchism" really existed as a movement, there's a bit of anarchronism here, but the phrase is at least intelligible and not particularly inaccurate. I'm not sure the dispute tag is necessary. Libertatia 20:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's why we need a secondary source. RJII 03:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. What are you disputing, exactly? Libertatia 14:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm disputing this: "By then Proudhon had distanced himself from anarchism, arguing in The Principle of Federation (1863) that anarchy was to remain a perpetual desideratum." Disputing the source provided indicates that he distanced himself from anarchism. RJII 14:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think that believing complete anarchy is not possible precludes one from being an anarchist. One can be a philosophical anarchist who sees anarchy as an unrealizable ideal, but something that should be a "perpetual desideratum." Proudhon even explains in Theory of Property, I think it is, what he meant by anarchy earlier when he talked about it earlier. RJII 01:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Nice work on the Proudhon Commentary, by the way. Since it's been published we can cite it. RJII 04:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Edwards actually claims that the federation of "states" Proudhon advocates in the later works differs very little from the program proposed in General Idea of the Revolution. He follows the common social anarchist line that anarchism proper came with Bakunin and his generation, with Proudhon merely an important precursor. A mutualist reading is that Proudhon varied more in his rhetoric, and in the audiences to which he addressed various writings, than he did in his goals. He pursued grass-roots as well as state-sponsored solutions at various points in his career, beginning with his attempts to first form the Bank of the People as a national bank. As we're presenting the history now, Proudhon is both founder and first defector from the tradition, although the specifically anarchist tradition hardly existed before Proudhon's death. It would be nice to avoid anachronism. Libertatia 19:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anarchism as "perpetual desideratum" 

message: I'm going to put in a few paragraphs from "The Platform" on anarchist communism.  I find that it is completely divorced from this vital aspect of Anarchism.
Fight Back!
Jedi
All that is necessary in the "Anarchism" page would be a short reference to Makhno. If you want to add a few paragraphs on Makhno, the Platform, and their relationship to anarchist communism, then you should add that to the "Anarchist Communism" page. 18:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are already two paras on Makhno and the platform in the russian revolution section.Bengalski 22:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nestor Makhno is missing from Anarchist Communism 

message: I feel the removal of the piece  about the Wielkopolska Uprising was a little presumptory. It clear links up with Bakunin subsequently becoming such an ardent anarchist. Of course once one has a grasp of Bakunin's pan-slavism, it is easier to see how Aryan Anarchism could arise.Harrypotter 17:49, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wielkopolska Uprising]] piece restored

message: Here\'s an essay from Spunk Library by L. Gambone: Proudhon and Anarchism.  Gambone takes the opposite viewpoint from RobGraham - that Proudhon was consistent in his anarchism and never wavered from anarchism. (Although he did change his terminology.) After reading both RobGraham and Gambone, I agree with the latter.
One point of contention is in the interpretation of \"perpetual desideradum.\"  Literally, it means \'\'permanent primary goal\'\'. If someone asserts that their primary goal is anarchism, it is rather absurd to claim they\'re rejecting anarchism. Yet RobGraham does just this.  Gambone emphasizes that Proudhon was \'\'anti-utopian\'\' - he wanted a practical anarchism.  Thus Proudhon wrote about transition programs rather than what things might be like if the State magically disappeared.  Contrary to RobGraham, an anarchist can talk about transition programs without losing his anarchist credentials.
RobGraham gives a partial contextless Proudhon quote when Rob writes: \"he advocated a confederation of \'sovereign and independent states, associated by a pact of mutual guarantees.\'\"  The question here is whether Proudhon was writing about the anarchist ideal, or about a practical transition program.  While Rob tries to spin it as a final goal, it\'s pretty clear to me that Proudhon is talking about a transition program.  Why else would he emphasize that it is not the ultimate goal (\"perpetual desideradum\") but merely a program for the real world.
Unfortunately, I don\'t have a copy of \'\'Principle of Federation\'\', so I cannot judge for myself first-hand.  (If someone has a copy, would you scan it in, OCR it, and put it on the web, please?  Or send it to me and I\'ll put it on my site.)  But my present take is that Proudhon was writing about a transition program, and being anti-utopian, recognized the fact that States exist and will continue to exist for some time.  So if I ever get unblocked, I intend to delete the claim that Proudhon abandoned or distanced himself from anarchism.
Another claim made by Rob that I would contest is that federalism is (somehow) contrary to anarchism.  Most Proudhon fans would say the opposite, that Proudhon\'s federalism is an essential part of his anarchism.  Again, the fact that Proudhon wanted decentralization and federalism before States magically disappeared should not be construed as an endorsement of States.  It is merely recognizing reality - shit happens and States exist.  Get used to it, and plan accordingly.
Anyhow, I recommend the Gambone essay for those interested in Proudhon. - Hogeye
:\"After reading both RobGraham and Gambone, I agree with the latter.\" Hogeye you\'re getting as bad as RJII. On what basis do you choose Gambone\'s \'Proudhon\' rather than RobGraham\'s \'Proudhon\' without reading Proudhon himself?Bengalski 18:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I\'ve read \"What is Property\" and even have a copy on my site here. I\'ve also read the biography by Hyams.  I would like to read \"Principles of Federation\" if I can find a copy.  My favorite Proudhon quote: \"Property is liberty.\" - Hogeye
A much more complete reading of Proudhon which emphasizes his consistency and development, is Robert Hoffman's Revolutionary justice; the social and political theory of P.-J. Proudhon (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1972). I haven't seen anything that deals as fully with the untranslated sources. Libertatia 16:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proudhon essay 

message: Please do not remove this claim -- backed-up in the bottom-up democracyarticle -- without some kind of counter-argument.
Skovoroda 17:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the section on that other page says it contains original research, so that might be a reason. I'm not going to remove it, and I don't really care one way or another, but that is a reason to remove it if anyone wants one. The Ungovernable Force 00:53, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added: Anarchism is a form of bottom-up democracy 

message: This article comes up as 69Kb.  Ideally articles shouldn't be more than 30kb (although WP:SIZE allows exceptions, but 69kb is really pushing it).  As parts of this article are well referenced, I propose removing all unreferenced claims to the talk page (or a sub page thereof) this could enable the article to even gain featured article status.  Comments, ideas, objections (please don't bite my head off, I am proposing this on the talk page rather than just doing it unilaterally :)).  Captainj 21:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article too long 

message: Posted on User: Harrypotter's talk page by User:Captainj: Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you.
Also, if I may make a suggestion?  The term Aryan Anarchism does seem non-notable, but perhaps some of the content you added may be notable.  Is there no where else you can put this content such as a new article (but please avoid the word "anarchism" in the title).  The anarchy page is too long, and adding content which has at best a very tenous link to anarchism isn't helpful.   Captainj 21:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Posted on User:Captainj's talk page by User: Harrypotter: Thank you for taking the trouble to remind me of the three-revert rule. However I find some of the remarks you made on my talk page less than appropriate, and wonder why you chose to make them. You state that the term Aryan Anarchism "does seem non-notable" and even remark that there was no citation on the Anarchism page, when the information was sourced to a book published by the Guru Nanak Dev University Press. You further talk about putting the material on another page, which would indicate that you have chosen to involve yourself in this debate in a somewhat officious manner without looking at the substantial work which has gone into the pages on Ghadar Party, Lala Hardayal, Komagata Maru, Hindu German Conspiracy Trial, Shyamji Krishnavarma, Bhai Parmanand by myself and others. No doubt you are a very busy person, but if you could find a few moments to consider the discussions on these pages before butting in, perhaps you might care to alter your view. Why do you suggest that we should use avoid use of the term anarchism in describing a phenomenon which very clearly is a variant of anarchism. How can this word be avoided, when it is so clearly necessary? No concensus has been reached upon the talk page. What had become clear was that many people have displayed their ignorance on the topic, and even become quite abusive. Indeed I don't know what to make of you remark that "adding content which has at best a very tenous link to anarchism isn't helpful" when clearly the link is very important, even if it makes some "anarchists" feel uncomfortable. Yes it is true that the Ghadar Party did have what could be called an anti-English, or even anti-White attitude, and maybe that is what some English or White anarchists feel uncomfortable about. But perhaps they need to reassess their stand point rather than mobilising an array of forces to prevent the anarchism page from truly reflecting the impact of anarchism amongst Punjabi immigrants to the Pacific Coast of Canada and the USA. Harrypotter 22:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Posted on User: Harrypotter's talk page by User:Captainj Thank you for your post.  I had been assuming good faith, and am still trying, but you are beginning to appear to me as if you might be POV pushing.  This article is about Anarchism.  It isn't about Ghadar Party, Lala Hardayal, Komagata Maru, Hindu German Conspiracy Trial, Shyamji Krishnavarma, Bhai Parmanand.  I have no interest in these articles (though if I get a chance I may well check they are NPOV now).  Since Wikipedia is does not self-reference, it would be most helpful to focus on Anarchism, where incidentally I had already posted comments on the talk page under another section - so I did not involve myself officiously.  If you are interested in Anarchy it would be helpful to read the other recent comments on the talk page, and not just focus on one part.  Any further content, unless it is amazing and fantastic, to the Anarchism page is unhelpful since it is far too long already (see WP:SIZE). The page is 69Kb long, when no more than 30kb is recommended (as I already posted on the talk page).   I am really not interested in discussing this further here.  The most appropriate place is the talk page.  If people haven't been civil to you then report them for violating WP:CIVIL (and you certainly seem more civil than them).  I am cross posting this to my my talk page and the Anarchism talk page.  Please reply at Anarchism talk if you want to talk about the article, revisions etc.  Thanks Captainj 23:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank your for your comments.  The problems with size is not technically related (even with a dialup downlowding 69Kb isn't an issue for most people).  The problem is actually readablity(seeWP:SIZE), this article has accumulated a lot of cruft that needs removing.  I haven't seen what you are proposing to add, so I can't comment on it, but I think what needs to be removed are the "small"  or "non-notable" ideas, probably those without good references.  One example might be the section on the Russian Revolution where I didn't see any refs at first glance (and I'm not convinced about it).  A section that could be added is the modern effective anarchy system in Somalia (though I'd be reluctant as the article is already big).  Also we could remove tangential content, such as content that is more of historical interest than political (possible to History of Anarchism article). I'm not sure about removing the anarcho-capitalist section, as it is well referenced, notable and does seem to have a strong connection to Anarchy (though perhaps, it, like many sections with other articles, could be shorter).  Anyway I'm glad there's a discussion on removing stuff from the page now, even if we can only get it down to 60kb that would be a nice improvement.  Captainj 09:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I'd go the other way and cut out a lot of the theory. The sections on Proudhon, american individualism, communism etc. could easily be halved by taking out all detailed discussion of theoretical niceties. As it is these sections are too short to do justice to the complexity of the issues, much better just to give a few lines and refer to their own pages. I think a separate history of anarchism article would be a wrong move - you can't have an article on anarchism that doesn't explain the historical development of the movements and ideas. As for the russian revolution, I strongly disagree - this is a watershed event in anarchist history, and the section also covers the theoretical implications in terms of the debate over platformism. On Somalia I disagree even more strongly - all but a few anarcho-capitalists would find the idea of the tribal-gangsterist failed state in Somalia being an 'effective anarchy system' beyond a joke. That includes the Somali refugees I've had the pleasure to know. Though someone did tell me they had met an ex-warlord now working as a hospital porter in Switzerland who claimed to be an anarchist communist.Bengalski 14:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I think you completely miss the point. Clearly Lala Hardayal was an anarchist. He set up the Bakunin Institute of California. He became exposed to anarchist ideas when he was working on The Indian Sociologist, published by Shyamji Krishnavarma. The printer of this magazine was Guy Aldred, the well known anarcho-communist living in London. His view, a for runner of the views of the anacho-primitivists, is that the society of the Vedas was an anarchist society - and please bear in mind he was a sanskrit scholar - something which he was consciously promoting. Not only was he clearly an anarchist he also was obliged to relinquish his post as a college lecturer at Stanford University and was arrested for being an anarchist in 1914. The only reason he was not deported was because he had stayed a few days over the time limit for a quick deportation. However he decided to leave the USA a few days later to avoid any more harassment. So please stop suggesting that he is not an anarchist when clearly he is. As for the GP, clearly it had several trends, such as the Hindu Fundamentalism of Bhai Parmanand. However the participation of Hardayal was very important and indeed without his anarchist approach their would have been no Ghadar Movement. The disputed section focussed on Hardayal's anarchism and how effective it became with its impact on the Ghadar Movement. Also it is clear that teh actions of the Ghadarites while LH was still involved in San Francisco was directly linked to the International anarchist movement: he had particularly close relations with Russians and Poles. It is also clear that the proposal for "the abolition of all systems which make the exploitation of man by man possible" means something quite different to US Democracy and more akin ton Chomsky's suggestion that  anarchism is not a protest against government, but against top-down forms of government. [The Relevance of Anarcho-syndicalism Noam Chomsky], interviewed by Peter Jay, The Jay Interview, July 25, 1976. As the item was not the Ghadar movement, but Aryan anarchism, which focusses precisely on Hardayal's crucial input into the Ghadar Movement, which was a critical element in the struggle for Indian Independence. I would agree completely that Hardayal's involvement with Ghadar moevement meant that he went beyond the scene of bohemian radicalism to help create a mass movement whereby 8,000 peasants went to India to start a revolution. In this respect perhaps he should be remembered alongside Nestor Makhno even though only were a third the size and were nipped in the bud by the authorities before they could deploy. I think it is important to remember that this article is about anarchism and its effect on the world rather than about anarchism's effect upon itself. No doubt the piece could be written better, and perhaps shortened (as indeed could be done to other parts of the article) or streamlined. but surely that is how we should be trying to help each other improve the article, rather than insisting something is left out because someone thinks its just some right wing advert, or because people were just ignorant about the noteworthiness of the people involved, being unfamiliar with Indian political history. As an encyclopedia article with built in interlinks, I feel it is much more important to create a resource where people can find links to where they can read in greater depth about a particular person or movement.Harrypotter 22:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bengalski: I haven't had time to read all the posts, but just a quick note, when I was saying effective anarchy system, I meant a system that was effectively anarchy ("They saw Somalia’s collapse as anarchic" from ) (i.e. no government) rather than necessarily an effective system in itself.  It's hardly and effective system as your refugee friends testify to, mainly because of the lack of social controls, although it's certainly made huge strides.  Economically Somalia is very poor, but three things are surprising, the first is that the distribution of wealth is fairly even (given there are no economic controls) and the second is that the country is not nearly as poor as it was, and the third is that prices etc are very reasonable (again see this Economist Article, it's premium content but if you can't access it, email me and I might be able to help you see it).Captainj 23:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An anarchy is not simply the lack of a government as anarchists use the term. The lack of a government can obviously be quite a mess. Anarchists advocate for certain models lacking rule, and practically none of these would include dominating warlords as in Somalia, which is an anarchy in the sense of anomie or in the sense of having a vacuum of social controls, but not in the sense used by actual anarchists. Sarge Baldy 00:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion about reverts 

message: Somalia is anarchic, but not an anarchy. It is anarchic because competing claimants to sovereignty and thus to governance are each trying to stake their claim. A society would become an anarchy properly speaking only if and when a sizeable majority ceased to believe in sovereignty as a premise, so no organization could plausibly claim to be the government.  --Christofurio 03:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Somalia Point 

message: Should he really get his own section, and so far up at that?  I mean, he didn't even consider himself an anarchist.  And he shows up before Bakunin!!!  The American Indivualist Anarchist section already lists him as an influence on Tucker - who seems to be the only important thinker he influenced.  Isn't that enough?  Bacchiad 13:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah it seems a bit odd. I would expect to see Bakunin, Kropotkin, Proudhon first. Is it in chronological order perhaps? An argument could maybe be made for a thread on the European /1st International strand of the movement followed by one on the more Individualist side. Chaikney 14:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it's cos it was done in chronological order. I think for two reasons - there was a broad agreement on presenting the development of ideas in their historical context; but also to cut through the endless debates with US ancap editors over which 'school' is more significant. On Stirner - you're right he wasn't an anarchist, but he did have a significant influence on individualist anarchists, not just Tucker. Eg. the French 'Stirnerite' 'terrorists' like the Bonnot gang, and even in Spain (read minister Montseny in particular).Bengalski 14:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Stirner had an influence on Emma Goldman as well, and she lectured on his work in her later years. Sarge Baldy 14:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Good stuff.  I added references to the Bonnot gang and Goldman to his section.  Bacchiad 15:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Max Stirner

message: User:AaronS keeps reinserting the claim "(Anarchism) has also traditionally and popularly been described as anti-capitalist, and is to this day" and cites the Encarta article as the source.   This article's only mentions of capitalism are: anarchism's rise during the rise of large-scale industrial capitalism; Proudhon describing an alternative to capitalism, and the mention of A/C.  It does not support what he posted there.  See his post on my talk page.  Note that this isn't new for AaronS.  In the past, he claimed that an article, clear from its title that it was a critique of anarchy, was written by an anarcho-capitalist. He also thinks "strawman" is a generic catch-all for "argument I deem to be flawed". MrVoluntarist 00:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't say it rose with capitalism, it said it was developed as a reaction against capitalism. "Anarchism arose... in reaction to both the European bureaucratic nation state and the advent of large-scale industrial capitalism." Although to be sure, that's only a reference for anarchism being traditionally anti-capitalist and not one for it being popularly anti-capitalist, which would require a second reference. Sarge Baldy 00:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn't specifically say it is "traditionally anti-capitalist"; just because it "reacted" to something doesn't mean it was against it.  Now, it may mean that in this context, but a "here's my interpretation of this source" is not the same as a citation.  Unless the source specifically claims what you say it does, ... don't claim it says that! MrVoluntarist 01:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I hardly think there's anything to "interpret" there. If anything it's one of the clearest citations in the whole article. A very common definition of "reaction" is "a reverse or opposing action". Reacting to something is the same thing as reacting against something. Because it explicitly ties capitalism with "the European bureaucratic nation state", it signifies that anarchists reacted similarly towards both these things. You'd have to read the sentence in a way that was grammatically illogical and nonsensible to interpret it any other way. Sarge Baldy 02:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Reverse mortgages were a reaction by banks to rising real estate prices.  Does that mean banks are against high real estate prices?  The point is, if you're going to claim a source says something, it needs to say that -- specifically.  Not, "ah, that's what they're getting at, basically."  And even if anarchism did begin as a reaction to "capitalism" (and of course, the reader's meaning of that is of course identical to the article's, right?), how does that imply that anarchism was "traditionally" anti-capitalist?  If a corporation pays dividends its first year, and then doesn't pay dividends for 20 years, does that mean the corporation "traditionally pays dividends", just because they did so at the beginning.  If this is the "clearest" citation ... we've got some work to do. MrVoluntarist 02:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Man, you sure do keep grudges for a while - whatever makes you happy! Anyway, the article leaves little to be interpreted. For the claim "has also traditionally and popularly been described as anti-capitalist," we have, in the UK article: "anarchism, as a self-conscious ideology, appeared in Europe during the first half of the 19th century, the uneasy sibling of modern socialism and communism" (here is a definition of sibling for you); "freedom was based on political, economic, and social equality"; and "It was through the First International that Bakunin and others promoted a movement of socialists." From the US article: "grew out of the socialist movement and appeared toward the end of the 19th century." For the claim "is to this day," we have, from the US article: "Since that time socialism and anarchism have diverged sharply, although both are basically anticapitalist." I don't really think that it's open to interpretation. Thank you kindly for ceasing to revert my sourced edits. :) --AaronS 04:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems obvious enough that anarchism has traditionally been anti-capitalist and that many anarchists still say it has to be anti-capitalist. I don't think we need to source the most basic and obvious facts. The Ungovernable Force 05:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not.  The past mediators agreed that such a claim would need to be well-sourced. MrVoluntarist 13:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't see the use of the word "capitalism" in anything you're citing here.  Having a metaphorical sibling relationship ain't gonna cut it.  Kevehs/Revkat never allowed that, and neither will I.  You don't get to do your creative interpretations on these sources.  And so far, your source is the UK version.  Don't cite if the UK version if you really mean the US version.  Please don't re-insert that bit until until you cite the source that you actually mean, not the one we're supposed to guess you mean, and make sure that says what you claim it does, not "ah, come on, that's the general idea it's sorta goin for.".  My not reverting you is to obey 3RR, not because I think youre edit is acceptable.  It's one of those Wikipedia rules I like to follow.  Another is not to blatantly lie to others, like claim you read an article when you obviously didn't make it through the title. MrVoluntarist 13:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I wouldn't say so. Anarcho-capitalism might have existed since the 1970s, but it's not like it received any sort of attention until the 1990s. When you take a philosophy that's been built around an opposition to capitalism, has organized and mobilized around an opposition to capitalism for over a hundred years, staging social revolutions such as those in Spain and in the Ukraine, it's hard to look at it with any historical honestly and say it isn't traditionally anti-capitalist. Sarge Baldy 05:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's always the problem with the definition of capitalism. Capitalism hasn't always referred to what it refers to today. For instance, the original individualist anarchists defined capitalism as state-backed prohibition of competition which concentrated capital in the hands of a few. So, anarcho-capitalists also oppose capitalism with that old definition. I don't agree that there's anything traditional at all about anarchism. It's just a big tangle of opinons and disputes about what anarchism is or should be. That notion that there's some stable thread of tradition seems romantic, but in reality I think it's just a big mess. RJII 06:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't, particularly. There was at least an attempt to reconcile the individualists with the communists, and people like de Cleyre actually didn't have a problem sitting the fence between them. Today most forms of anarchism are compatible enough to coalition together, even if there is some uneasiness. A lot of anarchists just take it in a general sense, and most take the label "anarchist" over anything more specific. Although you can reconcile some strands of individualist anarchism with anarcho-capitalism, for most anarchists it's an outright polemic relationship. You may as well try to reconcile them with the state. But you're right, there are some pretty murky issues involved. Saying it's traditionally anti-capitalist might be more vague than just saying it was a reaction against capitalism, and strongly maintains those traditional roots. Sarge Baldy 15:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Saying they're associated with socialism is not the same as saying they're anti-capitalist.  It might be a reasonable inference, but that's not what your source says.  The part you claimed comes from the UK version, in fact does not support that part.  Calling A/C "contentious" or controversial or whatever, as opposed to anarchism itself, which "isn't" is also inappropriate.  Please find another source for those claims that doesn't require creative interpretation. MrVoluntarist 19:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: MrVoluntarist, since the beginning of this discussion, you have repeatedly asked me to read the sources that I have been citing. I already did so. After you implied that I had not, however, I even read them again. Since you continue to display some amount of confusion with regard to my use of these sources, the thought has occurred to me that, perhaps, you actually haven't read them. I suggest that you do so, instead of doing a search for keywords. Even though I grabbed the verbatim quotes from the articles that I am using to justify my edits for this article, you still seem to be confused. Allow me to reiterate, then, if you would be so kind. The UK article, without any creative inference (by the way, inference is by nature not creative, but rather logical; so, if you are going to attack my supposed inference, you should attack it on the grounds of logic), establishes anarchism's traditional and historical socialist foundation. The US article, verbatim, claims that anarchism is, to this very day, "basically anticapitalist." I am beginning to question the authenticity of your objections. --AaronS 19:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: AaronS is questioning my objections' authenticity.  That's rich.  Now, let's try this again.  I didn't say anything about the US version.  We'll get to that in a minute.  We're focusing on your use of the UK version.  Remember?  One clause you support with a reference to the UK version.  It is a claim regarding "capitalism".  There is no statement in the article that supports that specific claim about capitalism.  To do so requires an interpretation and an application of external analysis about the relationship between socialism and capitalism.  That is not acceptable as a citation of your claim.  By the way, I never said "creative inference", only "creative interpretation" and "reasonable inference".  It's kind of cute when you totally misread what I write and then ramble on, strutting your compensating-for-something knowledge, attacking something I never wrote. MrVoluntarist 20:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I assure you, your apparent obsession with me is equally as adorable, and quite flattering. Now, please offer some objections of substance. Unless you think that interpreting socialism and communism as being anti-capitalist is an unreasonable inference based on creative, subjective fancy, I don't see where your objection lies. --AaronS 20:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm only "obsessed" with shooting fish in buckets.  Now, if you want to claim the first self-described anarchists were socialists and communists, feel free to cite that source for that end.  If you want to add the implications you believe follow from that source, well, that's just not going to cut it.  You're going to need to find another source.  That's just how it works.  Ask an admin.  MrVoluntarist 20:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The source is clear. It is an unbiased and neutral source. Stop removing it from the article. --AaronS 21:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, again, it isn't, for the reasons given above.  Modify the claim or the source.  And stop reverting anons for being anons.  Just give your honest reasoning -- a tough task for you indeed, Mr "Not reading title = reading entire essay". And whether it's unbiased is a separate matter.  It doesn't even say what you want, so its credentials are immaterial at this point. MrVoluntarist 21:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't think that the UK article says that anarchism is traditionally socialist? Or that the US article says that anarchism is still "basically anticapitalist"? The former is obvious, and the latter is verbatim. You can feel free to modify my edit in a way that you think clarifies what it is trying to communicate, but there is no grounds for removing it completely. --AaronS 21:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  AaronS's claims not matching his sources 

message: The Death Wish of the Anarcho-Communists
by Murray N. Rothbard
This article first appeared in The Libertarian Forum, January 1, 1970.
Now that the New Left has abandoned its earlier loose, flexible non-ideological stance, two ideologies have been adopted as guiding theoretical positions by New Leftists: Marxism-Stalinism, and anarcho-communism.
Marxism-Stalinism has unfortunately conquered SDS, but anarcho-communism has attracted many leftists who are looking for a way out of the bureaucratic and statist tyranny that has marked the Stalinist road.
And many libertarians, who are looking for forms of action and for allies in such actions, have become attracted by an anarchist creed which seemingly exalts the voluntary way and calls for the abolition of the coercive State.
It is fatal, however, to abandon and lose sight of one's own principles in the quest for allies in specific tactical actions.
Anarcho-communism, both in its original Bakunin-Kropotkin form and its current irrationalist and "post-scarcity" variety, is poles apart from genuine libertarian principle.
If there is one thing, for example, that anarcho-communism hates and reviles more than the State it is the rights of private property; as a matter of fact, the major reason that anarcho-communists oppose the State is because they wrongly believe that it is the creator and protector of private property, and therefore that the only route toward abolition of property is by destruction of the State apparatus.
They totally fail to realize that the State has always been the great enemy and invader of the rights of private property.
Furthermore, scorning and detesting the free-market, the profit-and-loss economy, private property, and material affluence – all of which are corollaries of each other – anarcho-communists wrongly identify anarchism with communal living, with tribal sharing, and with other aspects of our emerging drug-rock "youth culture."
The only good thing that one might say about anarcho-communism is that, in contrast to Stalinism, its form of communism would, supposedly, be voluntary. Presumably, no one would be forced to join the communes, and those who would continue to live individually, and to engage in market activities, would remain unmolested.
Or would they?
Anarcho-communists have always been extremely vague and cloudy about the lineaments of their proposed anarchist society of the future. Many of them have been propounding the profoundly anti-libertarian doctrine that the anarcho-communist revolution will have to confiscate and abolish all private property, so as to wean everyone from their psychological attachment to the property they own.
Furthermore, it is hard to forget the fact that when the Spanish Anarchists (anarcho-communists of the Bakunin-Kropotkin type) took over large sections of Spain during the Civil War of the 193Os, they confiscated and destroyed all the money in their areas and promptly decreed the death penalty for the use of money. None of this can give one confidence in the good, voluntarist intentions of anarcho-communism.
On all other grounds, anarcho-communism ranges from mischievous to absurd.
Philosophically, this creed is an all-out assault on individuality and on reason. The individual's desire for private property, his drive to better himself, to specialize, to accumulate profits and income, are reviled by all branches of communism. Instead, everyone is supposed to live in communes, sharing all his meager possessions with his fellows, and each being careful not to advance beyond his communal brothers.
At the root of all forms of communism, compulsory or voluntary, lies a profound hatred of individual excellence, a denial of the natural or intellectual superiority of some men over others, and a desire to tear down every individual to the level of a communal ant-heap. In the name of a phony "humanism," an irrational and profoundly anti-human egalitarianism is to rob every individual of his specific and precious humanity.
Furthermore, anarcho-communism scorns reason, and its corollaries long-range purpose, forethought, hard work, and individual achievement; instead, it exalts irrational feelings, whim, and caprice – all this in the name of "freedom." The "freedom" of the anarcho-communist has nothing to do with the genuine libertarian absence of interpersonal invasion or molestation; it is, instead, a "freedom" that means enslavement to unreason, to unexamined whim, and to childish caprice. Socially and philosophically, anarcho-communism is a misfortune.
Economically, anarcho-communism is an absurdity. The anarcho-communist seeks to abolish money, prices, and employment, and proposes to conduct a modern economy purely by the automatic registry of "needs" in some central data bank. No one who has the slightest understanding of economics can trifle with this theory for a single second.
Fifty years ago, Ludwig von Mises exposed the total inability of a planned, moneyless economy to operate above the most primitive level. For he showed that money-prices are indispensable for the rational allocation of all of our scarce resources – labor, land, and capital goods – to the fields and the areas where they are most desired by the consumers and where they could operate with greatest efficiency. The socialists conceded the correctness of Mises's challenge, and set about – in vain – to find a way to have a rational, market price system within the context of a socialist planned economy.
The Russians, after trying an approach to the communist moneyless economy in their "War Communism" shortly after the Bolshevik Revolution, reacted in horror as they saw the Russian economy heading to disaster. Even Stalin never tried to revive it, and since World War II the East European countries have seen a total abandonment of this communist ideal and a rapid move toward free markets, a free price system, profit-and-loss tests, and a promotion of consumer affluence.
It is no accident that it was precisely the economists in the Communist countries who led the rush away from communism, socialism, and central planning, and toward free markets. It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a "dismal science." But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance. Yet this sort of aggressive ignorance is inherent in the creed of anarcho-communism.
The same comment can be made on the widespread belief, held by many New Leftists and by all anarcho-communists, that there is no longer need to worry about economics or production because we are supposedly living in a "post-scarcity" world, where such problems do not arise. But while our condition of scarcity is clearly superior to that of the cave-man, we are still living in a world of pervasive economic scarcity.
How will we know when the world has achieved "post-scarcity"? Simply, when all the goods and services that we may want have become so superabundant that their prices have fallen to zero; in short, when we can acquire all goods and services as in a Garden of Eden – without effort, without work, without using any scarce resources.
The anti-rational spirit of anarcho-communism was expressed by Norman 0. Brown, one of the gurus of the new "counter-culture":
The great economist von Mises tried to refute socialism by demonstrating that, in abolishing exchange, socialism made economic calculation, and hence economic rationality, impossible … But if von Mises is right, then what he discovered is not a refutation but a psychoanalytical justification of socialism … It is one of the sad ironies of contemporary intellectual life that the reply of socialist economists to von Mises' arguments was to attempt to show that socialism was not incompatible with "rational economic calculation" – that is to say, that it could retain the inhuman principle of economizing. (Life Against Death, Random House, paperback, 1959, pp. 238–39.)
The fact that the abandonment of rationality and economics in behalf of "freedom" and whim will lead to the scrapping of modern production and civilization and return us to barbarism does not faze our anarcho-communists and other exponents of the new "counter-culture." But what they do not seem to realize is that the result of this return to primitivism would be starvation and death for nearly all of mankind and a grinding subsistence for the ones remaining.
If they have their way, they will find that it is difficult indeed to be jolly and "unrepressed" while starving to death. All this brings us back to the wisdom of the great Spanish philosopher Ortega y Gasset:
In the disturbances caused by scarcity of food, the mob goes in search of bread, and the means it employs is generally to wreck the bakeries. This may serve as a symbol of the attitude adopted, on a greater and more complicated scale, by the masses of today towards the civilization by which they are supported … Civilization is not "just here," it is not self-supporting.
It is artificial … if you want to make use of the advantages of civilization, but are not prepared to concern yourself with the upholding of civilization – you are done. In a trice you find yourself left without civilization. Just a slip, and when you look, everything has vanished into air. The primitive forest appears in its native state, just as if curtains covering pure Nature had been drawn back. The jungle is always primitive and vice versa, everything primitive is mere jungle. (José Ortega y Gasset, The Revolt of the Masses, New York: W.W. Norton, 1932, p. 97.)
Murray N. Rothbard (1926–1995) was the author of Man, Economy, and State, Conceived in Liberty, What Has Government Done to Our Money, For a New Liberty, The Case Against the Fed, and many other books and articles. He was also the editor – with Lew Rockwell – of The Rothbard-Rockwell Report.
:What is the purpose of putting this on the talk page? --AaronS 21:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Death Wish of the Anarcho-Communists

message: Does anyone feel the need to revert the article as currently written?  If so, why?  Please give specific complaints.  BTW, I finally registered. BillyBong 16:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever. Everyone knows you're Hogeye, and it's only that much more irritating when you pretend otherwise. Sarge Baldy 16:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. The Ungovernable Force 18:40, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, I find it interesting you revert the article back to some prehistoric state without justification and in extreme violation of 3RR, ban evasion, and open proxy policies, and then say that people need some form of justification for changing it back to the way it was. Sarge Baldy 18:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you talking about?  You make a claim that I reverted to a "prehistoric state."  Please specify the alleged reversion.  I don't believe you.  I've made various incremental edits, and only reverted when my edits were reverted without reason or discussion. BillyBong 19:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're banned, therefore any edits you make can be reverted on spot, no questions asked. The Ungovernable Force 19:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I guess that was a false accusation, I apologize. But you rewrote so much, undid some recent changes, and brought back old content to the extent the article was almost completely rewritten, without any attempt at discussion. Sarge Baldy 19:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert Situation 

message: That's the second time today I accidentally hit save before finishing an edit summary. I just reverted sarge's last edit because the way you did it made it so one template overlaps with another. The Ungovernable Force 18:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, that's what happened there. The templates look just fine for me no matter which way they're listed. Sarge Baldy 19:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: yeah, sorry. And as I said on your talk, I didn't realize there were all the text differences. I just fixed it. The Ungovernable Force 19:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dang!

message: There seems to be some disagreement about the Cultural Phenomena section. In particular, whether only self-identifying anarchists should be included, or anyone who contributes significantly to anarchist cultural phenomena can be included.  Currently, the section is inconsistent.  Someone reverted to self-identifiers-only in the description, yet left such non-self-identifiers as Ursela Le Guin, Han Alfredson, Ward Churchill, and (possibly) Robert Anton Wilson among others on the list.
IMO anyone contributing to anarchist popular culture is a candidate for inclusion. Otherwise, let's change the section title to Self-labeled Anarchist Celebrities or something. A lot of anarchist cultural phenomena are put forth by non-anarchists, such as popular songs and groups, and authors with anarchist themes. It would  be a shame to have  to cut Le Guin or Heinlein. I don't think this section  should have a purity test for inclusion.  BillyBong 19:32, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a bit flaky at this point, since some people haven't directly accepted the term (even if they've made hints). Maybe we could list authors and other works related to anarchism separately. Although I have the feeling that would get too big (that section already is) and require a separate article. Sarge Baldy 19:47, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't be opposed at all to deleting the whole section. Especially since we're trying to reduce the article size. BillyBong 19:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cultural Phenomena 

message: In the latest mass revert, the Anarcho-capitalist section was fouled up.  All the information explaining the justifications of ancap were deleted, and it went back to a version with ridiculously redundant reminders that ancap is controversial.  I.e. twice in the first paragraph, all of the third paragraph, and a link at the end. The controversy should be pointed out, but the whole section shouldn't be dominated by repeated disclaimers.  Once is enough, plus a link to Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism at the end.  So I'm changing the section back to the former version. BillyBong 19:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NAP and Ancap 

message: thumb|left|150px|Murray Rothbard (1926-1995)
Anarcho-capitalism is a predominantly United States-based theoretical tradition that promotes an economic system of free market capitalism in which no authority would prohibit anyone to provide via the free market functions that are generally allowed by most current governments to be provided only by state monopoly such as defence of private property (police), legal/administrative institutions (courts) and environment conservation (e.g., U.S. Forest Service). Because anarcho-capitalism does not oppose profit, rent, interest or capitalism, many anarchists do not acknowledge anarcho-capitalism as a form of anarchism. Peter Marshall, Demanding the Impossible; John Clark, The Anarchist Moment; Albert Meltzer, Anarchism: Arguments for and Against; Noam Chomsky, Understanding Power, David Weick, Anarchist Justice; Brian Morris, "Anthropology and Anarchism," Anarchy: A Journal of Desire Armed (no. 45); Peter Sabatini, Libertarianism: Bogus Anarchy; Donald Rooum, What is Anarchism?; Bob Black, Libertarian as Conservative
Murray Rothbard's synthesis of classical liberalism and Austrian economics was germinal for the development of contemporary anarcho-capitalist theory. Rothbardian anarcho-capitalists believe that private property can result only from being the product of labor and that it may only be transferred by trade, gift, or abandonment (after a given period of time). Another prominent anarcho-capitalist is David D. Friedman. Some minarchists, such as Ayn Rand and Robert A. Heinlein, have influenced anarcho-capitalism.  But most anarcho-capitalists believe that anarchism without capitalism cannot exist, because in the absence of a state authority that would prevent it, capitalism would naturally and inevitably develop in any free society. Hence, Rothbard's statement that "capitalism is the fullest expression of anarchism, and anarchism is the fullest expression of capitalism."Exclusive Interview With Murray Rothbard The New Banner: A Fortnightly Libertarian Journal (25 February 1972) 
Anarcho-capitalism is often based on the NAP (Non-Aggression Principle), i.e. that the initiation of violence is morally wrong.  This is analogous to Just War Theory, wherein aggression is wrong but retaliatory force (in proportion) is permissable. Proponents of this natural law basis for anarcho-capitalism point out that most people agree with the NAP on an individual level, but fail to apply it to governments, thereby giving them a super-moral status.  Anarcho-capitalists insist on consistency when applying the NAP. Other anarcho-capitalists justify it instead on a utilitarian basis; monopoly states have the same drawbacks as other monopolies, e.g. expensive poor quality service.
Some anarcho-capitalists, along with some libertarian historians such as David Hart and Ralph Raico, considered similar philosophies existing before Rothbard to be anarcho-capitalist, such as those of Gustave de Molinari and Auberon Herbert. Hart, David Gustave de Molinari and the Anti-Statist Liberal Tradition Journal of Libertarian Studies, in three parts, (Summer 1981), V, no. 3: 263-290; (Fall 1981), V. no. 4: 399-434; (Winter 1982), VI, no. 1: 83-104Raico, Ralph Authentic German Liberalism of the 19th Century Ecole Polytechnique, Centre de Recherce en Epistemologie Appliquee, Unité associée au CNRS (2004). Both Molinari and Herbert explicitly rejected the label of anarchist, associating it with the socialist factions prevalent in their time. Molinari called himself an economist, while Herbert coined the term voluntaryist.
For more on debate about the place of anarcho-capitalism within anarchism see Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism.
:Fine, I don't have a problem with that. Although I added "and scholars" back, since some of the sources given appear to be non-anarchist academics (such as Brian Morris). Sarge Baldy 19:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Anarcho-capitalism

message: #Why did you revert the newer intro?  In the Edit Summary, you wrote, "What made you think you could rewrite the entire article without any discussion?" In fact, the intro was only edited here and there, and there was discussion about the definition at Talk:Anarchism#Manner_of_Organizing_Society, and discussion about the "anticapitalist" citation at Talk:Anarchism#Repeated_reverts_of_sourced_edits_by_MrVoluntarist_and_anon. Why do you get to decide how to define "anarchism," overriding all known definitions? I see no complaints about the newer intro on the discussion page.  Is this now Sarge Baldy's Anarchism Page?
#Why did you delete the section heading for anarcho-capitalism? Do you really think it should be under "Anarchism and feminism"???
Would you be so kind as to archive this talk page? Thanks.
BillyBong 00:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what you're talking about. I haven't been playing with the definition. As I've said, I think anarchism is obviously a political philosophy, AND a means of organizing society. Honestly that was a pretty trivial point to me, but I added it back. But you're right, this does need a new archive. Sarge Baldy 01:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Complaints to Sarge Baldy