Talk:Anarchism/Archive 47

message: This is getting very tedious. Anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron. Anarchists have already debunked anarcho-capitalism as being a contradiction. You cannot have capitalism without the existence of the state. I will also add once again that no anarchist anthology that I know of includes articles by or about anarcho-capitalists. No anarchist bookstore that I've ever been into has contained any anarcho-capitalist books. Anarcho-capitalism is a nonsensical belief system promoted by a handful of people who don't understand anarchism OR capitalism. Chuck0 23:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are plenty of academic sources that discuss anarcho-capitalism, positive and negative. And ancap works are readily available from many on-line bookstores. Intangible 20:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly agree with Chuck0. Having read a large number of books about anachism and by anarchist theorists, I've never come across the conflation of capitalist property systems with anarchism. It is a fringe view, rejected by the vast majority of self described anarchists as being incompatible with the philosophy. Mostlyharmless 04:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yet your opinion is irrelevant. I could provide for a counter-argument, but that would not mean a thing as well. Might I suggest reading up on Wikipedia policy. Intangible 06:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

text: You've said here before that you can't have capitalism without the existence of the state. I've asked you before how you are defining capitalism, but didn't answer. How are you defining it? And how about anarcho-capitalists that call themselves "market anarchists"? Is market anarchism possible without a state? Is your dispute simply terminological?Anarcho-capitalism 16:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Isn't this discussion a little pointless? Surely whether or not anarcho-capitalism is anarchist or not is all a matter of definition. As I would define anarchism, it doesn't include anarcho-capitalism, but what is the consensus definition? josy shewell brockway 21:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Anarcho-capitalism

message: Is article protection. Why do you sheep put up with it? Reportersue 04:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do you even start writting something like this? It doesnt make any sense. Might be you got the greatest idea on how to not have it protected? Thought not! Its not like youre anymore in control just caus youre writting that line. See i can write it too: Is article protection. Why do you sheep put up with it? --Fjulle 17:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Censorship 

message: I took Libertatia's suggestion and started the page (stub). Definitional concerns in anarchist theory Jacob Haller 08:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definitional Concerns in Anarchist Theory 

message: I think this is a great solution. Just lock down the article and throw away the key. This way nobody has to worry about. There hasn't been any edit warring in days. The old saying "God grant us the serenity to accept those things we cannot change..." comes to mind.Anarcho-capitalism 19:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If thats your way of making things better then god help us! --Fjulle 00:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection is a great solution 

message: Us blackhands can sure sit around and figure everything out from every angle, but it takes commitment to the cause to go out and hoe a field, burn an SUV, or run a spellcheck on a page.
Resonanteye 00:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Isnt it possible to protect just parts of the article instead of all of it? That would make that needed spelling check possible! --Fjulle 19:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You could try to contact the responsible admin with the changes you want to make. Intangible 19:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Good luck :) --Fjulle 13:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I showed up to respond to the  request, but couldn't find what you wanted an admin to change. If you have a specific typo to fix, say what and where, and replace the template. If you have 20 typos to fix, make a fixed copy of the page in your user space, link to it here, and replace the template. AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: talk, and grammar, and spelling

message: Well, we're unprotected again, and no closer to a real solution to our persistent problems. There is obviously some support for the restructuring I've proposed, but no consensus. My thought is that all parties, including our readers, are best served by an end, to the extent it is possible, to all of the working at cross-purposes that we have been doing. I would like to see well done and accurate pages on Molinari as much as on Proudhon, Rothbard as much as Kropotkin or de Cleyre, etc. I'd like to see concise "criticism" sections throughout the anarchism pages. The rules of Wikipedia are not exactly an aid in creating solid, scholarly pages on subjects like anarchism which have not received all that much serious published attention. We need, I think, to adopt at least some of what I have proposed above to give ourselves and our readers a fighting chance at getting really high quality information. fwiw. Libertatia 20:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I avoid editting on this article because of the ongoing conflict but, for what it's worth, I'd support your proposal. - N1h1l 00:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just like that 

message: "Market Anarchism" doesn't mean "Anarcho-Capitalism." On the face of it, "Market Anarchism" would include all anarchist systems with primarily market economies, as opposed to anarchist systems with primarily gift economies, primarily communist economies, Parecon, etc. That would exclude anarcho-communism, not really categorize collectivism, and include early mutualism, later mutualism, geoanarchism, agorism, etc. The proponents of these models are often opponents of capitalism. Jacob Haller 02:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Market Anarchism is a vague category that includes all anarchist schools of thought that believe the market should be the economic system of anarchism. "Market Anarchism" spans all the way form 'Anarcho'-Capitalism to Anarcho-Socialism such as Individualist and Mutualist Anarchism. Some would even argue that Parecon, which is basically a modernized 21st century form of Collectivist Anarchism, is a type of market system. The thing is, there is no uniform agreement on what a market system should be like, so it can range from a capitalist market controlled by private owners, to a socialist market where independent propertied producers [laborers/workers] merge together to form employee-owned cooperative companies. If there is an article on market anarchism, it should include the various anarchist market philosophies. Some of them support capitalism, like "Anarcho"-Capitalists, Agorists and such. Others, such as Indies, Mutualists and some Green Anarchists, are opposed to capitalism and could be considered a stateless form of "market socialists". Capitalism does not have a monopoly (no pun intended) on the market system. Full Shunyata 02:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Add to that that there is some diversity in the definition of "capitalism" among an-caps. Libertatia 03:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that too. The definition of "capitalism" among 'an'-caps is obviously very different than the Agorist or Randite definition of "capitalism". Full Shunyata 16:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Definition anarcho-capitalists use is just the normal everyday commonly-accepted mainstream definition: "an economic system characterized by private or corporation ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision rather than by state control, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly in a free market." (Merriam-Webster, unabridged) It's the definition pretty much everybody uses today, including Randians.Anarcho-capitalism 18:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Still using the dictionary, I see. Jeez man, only on Wikipedia. Nowhere else in any place of academia would a dictionary be accepted as "scholarly research". Only on Wikipedia would someone think they could get away using sources that wouldn't even be accepted by an 8th grade teacher. *shaking head* Full Shunyata 02:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Merriam-Webster Dictionary Third International Unabridged Dictionary is a superb scholarly source.Anarcho-capitalism 03:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Ha. I tried to use that dictionary as a source for a 10th grade article I wrote. It was automatically rejected by teacher who straight up told me that dictionaries are not considered valid sources after middle school. Last year a person in my college used it as a source several times and their report was automatically downgraded. If you think dictionaries or encyclopedias count as "scholarly sources" anywhere in the academic world, you are sorely mistaken. Even now in college they are viewed as the scholarly equivalent of a Geocities or Angelfire website. Full Shunyata 04:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What better source for a definition than one of the most respected dictionaries in the world? Anyway, all I did was point out that that was the definition of capitalism that anarcho-capitalists and most everyone else accepts. I wasn't providing as a source for the article anyway, so I don't know what your problem is. I was just mentioning that we anarcho-capitalists use the mainstream definition of capitalism and as an example of such a definition I gave the definition from one of the most widely consulted dictionaries in the world. If a definition from that dictionary is not commonly accepted, then I don't know what is.Anarcho-capitalism 05:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, most capitalists do not believe that capitalism can be done without a State. And there isn't a consensus amongst capitalists on how exactly to achieve a "free market", let alone a "perfect market". Capitalists can range from European social democrats and Christian democrats to Keynesians, Neoliberals, Neoconservatives, Libertarians and 'Anarcho'-Capitalists. I don't think they all have the same view of capitalism. Just like Marxists and Mutualists don't have the same concept of socialism and Marxist-Leninists and Anarcho-Communists don't have the same concept of communism. Full Shunyata 05:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But capitalism is defined as a non-statist system. The means of production are owned privately, as opposed to by the state. And pricing, distribution, production is determined by the private sector rather than by the state. Most think you need a state (an entity that taxes) to protect people and their property. Individualists (market anarchists to be precise) think it can be done by the private sector. But, the definition is the same. It's a private system, as opposed to a state system.Anarcho-capitalism 05:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A quick comment: it depends on your definition of "state." Even Merriam-Webster, which you seem to prefer as your chief academic resource, is ambiguous on the matter. Anarcho-capitalists attempt to slip by this by claiming that states, by definition, must tax. But, clearly, this is not a necessary part of the definition. If one were to employ your dictionary standard, then we have several definitions that do note bode well for anarcho-capitalists: "a body of persons constituting a special class in a society," "a politically organized body of people usually occupying a definite territory; especially : one that is sovereign," and so on. Most scholars, I would say, would call a "state" any institution whose monopoly on violence is widely regarded as legitimate. Any of these definitions would include the property owner. Thus, any system of ownership probably immediately implies the existence of some kind of state. Of course, a dictionary would not tell you that, because that's not what a dictionary is for. --AaronS 19:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

text: And non-static systems cant work in relation with static systems? But today theres both capitalist companies and states all in one big mess, together. Id say thats a very much different definition on non-statism as an attribute to capitalism than the one your giving us, right? How come it is false, if you are right? If you add this line: ", which cannot function properly in relation with static systems." you got you view of capitalism, what, in your perspective, is the right definition. This is how wikipedia is supposed to function right? --Fjulle 23:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is "Market Anarchism?" 

message: I think the following passage (in the Ancap section) should be removed. The most obvious reading is false, though less obvious readings are true. By putting "labor for labor" next to "value for value" this suggests that "labor for labor" contradicts "value for value." AFAIK, "labor for labor" simply means trading labor for labor, regardless of different amounts, just as "goods for goods" simply means trading goods for goods, regardless of different kinds. It can be extended to other barter as well as independent-currency trades. AFAIK, "value for value," depends on the sense of value, which may mean anything from immediate utility to replacement cost. I suspect most non-communist anarchists and non-communist libertarians (from collectivists though whomever) would support both "labor for labor" and "value for value" in some sense of each term. Jacob Haller 06:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree it's unclear, so I went ahead and removed it.Anarcho-capitalism 17:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay. Thanks. There's definitely some differences between different traditions here so if you can find better words that might help. Jacob Haller 21:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Labor for Labor, Value for Value 

message: If the "utopian communism" to which Proudhon was objecting is in some sense "voluntary," it is not so in the same sense that the "voluntary communism" of the anarchist communists is supposed to be. That is, it is hard to interpret Cabet's communism as libertarian, which is what Tucker means when he draws the line. Wording needs work, but the distinction also needs to be made. Libertatia 02:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In What Is Property?, where he makes one of the criticisms of "communism," he lists a range of projects all anarchists would consider "authoritarian" (and all, of course, pre-anarchist-communism.) Tucker refers to Proudhon's statement about the "religion of poverty and slavery." Any idea where that was originally? Libertatia 02:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I think that both the communism and capitalism sections are improved as of late. Congrats, Blockader 18:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Can you provide Tucker's quote from Liberty, which you have used to support the claim: "Most schools of anarchism have recognized a distinction between libertarian and authoritarian forms of communism, and consistently oppose the latter."? I'm aware that Tucker made a distinction between compulsory and voluntary communism, but he defined compulsory form of communism as the one that opposes private property. I think that that excludes most, if not all, anarcho-communists. -- Vision Thing -- 20:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem. I've scanned the piece (on another machine) and should be able to post it tomorrow. But I think you've misconstrued the issue for Tucker. There's no libertarian argument against opposition, nor against genuinely voluntary community of property, beyond the fact that it seems like a bad idea to some of us more market-inclined types. Those who have said that they would enforce a ban on private property are the compulsary communists. Tucker makes the connection between "compulsory communism" and "statecraft" explicit, and refers to Bismarck as his exemplar of compulsary communism. His counter-example is William Harrison Riley, who wrote, in the same issue, of a communism in which the "right to secede" would be recognized. Speculation about what percentage of contemporary anarchist communists recognize that right is OR, but most of them that I know explicitly acknowledge it. There aren't many Johann Mosts left around. More OR, but something to consider anyway: the "compulsary communism" most threatening in Tucker's time was probably Edward Bellamy's Nationalism or similar schemes. Anyway, I'll try to get the Riley piece scanned and post both online. Libertatia 21:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From this it follows that Tucker excluded not just Most, but also Kropotkin and Emma Goldman from ranks of anarchist. Am I misreading something? -- Vision Thing -- 21:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From the same source: "As for the believers in voluntary Communism (of whom there are precious few), they are of necessity believers in the liberty to hold private property, for to pool one's possessions with those of others is nothing more or less than an exercise of proprietorship." Tucker is playing semantic games here, saying that all voluntary association is support for "private property." We can follow his argument, but we wouldn't all accept his terms. We know that "private property" is a loaded term. You have to make a guess what point Tucker thinks he's scoring here. Did Kropotkin refuse the "right to secede" or just the term "private property"? In any event, this nicely shows that Tucker, even when he was most frustrated with the communists, nevertheless maintained the voluntary communism category in his thinking. What a formula: voluntary communism is the exercise of private property rights. I think we call that "flame-bait" now. Libertatia 21:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Private property can mean two things: property owned by the individual or property owned by anyone but the state (the latter meaning is common in popular usage). The physical belongings of corporations are collectively owned, but they're considered private property too in the latter sense. So, Tucker seems to be switching his definition of the term late in life to the sense of all that is owned but not owned by the state.Anarcho-capitalism 22:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Tucker is actually following a fairly conventional line here. If I have complete control over my property, then I can combine it voluntarily with yours just as legitimately as I can destroy it (or use and abuse it in any other way.) The problem is that there are lots of understandings of "property" or "possession" quite different from Tucker's under which a genuinely voluntary communism could occur, including the denial of "property" in any form. He wants to be able to claim that anyone who is really an anarchist simply can't oppose "private property." But he doesn't prove his point. The argument is interesting. Just yesterday, I was asking a non-anarchist communist how production and distribution decisions got made, without recourse to central authority, without using some sort of "market." But I acknowledged that I was allowing the notion of "market" a lot of breadth. Libertatia 23:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That makes more sense. I think that's in line with what he was saying. But I don't see any logical possibility of voluntary communism because they claim that the world's resources are owned by everyone in common. That's a basic premise of communism. If that's the case, then there is no right to private property because you would be stealing from humanity. I see no compatibility with individualism; they're in fundamental contradiction. The individualist conception is that the world's resources are not owned in common by everyone. Therefore, to take them as private property is not stealing. The only "voluntary communism" compatible with individualist anarchism would be a situation, like Tucker says, where a group of people pool their resources and at the same time acknowlege or allow a right to private property. They would have to allow a right of private property in order for them to allow us individualists to practice our system. So, truly voluntary communism has to acknowledge a right to private property. And, that's odd, because that would make them not communists. Any anarcho-communists who denies a right to private property cannot be a "voluntary communist." I don't know if this is exactly Tucker's point, but I think he would agree with me. Anarcho-capitalism 18:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The only thing necessary to voluntary communism is a right to secede, hopefully with pre-arranged conditions. This should be true according to almost any set of beliefs about property. If you believe in an absolute right to property, then it's clear that you can do anything with it, including pool it with others' property. In fact, the consistent propertarian may, somewhat ironically, have the easiest time justifying voluntary communism. For those who do not accept the justifications for that absolute sort of property, the associated problems don't become any more or less thorny in a community-of-property situation. Someone who doesn't believe there is any justification for "private property" can still enter into voluntary relations with others, who may or may not agree in that regard, as long as the right to secede is acknowledged. (As you know from earlier exchanges, I remain unconvinced by the standard justifications for absolute property, and find myself much closer to Proudhon's concern with the "aims" of the property relation. So I don't "believe in private property" in the sense that you do, but it doesn't make me a communist, nor does it prevent me from entering any sort of voluntary association—nor would it necessarily make much difference in our interactions. You might never know.) Anyway, Tucker, like Bakunin in the other quote, is most concerned with state communism. Libertatia 18:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See me response below in regard to communism. If there is a right to cecede then there is the right to private property.Anarcho-capitalism 19:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as your support for "possession" that's not compatible with anarcho-capitalism at all; the two systems apparently cannot coexist. That says that if I'm not using something I purchased, or acquired through my labor, then you can come along take it and I would have no right to stop you. Would a you allow someone in your system to cecede, to choose to prevent others from taking the product of his labor and trade whether he's using it or not? If so, then you're not different from an anarcho-capitalist because as anarcho-capitalists recognizes a right for you and a group of others to practice such a system voluntarily. But, I don't think the reverse is true at all. Tucker, for example, did not accept a right of people to defend land they're worked for or purchased if they were not using it. That's why anarcho-capitalist is more anarchistic. Anarcho-capitalists will allow you, as well as communists to cede, but the reverse is not true. "Anarcho-capitalism" is in some ways a misnomer, because it's not at all saying that everything has to be capitalist. It just says that individuals have the right to practice free-market capitalism if they wish.Anarcho-capitalism 19:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Tucker is in some sense simply not making a lot of sense. You and BlackFlag and I could decide to pool our resources with the right to secede from our "commune" made explicit. We would have, I suspect, three very different senses of what "rights to property" actually exist, but these would not in any way prevent us from entering the arrangement and successfully coexisting as long as it served our interests. If this is, as Tucker claimed, necessarily support for "private property," then it expands the notion to include understandings most advocates would disavow. Libertatia 22:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tucker is making sense. If anarcho-communists acknowlege a right to cecede from an anarcho-communist system, to establish private property including in the means of production, then they acknowledge a right to private property. But, whowever heard of an "anarcho"-communist acknowledge that individuals do have such a right to private property? If there is such a creature, can he legitimately call himself a communist? I don't think so. Individualist anarchists (including anarcho-capitalists) acknowledge a right to commmunist and individualist property as long as it was acquired without coercion or fraud. Individualists acknowlege a right to "voluntary communism" if there is such a thing, but "anarcho"-communists do not acknowledge a right to voluntary private ownership of the means of production. Who is the real anarchist? It's the individualist. Anarcho-capitalism 19:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to assume that communists are the sort of "creature" who will always force their beliefs on others. You also assume a much more uniform understanding of "property rights" among individualists than actually exists or has existed. All anarchists worthy of the name recognize rights to voluntary association. If you want to go play proprietor over there, in a non-invasive way, why would any anarchist object? Acknowledging your "right" to do any number of things, some of them foolish, doesn't imply any special sanction for those things. Libertatia 19:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok then, find me an "anarcho"-communist that acknowledges a right to private ownership of the means of production, a right to trade labor for wages," and a right profit. There is no such thing as an anarcho-communists that acknolwedges a right to these things. If any anarcho-communists acknowledges a right to cecede from an anarcho-communist system then he naturally acknowleges a right to free market capitalism.Anarcho-capitalism 19:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're the one who is always quick to claim that anarchism entails nothing but opposition to government. Now you seem to believe that "real anarchists" have to adopt your theory of property (and associated) "rights." If, "after the revolution," there are conflicts between communities with different property standards, I'm guessing anarcho-capitalists will be as likely to engage in invasive behavior as anarcho-communists. The rest of us have already come to terms to some extent with the fact that property "rights" are really just widely accepted standards. Tucker quite correctly recognizes that voluntary communism is possible, and then redefines "belief in private property" in a way that strict propertarians like yourself should find woefully inadequate, in order to score points against political enemies. It's a clever rhetorical move, but it's an absolutely horrible argument. Sometimes Tucker the Controversialist and Sectarian tripped up Tucker the Clear Thinker. Libertatia 21:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's get something straight. Anarchism is any philosophy that opposes the state, as far as what this article can claim is anarchism. That's my point with that. I am saying that not my or anyone else's POV should be pushed as to what is or isn't anarchism in the article. It's my personal belief that only anarcho-capitalism is true anarchism. "Anarcho"-communism and mutualism (in that it doesn't allow people to protect purchased land and houses from being taken when they're not using them) are authoritarian in my opinion. I am not going to assert my personal belief on what is or isn't real anarchism in the article. Ok then. Tucker does correctl reoganize that voluntary communism is "possible," but like he says there are few if any such voluntary communists. "Anarcho"-communists are actually not voluntary communists. They deny a right to private property. They deny that there is a right to private ownership of the means of production, for example. That means that there is no right for a group of people to "cecede" and partition out formerlly collectively owned means of production into private ownership. A right to cecede would be an acknowlegement of the right to free market capitalism.Anarcho-capitalism 21:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think it's a flame-bait. I agree with that line of thought – only kind of communism which is acceptable to people concerned with liberty is the one which is created by people who are willing to share their property with others. In anarcho-capitalist society such form of communism would be completely legitimate. -- Vision Thing -- 11:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks. That can be used as a source that Tucker differentiated voluntary and compulsory communism. But besides that what else does it say? He doesn't speak in the name of all individualist anarchists, as it can be seen in the note 108. Also how it can be used as a source for most anarchist traditions? According to Larry Gamobne in Proudhon and Anarchism, Proudhon classified communism as a "Regime of Authority", and my impression is that Proudhon opposed both voluntary and compulsory kinds of communism. As for Bakunin, I'm not completely clear on his stance, but I haven't managed to find some text where he supports voluntary communism. -- Vision Thing -- 19:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The question is not one of "support," or even of belief in the practicability of voluntary communism, but merely a question of whether or not two forms of communism, different in their intents, is recognized. Making a distinction between, say, Kropotkin and Marx is a basic tenet of pretty much all "social anarchism" currently. Bakunin's criticisms of anarchist communists are not the same as his criticisms of Marx. Etc. We need the clarification in order to differentiate between state and non-state forms. Bismark, Bellamy and Gronlund are as much on the individualists' minds as Most. Libertatia 20:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, but then current sentence is insufficient and misleading, at least in the second part. -- Vision Thing -- 21:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The second part was completely correct. You'll be hard pressed to find any anarchist of whatever stripe, not opposing authoritarian communism. You may believe that voluntary communism is impossible, and, thus, that, say, Kropotkin supported "authoritarian communism," but that's an imposition of POV. Libertatia 22:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the second part was correct, but it was misleading because it implied that most anarchist schools don't oppose voluntary communism. Anyway, I think that it is obvious that all schools of anarchism oppose authoritarian forms of communism. It's just that they don't always agree on definition of "authoritarian". -- Vision Thing -- 23:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  voluntary and compulsary communism 

message: Is this tag neccesary? I think the article has reached a point of being about as neutral as possible and the person who added the tag did not state a specific reason for doing so on the discussion page, which is a general wiki practice. the tag detracts from a generally stable (right now) and informative article. any thoughts? Blockader 18:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's remove it for now, with a note: if you are to re-add it, please adress your concerns in a more specific way, on the Talk:Anarchism page. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 23:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with removal. -- Vision Thing -- 11:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality Tag?

message: I think it might to good to add a "Democracy" section to the issues section. Individualist anarchists oppose democracy. But anarcho-communists like Murray Bookchin support it. He critizes individualist anarchists for opposing democracy and says "majority rule" is consistent with anarchism. Anarcho-capitalism 19:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh. Do you really want to add yet another word darn near as many meanings as "love" to the mix? Libertatia 21:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, what is democracy? Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 21:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I think your statement that, "Individualist anarchists oppose democracy. But anarcho-communists ...support it" over polarizes the issue. i understood that proponents of democracy existed in both the individualist and collectivist camps of anarchism. certianly not all social anarchists give democracy unflinching support. our collective, for example, is committed to the consensus process rather than the voting process. while this might be good topic for a subart (Anarchism and Democracy) i don't think the article needs expanding on that point. Blockader 16:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's not any individualist anarchists that support democracy. That's fundamental to individualism. The community has no authority over the individual. If the vote or "consensus" is 1,000,000 to one that an individual will be deprived of a part of the product of his labor to give it to someone who is believed to need it more and that person is the only one who disagrees, then it is illegitimate to deprive him of it.Anarcho-capitalism 18:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What argument are you trying to make? Which "democracy" are you talking about? There's not even a question, this time, of a modern standard definition. The term is simply used in too many ways to be meaningful without clarification. "Opposition to democracy" can lead to insistence on consensus, as it does in some collectivist anarchist circles, but I'm guessing that's not where you are headed. Libertatia 20:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Majority rule," like I noted in the section. Bookchin speficially refers to "majority rule" as being compatible with anarchism. He argues against having a requirement for 100% consensus. And, the source about individualism specifically refers to majority rule as well. Anarcho-capitalism 20:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The section in question now reads: For individualist anarchists, "the system of democracy, of majority decision, is held null and void. Any impingement upon the natural rights of the person is unjust and a symbol of majority tyranny."[114]Anarcho-communist Murray Bookchin criticizes individualist anarchists for opposing democracy[115], and says "majority rule" is consistent with anarchism.[116]. It's short, informative, NPOV, and well sourced. Let's leave it at that - not only would it bring about an edit war, it would also make the article even large. There is no article on Anarchism and Democracy, though - that needs writing. Hell, large parts of Robert A. Dahl's Democracy and Its Critics deal with that very subject. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 21:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Democracy

message: I added a section on actual anarchies throughout history.  According to the lead paragraph of the article: Other than being opposed to the state "there is no single defining position that all anarchists hold, and those considered anarchists at best share a certain family resemblance." (oxford philosophy companion)  Statelessness accurately described Somalia, so I added a mention of that.--Urthogie 20:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Still, this is an article on anarchism, as ideology and social movement, not on the consequences of a disfunctional state, such as Somalia. The material you added is not appropriate. Libertatia 22:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In analyzing an ideology we also analyze the instrumentality of it.  In the case of the idea of democracies we would examine democracies.  In the case of anarchism, anarchies.--Urthogie 22:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And the situation in some place like Somalia, where there is, of course, government (governments, actually), is in no way an instrumentality of the anarchism discussed elsewhere on the page. Libertatia 22:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the BBC, which is sourced in the text I added, it had no state government in the time before the ICU.  Do you disagree with this report?  If so, why? (remember, Other than being opposed to the state, "there is no single defining position that all anarchists hold, and those considered anarchists at best share a certain family resemblance." [Source: Oxford Philosophy Companion, in the lead paragraph of this page])  Statelessness is therefore what matters, and defines anarchies.--Urthogie 22:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dude. I've had my two reverts. The difference between anarchy as a state of affairs and anarchism as a class of political projects ought to be sufficiently clear. But if you want to game unconnected material into the article, then I guess you'll go that, eh? Libertatia 22:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I won't report your for 3RR if you revert again, and I won't try to game anyone here. I'm convinced my logical argument will change your mind.  First off, I understand the difference between "anarchy" and "anarchism", you know.  We went over this.  Anarchy is important for the analysis of instrumental arguments concerning anarchism.  It's an obvious fact that encyclopedia articles on the idea of Democracy cover the ancient Greeks and the modern Americans (even though neither is a pure democracy, they're both useful for analyzing instrumental arguments).--Urthogie 23:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that you simply don't have a logical argument, unless you accept the very insufficient definition of anarchism imposed on us by Wikipedia's structure and a few aggressive partisans. Actual and specific ideologies of anarchism have almost never been limited to the absence of a state as a sufficient condition of "anarchy" in the political sense. Even most of our anarcho-capitalist associates would not accept that definition, except in circumstances such as those we face on Wikipedia. Assume that Somalia was indeed "stateless," and treat it as an "instrumentality of anarchism." What do you get? At best, you get something related to "Anarchism as defined in dictionaries and other sources too abstract to be much practical use." That is, you get an "instrumentality" of something inconsequential—and if you try to make this an example of the consequences of "anarchism," you simply have to falsify nearly every actual anarchism and in the process skip over every actual "instrumentality" (every experiment, every cooperative colony and equity village, etc.) This is bad history. In accepting a definition of "anarchism" that almost nobody actually holds, it is you who abstracts the article from real ideologies and real histories. Libertatia 23:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

text: If you for some obscure reason have to include Somalia in an anarchism-related article, do it on Anarchy, not Anarchism. There is a difference: the first is a stateless state of affairs OR an anarchist society, the latter is an ideology/philosophy/movement. I'm with Libertatia here. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 23:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi.  There is no consensus among anarchists, according to the Oxford Philosophy Companion, of what an anarchist society is.  So how can you claim that Somalia wasn't an anarchist society, when you're not even working with any definition whatsoever?--Urthogie 23:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you have to work with some common sense. Do you seriously think you could encounter any anarchist hailing the Somalian state as an anarchist society - be it an anarcho-capitalist, anarcho-communist or anarcho-primitivist? And even if we ignore that, this article is still WAY too large. Put it into Anarchy instead! (Also, please see Wikipedia:Use common sense.) Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 23:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you don't find anarchists talking about this, you know why?  For the same reason that advocates of complete state control refuse to celebrate genocidal dictatorships.  The fact that noone talks about supporting an anarchy doesn't make it dissapear in a poof of logic, as you would suggest.  Secondly, the article being too large is a ridiculous argument.  This is a huge article because it involves theorists debating the theoretical questions ad infinitum without any reference to the material facts (aside from the coverage of the social movements).  I'm trying to add the material facts, and I'm reverted because anarchists don't support (with good reason) the anarchy of Somalia-- which was anarchy, according to the Oxford Companion of Philosophy, as well as several other sources.--Urthogie 23:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When you raise "material facts" about things no anarchist supports, and blatantly ignore the material facts of anarchist history, and when you are obviously on some sort of ideological campaign to make somebody "face facts," you aren't going to get very far. It appears that your knowledge of anarchism does not stretch beyond the Oxford Philosophy Companion. With that much, of course, you can quite possibly impose your POV on the article, but you will only be obscuring the actual facts about the plight of stateless people in a state-dominated world. You will, imho, be giving real aid and comfort to those who would like to blame anarchists for the failures of the state. Libertatia 23:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Having given up on logic and reason, you resort to the political argument that I'm pushing an anti-anarchist POV.  That's ridiculous.  You're reverting me because of the plight of stateless people, which somehow allows you to bypass Wikipedia policy and not operate based on secondary sources and NPOV.  If my POV is making people "face facts" I graciously accept that.  The actual facts will emerge when Wikipedia policy is truly applied, and the groupthink here ends.--Urthogie 23:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Ahem. I've given you plenty of logical and reasonable arguments against the inclusion of your off-topic sections. As a bonus, I've noted that you're confusing the issue in rather unfortunate ways. I haven't heard anything coherent in response, aside from an appeal to the dubious authority of the Oxford Philosophy Companion. Which particular anarchist ideologues advocated mere statelessness as the goal of anarchism? Are you, btw, at all familiar with the actual discussions of anarchists regarding Somalia? I'm reverting you because you added a complete non sequitor to an article already fraught with problems. I'm annoyed with you because you certainly seem to be engaged in a little political misdirection here. Or perhaps you really know absolutely nothing about anarchism, in which case the article, troubled as it is, ought to be some help. Or perhaps, some way and somehow, you really can't tell the difference between "mutual aid and voluntary association" and a civil war taking place in a state-governmental interregnum. (Just read the addition: "Groupthink" here. That's tasty.) Libertatia 23:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The dubious authority of the Oxford Philosophy Companion?  If only you were a respected authority on the subject, then we could quote you saying that as per wikipedia policy.  Too bad.  What anarchist "ideologues" say about the shit anarchy that was Somalia has nothing to do with whether Somalia was an anarchy.  By the normative, and the non-normative definition, Somalia was truly an anarchy.--Urthogie 00:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

text: LOL, you didn't even read m edits, did you.  It said before the Islamic Courts it was an Anarchy.  Thanks for ignoring the whole force of my point. ROFL.  I suppose it's now time for you to move on to a different argument against my edits, so as to fillibuster until some group consensus emerges against me?  Or, there's maybe a 5% chance that you'll actually realize you made a mistake, and apologize.  Doubt it, though, even with Wikipedia:Assume good faith.--Urthogie 00:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are already anticipating a "group consensus emerging against" you, why bother? If there is a clear consensus (which you apparently expect), then there is hardly no point in fighting it. Furthermore, yes, indeed: you said that before the Islamic Courts it was an anarchy. You might however also want to read the second part of my edit. However, as you do apparently agree it is only a matter of time before a "group consensus has emerged" - I won't stuff this over-used talk page further in this discussion. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 00:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  article is completely in an ideological vacuum 

message: It's a waste of your time and mine for me to try to add anything on this big article without a consensus reached on anarchy.  Wasn't pragmatic of me.  When a concensus is reached at anarchy, we'll know how to attempt to proceed here.--Urthogie 23:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the present meanings of words say no goverment not says muchs about anarchism, in a contemporary definition it should clarifies is oppossed to any kind of social control (there are types of authority that are not explicit hierchicals -prejudges, patriarch or racism- and hierarchy (the typical opposition of anarchism to any forma of ruler).
--Nihilo 01 00:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  devoting my energies to [[Anarchy]]