Talk:Anarchism/Archive 22

message: I'd like to thank CesarB, 24.113..., RJII, Kevehs, 64.238..., 24.14..., and 208.180... for their constructive edits which have developed the article.  Looking through the edit's political content, and some of the editors previous political stances, I disagree with them.  However, all the edits made are supportable in an academic disciplinary sense and display NPOV language, emphasis and content.  The edits produce a better article, so that if Joe Bloggs or Jane Doe comes to Anarchism they will have a good primer of where to go next to learn more, and perhaps understand some of the division between social anarchy, individualism, and that somewhat peculiar half-breed of individualism and neo-liberalism.  Well done.  Keep up the good work.  Fifelfoo 7 July 2005 22:44 (UTC)
:Thanks, but I would like to point that my single edit consisted solely of fixing an interwiki link, and had zero effect on the overall article contents. I just forgot to check the &;quot;minor" checkbox. --cesarb 7 July 2005 23:08 (UTC)
:I agree, great edits. Finally I can start paying attention to the rest of Wikipedia. --albamuth 8 July 2005 04:58 (UTC)
::I recant my positive outlook.  I turn my back for a few days to work on historiographical issues and the Polish nationalist conspiracy and people turn back to the shit fighting.  Fifelfoo 02:14, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits since 22:59 7 July 2005 

message: ... when Kev's not around. Hogeye 00:31, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You sure went from serious editor to blatant troll pretty fast.  Kev 04:23, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Looks pretty good... 

message: Reich is an interesting case because of his idiosyncratic nature. He refused to adopt any ideological label, preferring instead to coin redundant terms like "work-democracy".
His work in The Mass Psychology of Fascism is important because it lays out the preconditions for reactionary thought and ideology, explaining (in unfortunately laborious Freudian prose) not only its formation but also how it is nurtured and harnessed by authoritarian regimes (taking Nazi Germany as the primary case study). He goes on to present his "work-democracy" theory as essentially orthodox early 20th-century Kropotkin anarchism. It's obvious that he didn't really get (or care) what the anarchists of the time were saying, preferring to write his own version instead.
Mass Psychology is a classic antiauthoritarian work, despite not being nominally anarchist. Therefore I don't think it qualifies as original research to include it here. --Bk0 02:30, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting, but I think I'd prefer only to have works that are canonical and explicitly anarchist in the books section; I'd like to see what others think. I'm making an exception to this rule for the Rothbard book, but this seems to be a necessary compromise. --Tothebarricades 03:24, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
I agree.. although Reich is undoubtedly a major scientific figure connected  with the Beat generation, sexual revolution and was originally a Marxist - he doesn't belong in the Anarchism article -max rspct 16:31, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

text: There is an essay on him in the excellent "Anarchism: A Documentary History of Libertarian Ideas" by Robert Graham but interestingly nothing by him. The essay on him was written by an anarchist. --Tothebarricades 23:10, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
Reich wrote about how great Russia was in Sex Pol. He ain't no anarchist. His individualism stems from his egomania more than any ideology about freedom.  Though Dusan Makavejev's film about Reich is a little more anarchist because it critiques the state. An An 23:25, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Reich was a former commie, and I'm not going to defend that, but he did eventually give it up, calling the Soviet system "Red Fascism". He was an egomaniac too, obviously. But Mass Psychology is still important for radicals to read—or Maurice Brinton's book The Irrational In Politics, which is sort of an anarchist summary of Reich's themes (available from See Sharp Press). --Bk0 21:02, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wilhelm Reich addition to Books 

message: Whew, that's a lot of talk. I took the liberty of leaving the "Summary of Arguments" thing in, because it might be useful to keep adding to it or modify it. --albamuth 20:54, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Archive 21 Created

message: Max_respct, you deleted the following statement, saying it was "contradictory."
"The American tradition of individualist anarchism is firmly in support of individual sovereignty, private property, and a free market economy; it is opposed to buying and selling of raw land, as well as profit (i.e., capitalism itself)."
You're statement that it's contradictory is vague. Can you elaborate?  Maybe you're not familiar with individualist anarchism? RJII 16:53, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Max_rspct deleting statement

message: The individualist section of the article already says, "Individualism contrasts with collectivist forms of anarchism (anarcho-communism and anarcho-syndicalism)", but RJ continues to insert the edit "(therefore opposing communism)", on the grounds that "if it says they oppose capitalism, it should say they oppose communism".  Of course, it already does, so his edit is unnecessary even by his strange standards.  Kev 16:48, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh you're right. I overlooked that. But I'll keep putting it in anyway because it explains exactly how it is that they oppose it. Anyway, the same rule would apply to any header someone puts up on the article. If it says that anarchists oppose capitalism it would also have to say anarchists oppose communism. RJII 17:24, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:   Of course you will keep putting it in anyway.  You decided what you were going to do and no evidence or reason will persuade you otherwise.  Kev 03:20, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:   RJ can't read 

message: In further efforts to reduce the overall size of the article, I was wondering about the appropriateness of these sections in the early history:
In Athens, the year 404 BC was commonly referred to as "the year of anarchy". According to the historian Xenophon, this happened even though Athens was at the time under the rule of the oligarchy of "The Thirty," installed by the Spartans following their victory in the second Peloponnesian war, and despite the presence of an Archon, nominated by the oligarchs, in the person of Pythodorus. However, Athenians refused to apply here their custom of calling the year by that archon's name, since he was elected during the oligarchy, and "preferred to speak of it as the 'year of anarchy'".
The Greek philosophers Plato and Aristotle used the term anarchy negatively, in association with democracy which they mistrusted as inherently vulnerable and prone to deteriorate into tyranny. Plato believed that the corruption created by democracy loosens the "natural" hierarchy between social classes, genders and age groups, to the extent that "anarchy finds a way into the private houses, and ends by getting among the animals and infecting them" ('Republic', book 8). Aristotle spoke of it in book 6 of the 'Politics' when discussing revolutions, saying that the upper classes may be motivated to stage a coup by their contempt for the prevailing "disorder and anarchy (ataxias kai anarkhias)" in the affairs of the state. He also claimed it would give, "license among slaves (anarkhia te doulôn)" as well as among women and children. "A constitution of this sort", he concludes, "will have a large number of supporters, as disorderly living (zên ataktôs) is pleasanter to the masses than sober living".
The first in particular seems like it is neither refering to the philosophy of anarchism nor particularly related to it.  Perhaps it would best be moved to the anarchy article?  The second is not refering to the philosophy of anarchism but might be related in that it describes non-anarchist views of distributed power.  But I dunno, maybe both would be best left to the anarchy article to shorten this monster a bit.  Kev 08:18, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would definitely support the first paragraph being moved to Anarchy and possibly the the second. mennonot 08:53, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree, move both to anarchy. The etymology of "anarchy" does not fit in with social movements and political philosophies. --albamuth 16:49, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Opps, someone already put those sections, or ones just like them, in the anarchy article.  Or maybe they started there an got moved here by mistake.  Either way, its not here anymore.  Kev 16:59, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Applicability of these sections 

message: RJ, you keep removing the disambiguation header, or altering it so that it no longer states that this article is about anarchism in the sense of anti-state and anti-capitalism.  Do you understand that the purpose of a disambiguation header is to establish the different meanings of the word being used?  If you lead this page with the anarcho-capitalist meaning, it destroys the purpose of the disambiguation.  At this point you ought to head over to the disambiguation page, kindly ask ceasarb to unprotect it, and edit that page so that it properly and within NPOV details the anarcho-capitalist use of the term.  You seem to be very confused when it comes to disambiguation, the whole purpose is to give all the various meanings of the word, so calling it POV just because it gives the one that is most common amongst anarchists, rather than specific to anarcho-capitalists, is just silly.
I mean, really RJ, Dtobias already altered the header so that it was more than clear that this is not the only meaning, that there are other philosophies which call themselves anarchists and do not accept this meaning.  What more do you want?  Are you accusing Dtobias of editing with an anarcho-communist POV?  Kev 13:48, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't tell me about disambiguation. The purpose of disambiguation should not be to change the meaning of a word so that it only suits your POV. If you prohibit any "anarcho-" philosophy from being included as a form of anarchism, you're violating Wikipedia's NPOV policy. RJII 13:59, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:   No one is changing the meaning of the word.  They are describing how the word is used as it is used by the majority of anarchists, both in modern times and historically.  I am following NPOV policy in order to avoid your constant violations of it.  Finally, the whole purpose of disambiguating is to ensure that no group of people calling themselves "anarcho" are prohibited.  Kev 15:05, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If the majority of people are Republicans does that mean that an article called "Political parties" should exclude Democrats? You're POV mission is obvious. You are indeed trying to change the meaning of the word. You won't succeed. RJII 15:12, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:   Nah, but if a majority of people believe that the moon landings actually happened, then it makes sense to put the hoax views on another page, rather than interupting every sentence with the POV of a few fringe cranks.  Kev 15:13, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  What are you trying to say? That there are not many anarcho-capitalists? Anarcho-capitalism is a fairly big philosophical anarchist movement ..certainly bigger than traditional individualist anarchism. RJII 15:26, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:   I'm saying there are fewer anarcho-capitalists than all those following in the traditions which the anarcho-capitalists ignore and/or reject in their use of the term.  Not only are their fewer, but they have had a shorter history, and a much smaller impact on society (they were never involved in any wars, they did have any organizations number in the hundreds of thousands, they were not suppressed by any authoritarian regimes, etc).  And finally, they are a controversial movement whose place in anarchism is not accepted by most traditional anarchists.  All of this does not mean that they should not be represented.  All of this does mean that their own philosophy and take on anarchism should not be used to frame the general article, anymore than that of the primitivists or the post-leftists should.  Kev 15:35, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Anarcho-capitalism, like all individualist anarchism, is philosophical anarchism. It's not a "social movement" where people are out rioting in the streets. That doesn't make it not anarchism. Now you say that it doesn't mean that they should not be represented, yet you are the one who deleted the anarcho-capitalist section in entirety from the article and put a header on to try to limit the article to anti-capitalist anarchism. RJII 15:41, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:   You clearly haven't been listening to anything I've been saying.  Or you are just playing games.  Or you can't read.  So until I see a light go off somewhere in there, I'm not going to waste anymore time talking.  Kev 16:20, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good riddance. RJII 16:25, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Header being removed by RJ 

message: If you're going to revert, you need to state some kind of rational reason, instead of "yawn." RJII 16:31, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Max_rspct

message: RJII, how can 'american tradition' anarchists firmly support 'free' markets and private property and yet be opposed to capitalism? please reword - 
The American tradition of individualist anarchism is firmly in support of individual sovereignty, private property, and a free market economy; it is opposed to buying and selling of raw land, as well as profit (i.e., capitalism itself). 
or  admit it has little relevance to contemporary anarchism except in regards to historical context and the 'conflict' with anarcho-capitalism -max rspct 15:38, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This has nothing to do with anarcho-capitalism. Traditional individualist anarchists oppose profit. That makes them opposed to capitalism. A system with private property and a free market economy, sans profit, is not capitalism. It's mutualism (economic theory). You've simply been unaware that not all anarchism is collectivist. And, it's not confined to the past anymore than collectivist anarchism is confined to the past. Individualist anarchism is active today.    RJII 17:44, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: RJII is correct. Capitalism depends on a free market, but free markets DO NOT depend on capitalism. Even the wikipedia article reflects that. Individualist anarchists now call themselves mutualists. --albamuth 19:35, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

text: No coincidence there. Author of Illuminatus Trilogy,  Robert Anton Wilson is an individualist anarchist. RJII 14:46, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

text: What do you mean? Wilson is not an anarcho-capitalist. RJII 15:53, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Individualist anarchists split into two camps, traditional and anarcho-capitalist (as a result of discarding the labor theory of value and adopting a subjective theory of value). Though obviously, there's a lot of collectivist anarchists who don't think that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism. However, contemporary individualists anarchists in the anti-capitalist tradition for the most part do regard it as a non-traditional form of individualist anarchism. RJII 22:11, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no evidence that Indiv. Anarchists "split" into anything, and certainly not towards anarcho-capitalism. A/C is something invented by Rothbard, and even if he claims that he based it on the individualists' ideas, it doesn't mean a bunch of individualist-anarchists "crossed over" into capitalism-land. Rather, the followers of A/C seem to come from the opposite side of the fence, from the Libertarian Party and minarchist crowd. --albamuth 03:35, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Individualist anarchism/contradiction

message: I disagree with whoever is reverting the article to the version that leaves out anarcho-communism and anarcho-syndicalism, but he makes a good point if that's what he's trying to do. He's doing the same thing that the other side is doing when they revert to the version that doesn't show anarcho-capitalism as a school of anarchism. The NPOV thing to do is to include all philosophies that purport to be forms of anarchism. RJII 02:42, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The revert war wasn't due to content, but rather the link spam that was being introduced. Jpers36 05:18, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

text: You are reverting this article in violation of your 1 month ban Hogeye.  Kev 18:47, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If that isn't Hogeye, then when he gets back, he should take you to arbitration for these unproved allegations that defame his character. RJII 18:49, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:   Indeed, he should.  But it is Hogeye.  Kev 18:56, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: the latest full page revert war

message: RJ, it would appear that the people over at the libertarian article are being POV by stating at the begining that the article will only be about their definition of libertarian, and will exclude libertarian socialism.  Since you claim to be entirely objective and have no political bias whatsoever, and you reverted all my attempts to disambiguate, I fully expect that you will head over there, insert a libertarian socialism section (with a picture, and many libertarian socialist counterpoints), remove the POV notice at the top, change all the definitions to be compatible with libertarian socialism, and revert anyone who dares to disagree with you.
Hop to it, you have a reputation for honesty and objectivity to maintain.  Kev 04:04, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There are a lot of articles that need work. I can't do everything. Why don't you go work on that? RJII 14:45, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:   Odd that someone as objective as yourself has decided to focus on ensuring that capitalism is represented as a form of anarchism, and apparently doesn't think it is worth his time to ensure that socialism is represented as a form of libertarianism.  I'm sure it has nothing to do with any political bias on your part.  You have none, right?  Kev 19:00, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Who is "yourself"? "RJII" or me? RJII 19:37, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

text: I actually did suggest that all kinds of libertarianism be included in that article. But, for some reason, making this article NPOV is a lot more fun. I think you may have something to do with that. RJII 19:55, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:   I always knew you were a troll RJ, but now you give me two sentences at once that verify it.  Thanks.  Kev 20:40, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hypocrisy