Talk:Anarchism/Archive 26

message: I've been gone for two months, and not much has changed in the article, as far as I can tell, except for the new little section about "Issue and Movement Anarchisms". Whatever happened to the epistemological approach, drafted at Anarchism/historical? If I was the only editor inclined towards such a radical reorganization, then I'll gladly drop the idea. --albamuth 05:01, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope then we can start working on it as an eventual replacement for the current article, which is barely readable (as in large obnoxious blocks of unbroken text). --albamuth 04:16, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Whatever Happened?

message: Well, in my limited amount of Wikipedia time I alot myself, I am starting to make revisions to the epistomological historical version of the article. Can I get some votes of confidence that this is a worthwhile endeavor (that it may eventually be worthy to replace the main article with)?
* Approve - (of course) --albamuth 04:13, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Vote of Confidence for [[Anarchism/historical]]?

message: (continuing discussion from above)
Anarchists are united in their heterogeneity, if anything. I believe that the latter 20th century meme of multiculturalism has affected anarchists' acceptance of varying radical strategies within their ranks. For example, the new Crimethinc book does not shit on any one anarchist strategy but simply presents many projects and ideas in many different directions.
As I stated on Talk:Template/Anarchism, "schools" implies an institution that promotes a certain ideology, whereas there are none -- anarchism is not "taught" in any way, except via people reading books or zines or the writings of thousands of different voices. Anarchist strategies is a better way to categorize the different labels of "anarcho-communism" and "anarcho-syndicalism" or "anarcho-syndicalism". --albamuth 19:24, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Just call it "Anarchist schools of thought" then, if you're concerned people will think we're talking about educational institutions. RJII 22:37, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think even "Schools of thought" is a misnomer. Example: Because there is no officiating body that declares what anarcho-communism is or isn' t, the nuances vary between every individual that calls themself an "anarcho-communist." The gist of what I am saying is that you cannot even group motivational ideals in a way that bears coherence to the term "anarcho-communism." The only coherent way of describing the collection of writings and ideas that we call "anarcho-communism" is by similar practices/social behavior, or recommendations of a certain sort of those (in this case, forming small, collective communities, called communes). The reasons for individuals to practice or preach anarcho-communism might vary considerably (refugees from capitalist society, spiritual belief, desperation, ideological zealotry, scientific ratonalization, etc.) but the key defining and codifying signifers are simply that of praxis, not theory. --albamuth 09:00, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know about that. There are significant things that all anarcho-communists have in common, all individualist anarchists, etc. Essential things.  These schools of thought are not so nebulous that there is no reason for a distinction, if that's what you're trying to say. RJII 15:25, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The non-utility of "Schools" of anarchism

message: I thought maybe we would save ourselves from losing good edits by simply putting the historical version in. So what if there's little notes and missing sections? It's a lot better than the current article, which can be used piecewise via merging. --albamuth 17:01, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, this is an encyclopedia and it should always be presentable as one at any given time. RJII 18:06, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I have to agree with RJ on this one. I don't think it has to be in any special shape before you make the change, but I do think it has to be more-or-less complete. The historical article looks very much like what it is, a work in progress. Sarge Baldy 01:23, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's perfectly agreeable. Let's work on it, then. --albamuth 05:10, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why don't you just move pieces over when they're ready? It's kind of drastic to replace to whole thing at once with another version. RJII 20:54, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This article has needed drastic reworking for a long time. See above about the need to scrap the current mess and start over. --Bk0 23:12, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't think you can just replace it piece by piece, because the structures aren't really compatible with one another and it'll just turn into an inconsistent mess. Better to just replace the whole thing when it's at a reasonable state, and then build it from there. Sarge Baldy 23:18, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Not time for replacement with [[Anarchism/historical]]?

message: (This is a response to the message below this one)
Dammit. I just have to say something here that I am quite pissed off about.
RJII, under the claim of "fairness" or "fighting POV" you have wiped out everyone's new mods to the Anarchism section of wikipedia but yours and your friends. You don't even give any information about who you really are, but you seem to think you can rewrite or put spin on a whole movement and history. You and your cohorts have been pushing your capitalist agenda on anarchists here on Wikipeda now for months. Why dont you just leave well enough alone? You already have so many labels and so much control of the world.. Republicans, Democrats (the modern politial term "liberal" does not mean anticapitalist, you know), "Libertarian Party", objectivists, classical liberals, liberty, freedom, individualism, so many governments, so many corporations and businsses, TV stations, newspapers (all singing the praises of capitalism an saying it is synonemous with freedom, liberty, individualism, etc)... yet you're never happy .. you always have to have MORE.. and on the Internet, in every forum describing the anarchist/libertarian movements you try to make all nice sounding words and ideas point to yours, while always, like some chess game, trying to manouver us so that those of us in movements to oppose capitalism are to look bad. It suggests that the class war exists even here, n Wikipedia and you wont be satisfied unless you can rewrite any freedom-based ideas so they can't point away from your idea of "freedom". (and of course te rest of us are constrained by your language to being "against freedom".)
I do not think that a bunch of right-wing professors and such, who sit around talking chicago school economics or this and that, writing some books and proclaiming themseles "anarchists" or "anti-statists" makes it so, or even warrents mention in the anarchism section of Wikipedia. (and yes, chomsky too is a professor, but he's admitted he's a member of the ruling class, and repeatedly tells anarchists that he's simply offering his personal views, observations and opinions - he never tried to be "another bakunin") You do not participate in protests against corporate welfare, you have littele to offer the poor other than trickle-down theory or "pull up your bootstraps" Horatio Alger fantasies... you havn't physicaly put much on the line at all. While hiding behind the power of the state (the only thing that can keep private property in existance) ... while the real anarchists struggle, are jailed, or killed for their beliefs, you stuffy farts sit around in places like Princeton or your corporate "dream jobs" and think you can bequeth what a movement (that existed in its essense for centuries) "really is" is on everyone.  It isn't fair, and it isn't right, and you know it.  You keep erasing any realistic changes to the anarchism (and yes, I do believe the pro-capitalist stuff has no place there) page and then claiming anyone who goes against your wishes is commiting "vandalism", or acting like there is some idea that if anarchism is to be made up of some equal group of pro-capitalists and anti-, that this is "fair" (it is only true on paper.. huge numbers of so called "Libertarians and Von Misus institute" fans and such voted for Bush, after all.. and of course voting for the Libertarian Party means participating in the state, not to mention supporting the states private property laws.. hardly anarchism.. hardly freedom or liberty.)
Hasn't it occured to you that when Bryan Caplan wrote his "anarchist FAQ" in the 1990s, none of the actual anarchists asked him to write it, and in fact he ignored us and didn't care about our protests and objections, and when we told him about the spanish civil war (as an example of anarchism in action - he had no knowledge of it before we mentioned it to him), he chose to write a ridiculously biased smear essay, under the guise of "scholerly work" (whats so scholerly about reading one book, then writing paragraph after paragraph of politically spun opinion stating "anything the spanish libertarians did was bad and evil an a failure" ... come on.) Bryan Caplan's FAQ was hardly "fair and balanced". it was a underhanded way to write something authoritive looking (mimiking scholerly or objective writing styles but filling it with personal point of view and opinion) that blasted anarchist history full of pro-capitalist bullet holes. No self-respecting anarchist would have written such a FAQ, and how can it be accepted as any kind of authority if the anarchiss object to it, and the author makes it quite clear he absolutely hates and detests anarchists, and justifies their mass murder (by Franco, the spanish communist party, and pretty much anyone else) and uses terminology that semantecly makes it "ok" to justify state repression of anarchists while maintaining some guise of "anti-statism" as Caplan and the life repeatedly did, over and over, some becoming even more shrill after 9/11)
Why do I keep mentioning Caplan's FAQ? because the Wikipedia Anarchism entry we have now seems to be modled after nothing other than Caplan's work. You seem to be going on this assumption that some outside moral authjority sort of hangs over everything here, like a cloud (or God?), and it justifies and enforces this idea of capitalist ideologues "in the name of fairness" riddling the Anarchism entry (and related entries) with opinions, barbs, lines like "not everyone aggrees" or "not neccesarily so" (any other scholerly work would be laughed off the table if it were full of such Point-Of-View, ideologically driven crap.)
And on top of this... if you have so much of a right to claim the word "anarchism" as in any way related to capitalism, then why dont the "libertarians" in the US also admit that the word "libertarian" is disputed and modify what they call themselves?  Are you really for "Fairness" and "balance" and a "lack of POV", or is it only when it doesnt go in your favor, mr. RJII?
Radical Mallard Tue Nov 22 18:42:34 EST 2005
---
Just a note to everyone that any edits they make to this article are apparently going to be wiped out if the few people working the Anarchism/historical article have their way. They plan on wiping out this article and moving that article over here. I'm not so sure that's a good idea. I've looked at this article as a work in progress that's been in a gradual state of improvement. To just discard it and replace it with an article 2 or 3 people have worked on doesn't make much sense. It also seems inconsiderate of those who are editing this article. RJII 05:59, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, let's replace the page now to minimize the number of lost edits made by casual visitors. --Bk0 17:30, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

text: All your edit are belong to us! *Dan T.* 17:45, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The best approach I think is to open both articles side by side, compare similar sub-sections, then merge the bits from anarchism into anarchism/historical sub-section by sub-section, until the historical version is sufficiently caught up to the main article. Unfortunately, though I have been the main advocate of this strategy, I have been really really busy lately (working 50 hrs/week (I'm a carpenter), 15 hours of night classes a week, homework, people visting, etc.) so I really hope if people are into this restructuring work as I am, you ppl can pick up my slack! --albamuth 07:11, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: All your edits will be wiped out by RJII

message: in the article you say: "Direct democracy (majority rule) is considered another form of authority and thus "authoritarian.""
but that's a mistake. you can see it's a mistake in this link that is from the ANARCHIST FAQ. what do you say? 85.250.187.194 14:09, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like what you say is right for collectivist anarchists. I know individualist anarchists don't like democracy. RJII 14:57, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: even if it's right only for collectivists, than it's still a mistake to put it in one of the first paragraphs, as if it's something that all anarchists agree with. 85.250.187.194 15:51, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I think the more specific you get in trying to generalize what an anarchist is, the more you realize that anarchists as a whole have very little in common. RJII 16:20, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Yeah, I think it's a mistake as well. Anarchists tend to believe that anarchism is democracy and that what we call "democratic systems" do not represent people equally. My own complaint is that democratic systems tend to reduce people's ideas/values/struggles to a simple numerical system, a "yes/no" sort of ideal that completely eliminates all critical thought. I don't know if this is a common critique amongst anarchists or not though. Sarge Baldy 15:01, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Most anarchists believe in direct democracy mixed with limitations on how much society can intertfere in individual's lives.-- Revolutionary Left |  Che y Marijuana 01:18, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: direct democracy

message: Although it is mentioned in brief on the Anarchism and society page, there is currently no article that deals with the widespread social experimentation with [small 'a'] anarchism (popular assemblies, occupied factories, strikes, autonomy, direct action, cooperativism, etc...) in Argentina following the 2001 economic crash.
The article covering the events is currently titled December 2001 riots (Argentina) and it looks like it might have been written by the World Bank :P
Que se vayan todos doesn't even get a shoutout.
So if anyone has any spare time, this is a really important section that is missing.
Nihila 13:57, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  2001 Argentine uprising 

message: I think the approach of this page now is excellent, but it really needs some work to get it up to standard - and with a bit more urgency now it's become the main page.
I put a note on the anarchism/historical discussion page a few days back with a kind of proposal for moving forward on this. As no one answered yet I thought I'd just start doing it that way - if people aren't happy with my approach, we can just revert it all anyway I suppose.
Below is what I wrote before. As you might see though I've changed the order slightly as I've been doing it in practice.
:I really like the feel and the look of this new page, but at the same time it seems to be getting pretty muddled. Have been sitting looking at it for a while trying to think of ways to help straighten it out, and thinking maybe we need to - not dumb down but inject a shot of simplicity. I can see people don't want to introduce a timeline of famous characters, but perhaps it'd help to be more linear in terms of the development of ideas. I.e., follow a stricter chronology in terms of sub-head topics and within each one.
:Eg. at the moment we jump from godwin and proudhon to the florence congress then back to the ego and its own. And within private property section have the (20th century) platform then next para starts 'later in the 19th century'.
:As a suggestion - what about:
:1) first agree on the discussion page an ordered list of subheaded topics
:2) within each subhead use a strictly chronological approach.
:As my clumsy stab at an ordered list of subheads:
:godwin and proudhon - birth of modern anarchism.
:private property - starting with proudhon's 'what is property'
:individualism
:(you know i'm not sure about including russian nihilism at all as a section - it is very country-specific, and not exclusively anarchist history by any means - eg. could argue as well that SR party was true successor of nihilist movement)
:the international - development of anarchism as libertarian tendency within working class movement
:propaganda of the deed / insurrectionary anarchism (don't these two belong together?)
:pacifist anarchism - debates around violence (would also mention debates over 1st world war here) - tolstoy
:syndicalism
:feminism
:russian revolution - the platform
:anti-fascism - spanish civil war
:I think looking at my schema I would tend to work more around historical events and movements, and the way ideas fed off actions, more than as it currently is. I don't think this is a bad thing in a historical account - to situate anarchism within working class revolutionary history rather than as if ideas are are born in the air.
Bengalski 14:34, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Great edits! --albamuth 06:06, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: working on history of anarchism section

message: This page has been temporarily locked from editing for 3RR/edit war problems. Please resolve any disputes here, on the talk page. Thank you. Voice of all 20:52, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm? This article has been fairly calm. I would strongly agree with Bk0's suspicion that "PlayersPlace" is a Hogeye sockpuppet, based on this user's record and the very limited history of this new "user". There was a clear vote of support for the historical version, and even if the poll does not suggest immediately replacement, there hasn't been any opposition outside of Hogeye (and "PlayersPlace"), and things have been progressing on the article. Sarge Baldy 21:34, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll keep it locked for today, and unlock tommorow, if sockpuppets want to revert again, then they will likely get 3RR punishment or get blocked for Disruption. Voice of all 21:45, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So you accuse me of being a sockpuppet and threaten to block me knowing good and well that you have absolutely no evidence to back that up. Some administrator you are. Wikipedia is a joke if youre allowed to get away with that. PlayersPlace 00:18, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected 

message: So the situation seems to be that every once in awhile someone cleans up the external link section because it has grown too massive, only to have people casually visit and throw a link to their-prefered-website(tm) and have it grow huge once more.  I figure that rather than constantly deleting links that may actually have some relevance, it seems reasonable to be to cut down on the size and edits by moving the vast majority of external links to a separate page, in addition to my recent efforts to move them to pages specifically address their topic.  I've done this now, being very strict and only leaving those links which appeared to apply to no specific submovement, region, topic, or obscure forum with three people typing back and forth.  I've also brought in some links that were on this page at various times in the past.  I encourage everyone with a few moments to spare to visit that page and add whatever external link clutter your heart desires.  Revkat 21:32, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well nevermind, the page was speedily deleted for not conforming to wikipedia policy.  Of course, it is rigidity in wikipedia policy that has continued to allow this page to deteriorate, with several admins unwilling to approach RfCs that arose from this page due to its "unstable nature".  So now the letter of the policy is being followed in order to ensure that the spirit is destroyed, "Mere collections of external links or Internet directories. There is nothing wrong with adding a list of content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia."  Which is exactly what will continue to happen to this article if something isn't done.  As such, I'm standing by the removal of the links, almost all of which are already replicated several times on other pages.  Revkat 22:09, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:   Heh, all fixed now, move along =)  Revkat 05:50, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: I would like to protest the state of the earth article on wikipedia.  It is clearly a violation of NPOV policy that the article gives no links to "flat earth" and worse, indicates that the planet is sometimes called "terra".  The only way to make that article neutral is to allow for a definition of earth that includes all possible claimants.  For example, it should mention how god moved on the surface of the water before forming the earth , as is written in genesis, and the fact that the earth rests on a turtle, , as so many cultures have believed for so long.  In particular, I object to this vague notion of "terra".  You will notice that nowhere in Ms Encarta, Columbia Encyclopedia, or Britannica do you see any mention of this "terra" concept.  It is POV to include "terra" when not all philosophies refer to earth as "terra", and this term is exceedinly vague, (www.m-w.com) "any of the relatively light-colored highland areas on the surface of the moon or a planet".  I mean, it doesn't even state which planet is being refered to.  Yet, despite this, the earth is refered to as "terra" in the very first sentence of the wikipedia article!
And please don't talk to me about "reasonable compromise" or putting issues in perspective.  We must absolutely conform to the ideals of NPOV as I interpret them, POV warriors like myself are required to ensure that articles like "earth" remain balanced.  Revkat 17:12, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So hop to it if you think that article is POV. Don't bother us here about it. RJII 17:25, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:   I ask only that you join me in this righteous crusade.  After all, you said, " I for one am not willing to sell-out the NPOV standards so easily."  So you must be as ready as I am to tackle this issue on any page, be it the earth article, the libertarianism article, or this one.  Please, don't defile our pure intentions by focusing on only one article and one presentation (that happens to conflict with your preconceptions) at the expense of all of wikipedia.  Join me in our struggles my friend, show that you are sincere in your professed beliefs!  Revkat 18:04, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't patronize me. RJII 18:35, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:   I'm only trying to help you RJ.  If I point out how inconsistent your expressed ideals are from your actions, then maybe you will learn to better mask your actual intentions so that your insincerity isn't so evident.  18:51, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Actually, the Earth article does have the passage "...In the past there were varying levels of belief in a flat Earth...", complete with a Wikilink to "flat Earth". *Dan T.* 17:56, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:   Saying that this is enough would be as silly as suggesting that a warning made at the very top of the article and pointing directly to anarcho-capitalism is enough.  Nonsense, we flat earthers must change every sentence in the article refering to "sphere"s or "planet"s for NPOV to be maintained!  Revkat 18:04, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Take it to Earth, Kevehs. RJII 18:17, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:   I'm revkat, but I'd be happy to switch back to kevehs if you agree to stop being a hypocrit.  Revkat 18:51, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

text:   Who here is trying to prove that anarchism refers only to left-wing anarchism?  Revkat 18:34, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Round Earth POV 

message: Just noting I'm putting an NPOV tag on the article because the article is biased toward left anarchism. And, anarcho-capitalism is being censored. RJII 02:10, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed it. Perhaps we should create a special template called NRJPOV : Not RJ's Point-of-View. --albamuth 07:30, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That constitutes vandalism. RJII 12:52, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, don't remove the tag. Sarge Baldy 18:21, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV tag

message: RJ has been doing soem very selective quoting to try and make Proudhon into an an-cap. But I think he does raise an underlying point that needs addressing - Proudhon did later on give some different views about property which seem inconsistent with 'What is property.'
The way I see it is this (I don't claim to be an expert on the subject, but I think I'm closer to the truth than RJ): 
- Proudhon's views in What is Property are fairly clear, as we have on the page
- Later on he changed his views to something which can no longer be called anarchism, or even ancapism for that matter
- So: In the context of an article on anarchism, we should focus on his early view as this is what has been taken up by later thinkers and the movement.
- But, as with Godwin, we can mention that he later moved away. I think this only needs to be a brief mention - this is a page about anarchism not Proudhon as such, and the details can be taken up on the Proudhon page.
I put a long post on the proudhon page going into the details of my doubts about RJ's quotes and his interpretation of Proudhon.
Bengalski 13:05, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm doing no such thing. Proudhon is not an anarcho-capitalist and is definitely not compatible with anarcho-capitalism. Proudhon subscribed to the labor theory of value. Anarcho-capitalists don't. The former leaves no room for profit while the latter does. But, both support individual ownership of the produce of their labor. In ordinary terms that's private property --that which an individual owns as opposed to a collective pool (which is why the anarcho-communists condemned Proudhon). What essentially makes Proudhon incompatible with capitalism is his opposition to profit. Private property, while necessary for capitalism, is not sufficient for capitalism. Hence, his preferred economic system called mutualism (economic theory) (aka as market anarchism). Here is a decent article on his position:   "Proudhon was not against private property-his famous statement that "property is robbery" simply meant that privilege was robbery, that property had come to mean not only mere possession but monopoly privileges. The private property of privilege called forth and commanded the State and the government and, in order actually to establish free competition, free trade, and free contract, the government itself, instrument of privilege and monopoly must be abolished." RJII 13:18, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Don't think that I'm trying to push a POV by being bring forth "selective" quotes. It's of no consequences to me one way or the other whether Proudhon advocated the abolition of government. It's merely intellectual curiosity. I believe I'm satisfied from the quotes you provided on the Proudhon page, that early on he did advocate the abolition of government before he turned minarchist. RJII 05:08, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Proudhon

message: Not sure about this section, which is mainly one long quote. Don't know much about it though so I've left it alone. Should this be expanded, or merged with something else? How do we link it historically to the other sections? Wolfi Landstreicher on his page is described as 'a contemporary anarchist theorist' - so should this be moved into contemporary anarchism?Bengalski 17:30, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not really article-worthy, as it is more like a term than description of any movement. You could call anything "insurrectionary", ie. insurrectionary communism. --albamuth 07:54, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Insurrectionary anarchism is definitely a distinct trend within the larger milieu. In this context it is not merely an adjective such as radical. Nihila 03:24, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

text: We're getting into the hair-splitting territory of post-revolutionary theory (eg, anarcho-syndicalism vs anarcho-communism) and pre-revolutionary tactical and strategic debate. "Insurrectionary anarchism" is not mutually exclusive to any so-called "school" of anarchism (except the obviously non-anarchist Rothbardites, but nevermind about that for now...), rather it is about emphasizing the act of insurrection as a key revolutionary strategy. Insurrectionary anarchism is as much a reaction against milquetoast liberal-influenced activist politics (which talk revolution but don't do much else) as it is a "school". There is no dichotomy. --Bk0 (Talk) 04:11, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Insurrectionary anarchism

message: Albamuth and Bengalski have been removing the NPOV tag I placed there. An NPOV tag is not supposed to be removed unless the POV issue is settled. This article was NPOV a few weeks ago, but not anymore now that a few are trying to censor and ostracize anarcho-capitalism as if it's not a "popular intepretation" of anarchism. Do not remove the tag until the POV issue is settled. RJII 18:27, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Vandalistic removal? User:RJII and User:Hogeye, both of which have refused mediation, arbitration, and in the latter user's case, was banned for repeated vandalism, are the only editors pushing for the NPOV tag. Both have repeatedly made edits in bad faith, both have time and time again tried to use disproven arguments, and both have been unrelentlying/uncompromising in their positions. There is no need for an NPOV tag as long as their edits are kept out of the article. --albamuth 20:33, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Just noting for the record that the above comment was made in bad faith. As for the contents of the claim, I don't edit in bad faith. I don't try to use disproven arguments. I took part in extensive discussion in the last so-called "mediation."  One claim is true, however. I am utterly uncompromising on NPOV standards. Don't expect me to compromise that. It will never happen. RJII 20:42, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Archive_17#Anarchism "The above is a misrepresentation of me and my position. Do not make anymore false claims about me. And, I do not wish to participate in this mediation. Thank you. RJII 20:29, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I participated in the most recent "mediation." I didn't participate in that mediation because you misrepresnted me. I don't trust you and I won't mediate with someone who I think acts in bad faith. RJII 21:26, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ironic that you say I misrepresented you, when the claim I was making was that you were misrepresenting yourself! --albamuth 07:55, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalistic removal of NPOV tag

message: Any version of the article which defines certain schools of anarchist thought out of existence is POV.  Currently there is instability in the article due to alternately defining communism and capitalism as non-anarchist.  The Schelling point is the NPOV article we had before the socialist-only so-called "historical article" overwrote it. I intend to use a forgiving tit-for-tat strategy - responding to a socialist-only move with a capitalist-only move, but occasionally responding with the NPOV article to see if the 'other side' is willing to compromise with that. This strategy has worked before here at Wiki.  Hogeye 18:50, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV versions - Tit for Tat 

message: Albamuth, you deleted my changes in the individualist anarchism section with the explanation "purposeful misconstruing of individualism." Aside from your pathetic claim of bad faith on my part, what specifically was wrong with the edits? RJII 20:46, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You continue to use the adjective "collectivist" to describe non-individualists. This term creates a false dichotomy, suggesting that the individualist-anarchists were somehow estranged from their contemporaries -- that is, other anarchists. Since we have discussed this point in so much detail before, trying to reinsert this language at this point not only ignores all of the past discussions, but illustrates your unwillingness to accept consensus. "Purposeful misconstruing" is part of your POV campaigning, which is why I reverted it. --albamuth 21:06, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So because of that one word you wiped out all the edits? How ludicrious. More vandalistic behavior on your part. And, I am not ignoring "past discussion." Whether individualists are "enstranged" or not is not the point. The fact is, individualism contrasts with collectivism. Use the term "anarcho-communism" if you want; I don't care. But, it needs to be said what makes individualist anarchists NOT anarcho-communists. Don't wipe out a whole set of edits because you oppose one word. Your're out of line. Edit like a responsible editor. RJII 21:23, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It was only a few sentences, ones I felt were corollary to the usage of that term. Nonetheless, the article is actually looking pretty good (right now). Moving on, what issues are preventing the NPOV tag from being removed, in your opinion? --albamuth 06:13, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Mainly, the exclusion of capitalist anarchism from the article. The notion that one has to stick to the labor theory of value to be an anarchist is ludicrous. We as editors should not pick and choose what is or isn't true anarchism. For the article to be NPOV it must present all philosophies that represent themselves as a form of anarchism. The article was NPOV before, before "historial" article was imported as an attempt to censor anarcho-capitalism. That the article is supposed to be "historical" is even more reason to include anarcho-capitalism. Anarcho-capitalism happened, with the migration to the idea that value is subjective rather than intrinsic. Anarcho-capitalism can't be ignored. RJII 06:25, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see how it has anything to do with "sticking" to the labor theory of value. Postanarchism for one vehemently rejects that model, and post-left probably does as well. In fact, in my understanding of anarchist communism it rejects it as well, which is why it shies away from Marx and proposes a gift economy incompatible with traditional socialism or capitalism. Sarge Baldy 06:34, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Anarcho-communists do accept to the labor theory of value. That's how they justify their opposition to profit. They choose another route than the individualists to prevent profit --the abolition of wages, private property, and trade. RJII 06:40, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I did not introduce the historical epistemology approach to censor A/C, but because many people reflected the sentiment that the segmenting of the article into "schools" was misrepresentative. For the record, I never deleted the section on A/C from the article. Chronologically, I think it would fit between the section on Feminism and Punk Rock, but that might even be a bit early. Nobody (I mean people other than Rothbard) even started using the term "anarcho-capitalism" until about 5 years ago, as far as I know. --albamuth 06:35, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I understand Rothbard coined the term "anarcho-capitalism," but he referred to it "private property anarchism" (as did Hoppe). The term "anarcho-capitalism" was in use in at least in the late 1960's or early 1970's: "the  term  'anarcho-capitalist'  is now in use in the USA - particularly amongst those  who  contribute  to  the  Los   Angeles   publication 'Libertarian  Connection'." (A Critique of Anarchist Communism by Ken Knudson 1971) Also, some historians consider a few individuals in the 1800's as advocating anarcho-capitalism, such as Gustave Molinari and Julius Faucher. RJII 06:52, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Albamuth on individualist anarchism

message: The intro says anarchists oppose "capitalist ownership of the means of production." What does that mean? RJII 05:13, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What does it mean to you? --albamuth 06:29, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't mean anything to me. I'm guessing that someone is trying to say private ownership of the means of production but I'm not sure. If so, then it needs to be more explicit. Throwing the words "capitalist" and "capitalism" around randomly isn't very commmunicative. RJII 06:35, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: To me, it makes sense. Somebody who owns the means of production and is trying to capitalize on it is a capitalist. Using that phrasing does not exclude, say, individualist-anarchists, for which owning the means of production doesn't mean exploiting the workers, as a capitalist would. --albamuth 06:39, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Then it's vague. It should say something like "operating the means of production for profit." But, I'll delete it anyway, because it falsely holds that anarcho-capitalists aren't anarchists. RJII 06:59, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: How is it vague? People know what capitalism is, and therefore what a capitalist is. If they don't, they can look it up via the wiki-link. Anarcho-capitalists are not anarchists, which you would realize if you care to read the last billion words in these talk archives. As it is, I feel like I'm arguing with the main character in "Memento". --albamuth 07:49, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Anarcho-capitalists are indeed anarchists. They oppose all forms of government. They believe all interaction should be voluntary. That makes them anarchists. RJII 23:08, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Just noting I deleted that anarchists oppose "capitalist ownership of means of production" since anarcho-capitalists don't oppose it. Also deleted that anarchists oppose profit. That's not true for all anarchists either. And, I deleted that anarchists oppose rent --even some of the classical individualists don't oppose rent. RJII 23:34, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: capitalist ownership of the means of production

message: Should we use the french title Nouveaux voyages dans l'Amérique septentrionale or the english title New Voyages to North America?  Both versions were printed in 1703.
On another note, this quote from the preface of New Voyages is relevant to Anarchy:
:to the Reader, whom I pray the Heavens to Crown him with Prosperity, in preserving him from having any business to adjust with most of the Ministers of State, and Priests; for let them be never so faulty, they'll still be said to be in the right, till such time as Anarchy be introduc'd among us, as well as the Americans, among whom the sorryest fellow thinks himself a better Man, than a Chancellor of France. These People are happy in being screen'd from the tricks and shifts of Ministers, who are always Masters where-ever they come. I envy the state of a poor Savage, who tramples upon laws, and pays homage to no Scepter. I wish I could spend the rest of my Life in his Hutt, and so be no longer expos'd to the chagrin of bending the knee to a set of Men, that sacrifice the publick good to their private interest, and are born to plague honest Men. 
-- jaredwf 00:24, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Voyages to North America by Louis Armand

message: Why do a few editors insist on the definition of anarchism to be opposition to "social hierarchy" but cannot provide even one source that defines anarchism this way? Source after source that I've seen defines anarchism as opposition to all forms of government to be replaced with a voluntary society. RJII 16:38, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: definition of anarchism is wrong

message: If we have to take out terms that are 'vague' or have disputed meanings we should probably start with all uses of 'coercive' and 'voluntary'.Bengalski 11:42, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hear Hear! What hypocrisy is contained there within.. RJII goes around for months creating articles vague and non-notable/almost unused concepts  and then starts to deny social hierarchy or the idea of hierarchy in society .. Paaah! -max rspct 12:54, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  The fact that some anarchists do not know what "social hierarchy" (a well-understood term in social science) means is not ipso facto a reason for not using it. But perhaps its use should wait until it has a good Wikipedia entry, so that people who don't know what it means can find out. VoluntarySlave 19:19, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If opposition to "social hierarchy" is so essential to defining anarchism then one has to wonder why the term is not mentioned in other encyclopedias out there ..from the Encyclopedia Britannica 1910 (which anarchists seem to have so much respect for) to the modern Encyclopedia Britannica, to MS Encarta Encyclopedia, to Columbia Encyclopedia, etc. Maybe they're not using it for the same reason ..it's so vague that it can mean pretty much anything. RJII 19:38, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding Vague Terms