Talk:Anarchism/Archive 21

message: I think we should include the Platform in the Conflicts section of this article. Either that, or in the anarcho-communism section, which is sort of dead at the moment. --Jazz Remington 17:02, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Anarcho-Communist Platform?

message: The definitional dispute about "anarchism" will never be settled, so long as there are both anarcho-socialist and anarcho-capitalist editors participating. True or false?
* True Hogeye 5 July 2005 17:01 (UTC)
* True. So I guess that means the answer is to kill all the {socialists | capitalists} (depending on your viewpoint)? *Dan* July 5, 2005 20:31 (UTC)
::If "True" is the consensus, that allows us to immediately eliminate some suggested solutions. I.e. any solution involving agreement on the definition, such as one anarchism article with italicized disambiguation at the top.  Perhaps it would eliminate all but these two possible solutions: 1) a neutral disambiguation page w/o article, or 2) unprotect and continue the edit wars.
:::There are more options than that. --albamuth 5 July 2005 22:17 (UTC)
* True CosmicV 5 July 2005 21:54 (UTC)
* False. Third party intervention or arbitration would help settle things. --albamuth 5 July 2005 22:12 (UTC)
::Tell me, Alba, what is the common ground between not anti-capitalist and anti-capitalist?  Do you really think that some moderator will come up with a definitional compromise that all will accept??? Hogeye 5 July 2005 22:27 (UTC)
:::There is no common ground. The dispute is not over finding common ground. The dispute is over the article, and how it defines anarchism. The dispute is over letting a tiny minority replace common usage terms with their neologisms. The dispute is over said group's intellectual honesty and their unyielding dogmatism. Third parties for mediation and/or arbitration are thus necessary. --albamuth 6 July 2005 03:35 (UTC)
* The dispute won't be settled, period. Anarchists have historically denied that other school of anarchism that they oppose are truly anarchism. For example, the 19th century American individualist anarchists versus the collectivist anarchists (communists and syndicalists). This whole idea of trying to arrive at a consensus is a joke. It's not going to happen. Unlock the article and let nature take its course. RJII 6 July 2005 01:31 (UTC)
::You are mistaken. What evidence have you that individualist-anarchists and the other anarchists did not get along, collaborate, and generally work together? You are trying to recharacterize the individualists as being greatly at odds with the other anarchists when in fact the differences were trivial, in the context of a social movement. --albamuth 6 July 2005 03:38 (UTC)
:::"Anarchism is a word without meaning, unless it includes the liberty of the individual to control his product or whatever his product has brought him through exchange in a free market—that is, private property. Whoever denies private property is of necessity an Archist" -Benjamin Tucker, 19th century American individualist anarchist. Tucker and other individualists in the American tradition were, and continue to be, very much opposed to the collectivist tradition and very vocal about it. RJII 7 July 2005 02:27 (UTC)
*I'm forced to question why it seems other anarch schools believe that only their "brand" of anarchism is worthy of entry and being labeled the "official" anarchism, while anarcho-capitalism is perfectly willing to allow others to call themselves anarchists and state their own opinions.  Which is closer to anarchism, I ask you?
:MSTCrow July 6, 2005 05:38 (UTC)
::  No one is claiming any official title of anarchism from what I can see.  Further, anarcho-capitalists have been had every opportunity to state their opinions both informally on the talk pages and formally on their own page and elsewhere in relevant pages.  Finally, almost all the editors believe that this page should refer to anarcho-capitalism in some fashion, including a link to their article.  The conflict is more a matter of having the anarcho-capitalists define and determine the status of the main anarchism page to reflect their own personal bias, over and above the views of all other anarchists and anarchist sub-groups, something not only in violation of wiki policy, but also not particularly "close to anarchism" imho.  Kev 6 July 2005 07:05 (UTC)
:::Kev, the anarcho-socialists partisans are claiming that anarchism is necessarily anti-capitalist, and want the official article to repeat that lie.  The anarcho-capitalists will not let them "determine the status of the main anarchism page to reflect their own personal bias." Hogeye 6 July 2005 15:23 (UTC)
::::  Anarchism is necessarily anti-capitalist.  But if you don't agree, then your position is also represented by way of the disambiguation warning, which directs all readers to other users of the word anarchism in the very first part of the article.  To give a definition that allows for the inclusion of anarcho-capitalism is POV, to give the most common use of the term historically and in modern times, while still refering to your particular ideologies pet uses, is NPOV.  Kev 6 July 2005 17:20 (UTC)
::::  Anarchism is not necessarily anti-capitalist.  But if you don't agree, then your position is also represented on the [anarchism article] by way of the disambiguation warning, which directs all readers to other users of the word anarchism in the very first part of the article.  To give a definition that allows for the exclusion of anarcho-capitalism is POV; to give the most common use of the term etymologically and by the standard definition, while still refering to your particular ideology's pet uses, is NPOV. (Tu quoque!)  Hogeye 6 July 2005 17:35 (UTC)
:::::  Using the definition of a minor sub-movement to overwrite the historical and modern usages of the word is not acceptable, this article should first and foremost deal with the usages of the word by most of the movement, and it only secondarily concerned with less significant claimants.  This is the third time you have resorting to this idiotic tactic of simply repeating what I say.  If you continue to behave like you are some belligerent child, I will refuse to attempt communication with you any longer, as you are obvious not interested in it.  Kev 6 July 2005 17:41 (UTC)
::::::Your ad hominem and straw man attacks are coming very close to disqualifying you as a responsible Wikipedia editor, Kev.
:::::::July 7, 2005 01:15 (UTC)
::::::::  I have yet to argue against a position based on the individual presenting it.  I have addressed the tendency of some individuals to engage in disruptive and rude behavior, but that is not an ad hominem.  As for straw-man attacks, please name one, and I will happily remedy it, apologise for it, or give evidence that it is not a straw-man at all.  Kev 7 July 2005 01:22 (UTC)
*TRUE All but one person think that there will never be concensus about the definition of anarchism.
::I'm not involved in this debate, but I should point out that the above edit was made by : I've blocked this user for being a probable sockpuppet of User:Hogeye (currently under a one-month block). I base my decision on the near-identical edits Danneskjold has made to this article. Any further suspected sockpuppets (either IPs or usernames) should be treated the same way. -- Hadal 04:42, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Yet Another Stupid Poll