Talk:Anarchism/Archive 32

message: "There are also open source programming communities, who donate their time and offer their product for free. Examples include Usenet, the free software movement (including the GNU/Linux community and the wiki paradigm), and Indymedia."
Free software is not an example of open source, and vice versa. Open source is pratical, free software is ideological.
* Free Software can be seen as a subset of open source: Using your words, Free Software is both practical and ideological, while Open Source is only practical.  Or, in other words, the difference is that the philosophy behind the Open Source movement is that GPL is practical, while the philosophy behind the Free Software movement is that GPL is ethical.
--Erik 21:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ?? Most free software is not open source. Hogeye 22:00, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Open Source

message: * Anarchism: Left, Right and Green by Ulrike Heider (San Francisco: City Lights Books, 1994). Heider says that there are three broad categories of anarchism: Left anarchism is anarcho-syndicalism and communism, Anarcho-capitalism is right anarchism, and then there's Green anarchism. RJII 05:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now we're getting somewhere. Do you have a quote and page number? --AaronS 01:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Anarcho-capitalism currently exists as 1 of 3 schools of anarchism, opposed to syndicalism and communism, as suggested in Hogeye's "Chart of influences"

message: :What do you mean by "school of anarchist thought"? RJII 05:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment: this is disputed. Dictionary definitions are not enough. --AaronS 01:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment: not true. Anarcho-capitalists support states which are legitimate property owners. --AaronS 01:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

text: By "school" I mean an important, significant, consistent, and generally-recognized body of thought. --AaronS 01:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Anarcho-capitalism is a school of anarchist thought, as suggested by Hogeye's edits in the anarchism template

message: **"THE classic land for the efflorescence and experimentations of bourgeois Liberal-Anarchism was America. If bourgeois Anarchism called for free land, free capital, free labor, and free exchange, what country could appear more favorable than the United States? (*1) Indeed, in a country where Liberalism could afford to appear as Radicalism, could there be a sharp line drawn between Liberalism and Liberal- Anarchism? The conditions of American life not only had forced men into a certain pattern of individualism, but had also compelled them to idealize this individualism and to make it an end in itself. It was in the United States that the development of State versus Individual had reached its sharpest point. Liberalism and Liberal-Anarchism could well blend into one another." (American Liberal Anarchism from The Conquest of Power by Albert Weisbord) RJII 02:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Individualist anarchism is also known as "liberal anarchism", as suggested by the heading of the subsection, or that they are in any way equivalent

message: # I think that the intro (and/or definition) should include a reference to the fact that most anarchists consider opposition to capitalism (and in fact all authority in general) to be an integral part of anarchist philosophy(ies). The Ungovernable Force 04:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's judging Proudhon's character and personality, not his writings. Wikipedia does not do that. --AaronS 01:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Disputes

message: Ok, here I am looking for: 1. Sources that state most anarchists consider opposition to capitalism (and in fact all authority in general) to be an integral part of anarchist philosophy, 2. Sources that state any philosophy which holds the state to be an unnecessary evil is a form of anarchism, regardless of economic preference, 3. Sources that state Anarcho-Capitalism is very little more than an obscure philosophy with little influence on any significant mass movements or ideas, unlike anti-capitalist anarchism which has held a visible position as a political movement
Please attempt to find sources from reasonably impartial sources. Encyclopaedias, dictionaries of political philosophy, textbooks etc. Feel free to provide sources of varying ages. A range would be good. - FrancisTyers 15:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment: This fails to qualify as saying anarchism is opposed to capitalism. The quote above does not address the definition of anarchism at all; it reports what some (unspecified) anarchists think. Hogeye 22:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bullocks. What is the difference in meaning between 'anarchism' and 'the anarchists'?Bengalski 14:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Comment: This fails to qualify as saying anarchism is opposed to capitalism. The quote above does not address the definition of anarchism at all; it reports what some (unspecified) anarchists think. Hogeye 22:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditto.Bengalski 14:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Comment: As we saw in Wikiquote, Bakunin was one of a small minority of theorists who defined anarchism as socialist. Most other theorists - even the socialist ones - did not define anarchism so narrowly. Hogeye 22:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The point here is that encyclopedia is taking Bakunin's statement as representative.Bengalski 14:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Note: This source does not say anarchism is opposed to capitalism; its says there are two schools of socialism, one anarchist.  There are also two schools of capitalism, minarchist and anarchist. That of course does not imply that all anarchists are capitalist. Hogeye 22:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

text: This is a rather weak source - it's a glossery from a sample curriculum for teaching secondary school students about Emma Goldman. It doesn't even use Emma's own broad definition of anarchism! Hogeye 22:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Note he said "might." RJII 19:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: Encyclopedias (freely available on the net)
*1910 EB: (note: article written by anarchist P. Kropotkin) 
"As to their economical conceptions, the anarchists, in common with all socialists, of whom they constitute the left wing, maintain that the now prevailing system of private ownership in land, and our capitalist production for the sake of profits, represent a monopoly which runs against both the principles of justice and the dictates of utility"
:Comment: This fails to qualify as saying anarchism is opposed to capitalism. The quote above does not address the definition of anarchism at all; it reports what some (unspecified) anarchists think. Hogeye 22:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bullocks. What is the difference in meaning between 'anarchism' and 'the anarchists'?Bengalski 14:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Comment: This fails to qualify as saying anarchism is opposed to capitalism. The quote above does not address the definition of anarchism at all; it reports what some (unspecified) anarchists think. Hogeye 22:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditto.Bengalski 14:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Comment: As we saw in Wikiquote, Bakunin was one of a small minority of theorists who defined anarchism as socialist. Most other theorists - even the socialist ones - did not define anarchism so narrowly. Hogeye 22:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The point here is that encyclopedia is taking Bakunin's statement as representative.Bengalski 14:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Note: This source does not say anarchism is opposed to capitalism; its says there are two schools of socialism, one anarchist.  There are also two schools of capitalism, minarchist and anarchist. That of course does not imply that all anarchists are capitalist. Hogeye 22:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

text: This is a rather weak source - it's a glossery from a sample curriculum for teaching secondary school students about Emma Goldman. It doesn't even use Emma's own broad definition of anarchism! Hogeye 22:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  1) Sources saying anarchism is opposed to capitalism

message: Onelook
Wikisource definitions: 
Suggestion: I think we should put all relevant definitions and citations directly on this page. Then we have all the evidence gathered here, and can discuss particular sources individually. I have moved general discussion below.Bengalski 10:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  2) Sources saying anarchism is anti-statism regardless of economic position 

message: The burden of proof should be on notability. I can't list any sources that say that my pet dog isn't notable... that doesn't mean he his. Just my thoughts on it though. --FluteyFlakes88 03:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note he said "might." RJII 19:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  3) Sources saying anarcho-capitalism is not (notable in) anarchism 

message: Encyclopedias (freely available on the net)
*MS Encarta Encyclopedia (UK version): "The American Benjamin Tucker (1854-1939) believed that maximum individual liberty would be assured where the free market was not hindered or controlled by the State and monopolies. The affairs of society would be governed by myriad voluntary societies and cooperatives, by, as he aptly put it, “un-terrified” Jeffersonian democrats, who believed in the least government possible. Since World War II this tradition has been reborn and modified in the United States as anarcho-capitalism or libertarianism." .RJII 02:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  4) Sources saying anarcho-capitalism ''is'' notable in anarchism 

message: :I think 'impartiality' here needs discussion. Particularly on point three - I don't think anyone is interested in anarcho-capitalism except ancaps, perhaps their right-libertarian allies, and anarchists fuming against them.
:And on the other points, most of the recognised histories and texts on anarchism I know of are written by anarchists. I think we need to include here as impartial to our dispute any anarchist thinkers and historians who are recognised as anarchists by all parties.Bengalski 18:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Impartiality

message: I think we have to very careful here how we use dictionary definitions. 1)I am not saying they are not relevant at all, but it is a big leap from 'we should consider how dictionaries define the term anarchism' to 'we can deduce everything about what is essential to anarchism, or who is an anarchist, from dictionary definitions'. 2)We have to remember context - if a point about anarchism has rarely, and only recently, been disputed then it is not surprising it isn't explicitly dealt with in a brief definition.Bengalski 19:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: value of 'definitions'

message: Wikipedia, and the net in general, suffers from a systematic bias (concentration of rich white anglophone geek editors) []. This is by no means unrelated to the unnaturally high presence of anarcho-capitalists.
The article needs to reflect what anarchism means in the world as a whole, not just the english language internet. In particular, we have to make an effort to bring in sources from other languages, countries and continents.Bengalski 10:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice, you insult other editors as "geeks." RJII 16:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed. There's a strong internal bias towards the United States, the upper middle class, males, and of course English speakers from English-speaking countries. I find some of the differences interesting between the English version of this article and the German one, which for instance has a list of "Other, newer or partially disputed forms of anarchism" which includes right libertarianism, anarcho-capitalism, anarcha-feminism, post-anarchism, "situationism" [sic], and "pogo-anarchism" (see Anarchist Pogo Party of Germany). Not that I particularly like this list (I don't know who would disclude anarcha-feminism), but it's interesting to see how it's not always so cut and dry. Sarge Baldy 16:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Take a look at the Italian Wiki.  Anarcho-capitalism has its own section and nobody is arguing over whether it's a form of anarchism; it's just accepted as a matter of fact. Anarcho-capitalism is actually relatively popular in Italy. There are a lot of anarcho-capitalists theorists there. Here's an ancap website in Italy:  The notion that you're trying to put across that anarcho-capitalism is restricted to the english-speaking is false. It's popular everywhere. I suppose you're going to dismiss it by attacking them as "geeks" though, right? RJII 17:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Some of my best friends are geeks.Bengalski 18:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

text: The French article  says (excusing my poor translation) that "For all the libertarian socialists [libertarian, libertarian socialist, and anarchist are used interchangeably here], currents such as national anarchism, anarcho-capitalism, and the "anarchism of the right-hand side" [- apparently an anti-state "tendency" inclusive of conservative moral and social values] are rejected, with the ideas of these movements being considered external to that of political and historical anarchism, nor sharing any common relation with them, and even are considered as being in ideological opposition. The majority also estimate that they wrongly employ the term "anarchism". The anarcho-capitalists also reject national anarchism and the "anarchism of the right-hand side". Sarge Baldy 20:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: systematic bias

message: Wikisource definitions: Very few define anarchism in regard to any given economic system. Various anarchists have various ideas for economic systems in anarchy and opposition to various systems, but few define anarchism itself in regard to an economic system. RJII 19:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What the hell are you talking about? Those are directly quoted definitions of anarchism. And, no I have had no part in "dominating" that article. You are really going off the deep end. RJII 02:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: wikiquote page

message: Please refrain from commenting below for the meanwhile. - FrancisTyers 15:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Some possible policy

message: Feel free to suggest possible compromises below. Please keep discussion out of this section. - FrancisTyers 15:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Some possible compromises

message: Feel free to add suggestions and comments about the article in its current form. Please keep discussion to the discussion area. I've numbered the list to it makes it easy to refer to. - FrancisTyers 15:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, these people are not anarchists they are fascists. As I think you well know.Bengalski 20:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can't have fascism without a state. Fascism is the sacrifice of the individual for the state. It's collectivism enforced. "a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition" -Merriam-Webster "For if the nineteenth century was a century of individualism it may be expected that this [the 20th century] will be the century of collectivism and hence the century of the State." -Mussolini ""If classical liberalism spells individualism, Fascism spells government." -Mussolini  RJII 20:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I already gave you one for anarcho-capitalism --Carl Levy. RJII 20:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: General suggestions and comments

message: I would suggest that ongoing discussions not be archived, as it tends to make it difficult to communicate. Sarge Baldy 21:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry. I'll paste them all back, if you'd like. The page was getting to be so big, however, that my computer couldn't really handle it while editing. --AaronS 21:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do - or at least the stuff that was part of the ongoing mediation. It's fine to archive discussions that are done with but not ones in train - we'll just end up repeating it all again. I thought we were making progress on presenting sources and discussion in the structure suggested by the mediator. Now that's all wiped away and we're starting from scratch.Bengalski 15:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving discussion 

message: I'm sorry, but I just came across this quote on the page for the Ludwig von Mises Institute (we were talking about it related to the source RJII provided):
:Rothbard blamed much of what he disliked on meddling women. In the mid-1800s, a "legion of Yankee women" who were "not fettered by the responsibilities" of household work "imposed" voting rights for women on the nation. Later, Jewish women, after raising funds from "top Jewish financiers," agitated for child labor laws, Rothbard adds with evident disgust. The "dominant tradition" of all these activist women, he suggests, is lesbianism.
Rothbard doesn't sound like much of an anarchist to me, regardless of economic ideas. The Ungovernable Force 03:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sorta Related

message: Here are the mentions of anarcho-capitalism on the fr.wiki page, translated by me, probably badly, feel free to improve the translation if you're better at French than me.
Also, cool picto of striking anarchists in New York :Image:Anarchistes914.jpg - FrancisTyers 17:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, I just translated this above. Didn't notice someone else got to it. But yeah, the most important thing I see that's misleading is what you translate as "right anarchism" is a stateless philosophy that supports conservative moral values (and doesn't yet seem to have an article on en.wikipedia). Sarge Baldy 21:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: fr.wiki

message: Perhaps the best so far, that (as per discussion) ducks giving a specific definition but gives the range, was this one:
:Anarchism derives from the Greek αναρχία ("without archons (rulers)"). Thus anarchism, in its most general  meaning, is the belief that rulers are unnecessary and should be abolished. Anarchism refers to various political philosophies and related social movements that advocate the elimination of authoritarian institutions and relationships. There is often disagreement about the meaning of "authoritarian." The state is universally seen by anarchists as an unnecessary evil that must be abolished, but other things - such as economic relationships - provoke intense controversy. In place of centralized political structures and coercive economic institutions, anarchists advocate social relations based upon voluntary association of autonomous individuals and self-governance.
Hogeye 17:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro 1st paragraph 

message: So far we have this evidence for the broad definition ("regardless of economic system") of anarchism:
* Virtually all dictionaries
* Most encyclopedias
* Most theorists, even the anarcho-socialist ones. Definitions of anarchism on Wikiquote
* Quotes by Weisbord, Hart, Roepke, Rothbard, Benjamin Tucker, and Tormey specifically saying that anarcho-capitalism (or "liberal anarchism) is a form of anarchism. Thanks, RJ!
So far we have this evidence for the narrow ("anti-capitalist") definition:
* Two encyclopedias - New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia & Dictionary of the History of Ideas. According to the latter, individualist anarchism is also not anarchism!
* Two theorists defined it as necessarily socialist: Bakunin and Guerin.
:You forgot Chomsky, Malatesta and Woodcock Definitions of anarchism on Wikiquote
Hogeye 22:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  So far... 

message: I thought I would bring a paragraph i wrote on anarchism talkpage back in June 2005 just to show folks we have being dealing with evangelical trolls RJII and Hogeye ever since then. It includes a quote from set text book for 1st yr politics in most if not all UK universities >
What happened to all the talk about english anarchism vs american anarchism .. - have u abandoned it for anarchism socialist verses "anti-state" anarchism?? Why do u talk of "TRENDS" on u.s campuses ... after claiming that anarchism traditional never reached yer shores? I think this is still all about a/c POV warriors and their throwaway 'philosophy'... I dig up that quote again from my standard 1st year book at university (using political ideas by barbara goodwin ) "Their true place (anarcho-capitalists) is in the group of right-wing libertarians described in chptr3" --------U see my point is A/C should get a mention.. but that is all unless this article is going to kowtow to the POV requirements of the A/C trolls - max rspct 17:50, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Seven months of 2 big trolls

message: After reading What is Property again, I  added a paragraph of critique to the Wiki article What is Property?:
In What is Property, Proudhon claims to prove by contradiction ("property is impossible") that past justifications of private property are logically fallacious. Critics point out that the "proofs" do not contradict any widely held assumptions, but only Proudhon's notion of equality of outcome.  As such, the "proofs" will not be convincing to those not sharing an extreme egalitarian notion of a just society. Furthermore, Proudhon's scholarship in relating opposing theories of property is suspect, e.g. his critique of Charles Comte's Traité de la propriété seems to be based on misunderstanding or misrepresentation of Comte's thesis.
:Yes some - though not all - of his arguments 'by contradiction' rely on egalitarian premises. But you need to give citations for these 'critics'.Bengalski 18:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proudhon's ''"What is Property"'' 

message: : News flash! Wikipedia is publicly editable. Rather than contesting an entry and then locking it up, the person who thinks that anarcho-capitalism deserves more space SHOULD HAVE JUST EXPANDED IT! His failure to do so proves that he is, in all probability, just a troll. Here's a neat anarchist concept: contribute to the communal discussion rather than calling on authority to lock it up for the rest of the people.
::False assumption flash! The page protection was done by Voice of All, unsolicited as far as I know. According to his history, Voice of All has never edited the Anarchism article, which makes one wonder why he intervened at all. Hogeye 03:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page Protection 

message: To all editors: I'm Nicholas Turnbull, mediator and coordinator down at the Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal. This is a status update regarding a mediation request relating to the ongoing dispute on this article. Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-01-07 Anarchism. Interested parties may wish to read my initial suggestions there, and comment as appropriate. Thank you very much for your participation. Best regards, NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 20:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediation Cabal status update - [[Anarchism]] 

message: Why is it that the assassinations and terrorism of the late 19th/early 20th century only get a couple paragraphs of mention? The assassinations ended the lives of many important heads of state, and they established the reputation of anarchists as dangerous radicals. In a way, they were much more important to the development of anarchism than a lot of things presently in the article. At the very least, there should be another article listing those important figures who were assassinated by anarchists.--71.112.234.168 23:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a whole section called Propaganda by the Deed, with four paragraphs and a photo.  That seems like plenty, especially since most anarchists don't (and didn't then) approve of such actions. If you'd like to write a whole article on propaganda by the deed, go for it! Hogeye 00:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See propaganda of the deed and anarchist terrorism  - Nihila 02:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assassinations