Talk:Anarchism/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Resolution and unprotection of page

I don't want to get blasted by a few individuals for editing the page now, but it has now been unprotected and is now lingering there unedited since then in all it's capitalist glory. As the last entries of this Talk page have shown, the vast majority of editors here agree that anarchism is against hierarchy and that outside of wikpedia, it is very very likely that this is true for the general anarchist population. I propose that we now, with this resolution, return the article to its former version which stated that anarchism is against hierarchy and such. REMINDER: The longer this article lingers like this, the more people who visit it will be misinformed about anarchism. --Fatal 01:15, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Private property

I have edited the wording of this section that made it seem as if there is a big "divide" amongst Anarchists, when in reality there is the movement, then there is anarcho-capitalism. It is clear what the majority thinks, and if we are going to include anarcho-capitalism despite that, we cannot make the mistake of allowing grandiose claims of importance into the article. Obviously, I'm not perfect, so feel free to phrase it better and edit as you see fit, or calling me out for this edit.

The majority? Surely a key point of anarchism is that majority rule is bad. It is a form of tyranny; authoritarianism is considered wrong no matter what the means of consent, ergo the very WORD "an-archa" (without authority). In fact, one error I see here is people focusing on the cosmetic trappings and propoganda of anarcho-socialism as if those were "anarchism" itself. Anarchism...any form of it...is not about opposition to government per se, but opposition to authority. It is, essentially, anti-authoritarianism. Anarcho-capitalism therefore obviously is a legitimate form, as it has at its core the opposition to authority. Kaz

Furthermore, I have moved this paragraph to the talk page so we can talk about it:

Other anarchist traditions with respect to private property

Anarchists of other traditions vary in their appreciation of the respective socialist and classical liberal arguments. Some of them will consistently side with some of the above arguments, thus adopting the socialist or classical liberal tradition, though without forcibly doing it formally. Others will mildly side with some of the arguments above, though without considering them a defining stance for their flavor of anarchism, and will consider the question as secondary. Still others do not care about this debate, and consider it a waste of time; they think that by getting rid of government, such problems find a natural solution.

What other traditions are there? as far as I know, there are no traditions other than the anarcho-capitalists who stand with the classical liberal definition. This paragraph does nothing to convince otherwise, names no such traditions, quotes no major thinkers, backs it up with no sources. The vast majority of anarchists (or all of them, depending on definition), are not a part of this movement without roots, without important political organizations, without strikes, protests, political actions or any activity beyond lectures and websites. Again, this is an attempt to make what is not a big issue amongst Anarchists into a "great divide amongst anarchists". It isn't. If this paragraph can be rewritten to eliminate delusions of grandeur, then I have no problem with it being reinserted, in its current state, I don't see a place for it.--Che y Marijuana 04:31, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

Agreed, if we are going to get rid of anti-statist capitalism from the article (Which should be done), we should also get rid of the remaining residue that points back to that subject, namely, this property issue you've pointed to. --Fatal 22:06, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

anarcho-capitalism

I just changed two things from an anarcho-capitalist POV. One was the old "Anarchism is anti-government" which is true, but anarchism is broader being anti-hierarchy and against unjustified authority, ie. virtually all authority. Merriam-Webster, which I don't take as the best source anyhow says anarchism is "a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups". Capitalism precludes voluntary association and free association of individuals and groups, a wage slave is not cooperating voluntarily, nor is he associating freely.

Well, my opinion is that this is clearly false, but, more importantly, the article should not present opinions such as these as fact. - Nat Krause 05:36, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I could start a small fringe group called "pro-government anarchists". How would anarchism be defined then in the introduction - I call myself an anarchist and am not against the government, so now, according to your desire to redefine all of anarchism to fit the worldview of one small fringe group that the vast majority of self-described anarchists says is not anarchist, anarchism as a word is meaningless.

For one thing, this wasn't really my point here, although I have discussed it above. I have little desire to redefine anarchism. In fact, I wish I could look someone squarely in the eye and say "no, I am not an anarchist" with confidence. And yet, the fact is that all anarchist groups are small fringe groups, and I am not in favor of any such being allowed to define the word on their own terms. - Nat Krause 08:52, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Technically, anarchism is not anti-government, it's anti-authoritarian. An-archa is "without authority", archa being "an entity which imposes by force". It is also not anti-heirarchy; by "authority" is meant only the power to use force. For example, Proudhon once famously said "in the question of shoes, I defer to the authority of the cobbler". Ironically, one could be a "pro government anarchist", if one was willing to accept the premise of a government whose existence and function was always and purely voluntary, akin to the Red Cross and Salvation Army instead of the FDA and US Military. Anarcho-capitalism fits quite perfectly under the aegis of anarchism in those actual senses of the term, just not into the trappings of socialism-cum-anarchism and all the spin associated therein. But you can easily find flaws in MOST factions of anarchism in this way. Take anarcho-syndacalism, for example. The "syndicate", the spontenous formation of groups to repress any divergence from the collectivist absolute, is a form of mob rule, ergo a sort of authoritarian government which simply lacking of even the basic constitution of all other governments, and thus farther from true anarchy than any other. Kaz

I also think your conception of voluntary might be more opinion than fact if you think capitalism is voluntary cooperation. Otherwise the word "volunteer" would mean people going to their job, not work people do after their job, of their own free choice. I certainly wouldn't voluntarily hand rent over to a landlord, or hand profits over to my capitalist boss if I had any choice in the matter. I know if I don't, the landlord will call the pigs to evict me forcibly, as would the boss to evict me from company premises. I'm told I have a free choice of who my landlord or boss is though, which is like saying I can choose which type of cancer I will become afflicted with. I have never met anyone (other than a handful of people, who are always white collar manager types, not blue collar workers) who describes going to their job as voluntary association amidst a free association of individuals. Ruy Lopez 07:50, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that everything that is done voluntarily is volunteering, although I sometimes enjoy punning the two words. I have yet to have a job that I went to involuntarily. - Nat Krause 08:52, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The other was the definition of anarcho-capitalism. I don't mind the anarcho-capitalists putting in a little bit about anarcho-capitalism in the article, I don't think we have to say "anarcho-capitalism is wrong" in the article, I think the main thing should be noting that most anarchists have no idea why anarcho-capitalists call themselves anarchists, since they're not anarchists. I don't think this page is where to dispute whether capitalism is a good or bad thing to support, but people who support capitalism are not anarchists. And more importantly, a group of non-anarchists calling themselves anarchists can not redefine all of anarchism to mean being anti-government. Ronald Reagan ran on an anti-government platform, does this make him a kinsman to Bakunin and Big Bill Haywood? Ruy Lopez 19:22, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

OK, but a few things. Saying "hierarchy and unjustified authority" is okay but a bit verbose. Authority and hierarchy are basically the same thing, so it isn't necessary to mention both. I like the addition you made to "anarcho" capitalism but the sentence about anarcho-communists and the like believing that it has the same backbone is something that I just don't know where you got that from. If anything, the anarchists you listed are probably the ones most against "anarcho" capitalism and it being called anarchist. I've just never seen that claim made....it's kinda weird starting out by saying that most anarchists reject it and then listing a ton of groups making up the majority and saying that they have respect for anti-statist capitalism. Soo, I'd say take out that part. Nice addition though. --Fatal 03:04, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

My mentioning the broad back was a reference to the anarchist Octave Mirbeau quote that "Anarchism has a broad back, like paper it endures anything" - even from the words and deeds of soi disant anarchists who say and do things where "a mortal enemy of anarchism could not have done better." I agree about the verbosity of what I put in - I wanted to put in just authority, but then people like Bakunin and Chomsky have noted exceptions to the rule so I added unjustified, and that can go on and just get clunkier. So I agree, unjustified authority can be removed as it is sort of verbose and clunky - I just wanted to expand it beyond anti-statism. As far as the last sentence, I was trying to say all of those anarchist currents saw similarities with one another and felt anarcho-capitalism was outside of their milieu, perhaps my grammar was bad. Ruy Lopez 07:24, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if Chomsky claims to believe that there might be exceptions. To my knowledge he has never called himself an anarchist; rather he calls himself a "fellow traveler" (of libertarian socialism, if I recall correctly). So his personal beliefs should be separated from his understanding of anarchism. His understanding of anarchism is quite direct; as is Bakunin's. Anarchists are anti-authoritarian, period. Although the word "authority" is ambigous (in that it may mean an expert), "authoritarian" is not. millerc 19:16, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I like how infoshop.org describes it on their fake (http://www.infoshop.org/fake.html) page. "The anarchist movement is a big tent with a great many sideshows, but there are just some folks who are not circus performers." --Fatal 16:07, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Religion

The recent sentence addition regarding religion seems out of place, the subject is started without any previous reference until that point. Maybe we this should be moved to a more appropriate spot in the article? --Fatal 20:38, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree, but where to? I've been looking over the article, and although the statement is undoubtedly relevant (very much so, I believe), there just doesn't seem to be a good place for it. If you click on the link, you'll see the religion (Stregheria) in its post-1300's form is a direct reaction to the class-system of the Catholic church and to the "evils" of government, church, and other organizations that attempt to coerce the public into acting a certain way. It's really nothing short of an anarchist religion, and as such seems to me to be rather important to the subject of anarchism (especially since most religions are very much authoritarian). Yet, perhaps because of the rarity of its nature, there doesn't seem to be a place to put it on the page. Any suggestions? --Corvun 22:27, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It's not just that religion that has anarchist-like beliefs, even if it may be the most anarchist of them all. However, I think we should make a section of the article for religion and anarchism since there's many references. For instance, there are anarcho-christians out there, one of the more prominent ones being Dorothy Day. Also, historically, the original christian "church" (if you will) before the Edict of Milan, was a series of decentralized communities that were non-hierarchal. If I remember correctly they had some name like "communites of compassion" or something like that. After the Edict of Milan, they became part of the Roman Empire and since then have had a hierarchal administrative structure. (The Vatican, need I say more?) However, if a section is to be made about the different religions with anarchistic features and history, we also should definitely note that many if not most anarchists see gods as authoritarian beings that people should reject. On the other side of the coin, anarcho-christian's argument, for example, is that their God is the only true authority and everything below him is illegitimate. I don't think it's necessary to have a huge thing about religion, but if you wanna mention relgion I think a section should be made about it, or instead, maybe a separate article on anarchistic religions should be made. There is already an anarcho-christian article I think. --Fatal 22:17, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think perhaps a separate article would be in order. Anarchism seems to be a popular subject here on Wikipedia, and many of the pages that already exist are enormous -- even boding -- in size. A subject bound to be as diverse as anarchism in religion probably does deserve its own page.

When I made mention of Stregheria's nature as being a rarity, I wasn't trying to imply that it was the only religion with anarchist themes, only that it's rare (though by no means unique) to see a religion so strongly infused with such themes. The entire religion seems to have been overhauled in the 1300's, when these infusions occured as a direct response to the then-already-authoritarian Christian religion and the Christianization of Italy. This is where we come to the subject of religions with anarchist histories. I don't even think I need to mention Vodun.

There are also other viewpoints between the "gods are authoritarian and should be rejected" and "the only rightful authority is god" sides of the continuum. Most Neopagans, as far as I know, see gods and goddesses as authorities in much the same was that physicists might see Stephen Hawking as an authority. If I recall (and I could be wrong about this), there are many adherents of Stregheria that see Lucifer as an authority in the "teacher" rather than "ruler" sense, and see him as one that attempted to liberate humankind from the authoritarian rule of the Christian God. Of course, one of the strongest themes in both Pagan religions and Occult groups is that deities should be revered as teachers, not as authoritarian figures (middle-eastern Pagan religion notwithstanding). --Corvun 04:22, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think any entry on Religion & Anarchism should be brief (1 paragraph) and historical. Otherwise it would require an entire new entry for discussion and frankly that new page would either not be very informative nor authoritative. (for example, I know an Anarchist who is a Discordian, but any inference drawn between anarchist ideology and Discordianism would be speculative at best). How about a simple mention of historical atheistic and religious anarchist thinkers of note? It would be folly to try to identify, based on conjecture, what past or present religious orders were or were not anarchist(ic). --albamuth 13:21, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

To User:Fatal

My change was not a minor change, so your rv of it wasn't minor either. You need to state that it was a rv next time. You also gave no explanation for your rv. I think other wikipedians deserve more respect than you've shown me.

So why are you for just "opposing hierarchy" and not for calling anarchists anti-authoritarian as they surely are? I was trying to make the statement more clear, while hoping that no "anarcho" capitalist would take such offense as to rv it. Don't turn this into the battle of factions that has ruined this article so many times in the past. I understand that "imposed authority" may run into the same problems that "coercive authority" did, but I would think the word imposed would be clearer than coercive since many people think of "coercive" as being necessarily enforced by violence. Wereas "imposed" suggests that the authority of an individual comes from social or physical dominace, as opposed to the respect that is given to an expert (like Bakunin's boot-maker). millerc 23:43, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

OK sorry if that was misinterpreted. My reasoning was simply that authority and hierarchy are the same thing, so it's like saying "hierarchy and imposed hierarchy and coersive hierarchy." Doesn't the word hierarchy pretty much cover it? Yes, of course anarchists are anti-authoritarian (and by authoritarian i'm not implying statist). I just saw it as extra unneeded wording since the two words mean the same thing. However, if you feel it makes the point more clear to readers, then maybe you're right, I just don't see how it does. --Fatal 22:08, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You are correct, imposed authority implies hierarchy (and visa versa); however, I don't think that this is clear to people who don't already agree w/ anarchism, libertarian socialism, etc. This is a feeling I get just from talking to people in general, so I may be incorrect, but personnally I think anarchist=anti-authoritarian is the most direct way of stating what anarchism means (its that direct statement that finnally made me get it when I was younger), while hierachy is an odd way of stating it (and never made the same sort of impact on me). Also, it may just be me again; I feel like hierarchy is sort of a buzz-word in anarchist literature, it always has a wierd feel to it. Stating things in terms of authority seems much more natural. millerc 01:19, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose you're right. I've found recently though that explaining anarchism very simply as "against hierarchy" was short, to the point, and covered everything necessary. When before one could write an essay for pages upon pages upon pages about the corruptness of every social institution and really beat it into the reader that the system has failed in every imaginable way, it suddenly all became unnecessary when one said that hierarchy was the problem. You could say something like "The problem with economics is money", "The problem with capitalism is exploitation for a privileged class", or "The problem with govt is political control for only an oligarchal group", etc. or you could instead condense 50 pages into one sentence: "Hierarchy is the cause of all these problems." The domination of humans over each other is the cause of the state, capitalism, racism, sexism, consumerism and other negative -isms. Something about simple declarations is fascinating. As a social experiment often you can watch the news, or sit in school, or look at anything in society and ask yourself what that space and time would be like without hierarchy, and suddenly a door opens to a different way of thinking. -Fatal 03:23, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Punk rock

This article cannot neglect the (in my opinion overwhelming majority of) anarchists who are punk rockers. Just because you think your intellectual, and they are dumb-asses, doesn't make them not anarchists. They paint, carve and draw anarchy symbols anywhere and everywhere, and dream of a time without a police officer to be found, when they can break stuff and loot to their hearts content. You can explain how some anarchists have different motivations, but its POV to assume these guys arn't the vast majority. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 09:04, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The majority of anarchists are not punks but one cannot neglect the fact that many anarchists are introduced to anarchism throught the punk scene. However, writing "the anarchist symbol" everywhere does not make you an anarchist, especially if it's the standard copyrighted red stylized circled A rather than the traditional one. I dunno what your beliefs are but your vision of a world where one can loot and pillage to their heart's content sounds more like chaos than anarchy. In anarchy, there would be no purpose to looting as one could most likely obtain whatever they wanted. If you're simply a kid that listens to the sex pistols and screams anarchy while really meaning chaos, then it would seem that you know nothing about the subject. Real anarcho-punk bands include Crass, Conflict, Subhumans, etc. Look up anarcho-punk on wikipedia, it's not about chaos at all. If you want that, then go join the idiot "chaos punks" that do nothing but drink themselves to death and break store windows for no other reason than to feel the glass break. --Fatal 19:41, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sam's intent is to skew all articles against anarchism as much as he can, this fact is evident in all stages of his involvement in articles relating to anarchism. Even now, he tries to gussy up his language by appealing to neutrality while revealing just how biased he is, "its POV to assume these guys arn't the vast majority." In other words, he it claiming that it is POV not to assume that these people are a majority, but trying to make it sound like he is saying something else. Regardless, this is a diversion, punk is not being removed from this page, so punk rockers are not being neglected. The only people being "neglected" are those who use anarchy symbols while expressly rejecting anarchism. These individuals follow from a different definition of anarchy, they would be the first to insist on this fact. As such, they never even get to the point of believing in anarchism, and thus belong on a different page. Kev 19:49, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I changed the article back. I have no problem with punk rock. My favorite forms of music are political grindcore and crust punk. My problem is that the Sex Pistols were never anarchists. The article mentions punk rock, and specifically the band Crass who were an anarchist group. No one is trying to hide anything. But if the Sex Pistols were anarchists then so is Metallica! millerc 01:09, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Arguably, some Metallica lyrics ARE anti-capitalist, anti-authoritarian, and anti-war, subjec to interpretation. Heh ;) --Fatal 02:33, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sam, I think that's an unfair characterization on several levels. I listen to punk rock, I go to punk rock shows, but that doesn't make me less of an "anarchist" or incapable of critical thought. No anarchist would label his or herself an "intellectual," and would certainly not discriminate against people based on their lifestyle or choice in music. Anyway: Do the majority of anarchists listen to punk rock? I don't know. Maybe in the United States, not most other places. --Tothebarricades.tk 02:56, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I can characterize punk rock's relation to anarchism like this: the real heyday was the 80's, but bands as early as the Sex Pistols were already capitalizing on anarchism because it was such a controversial thing. Remember that back in the early 80's, punk rockers would sometimes wear swastikas simply because it was such a shocking image for normal people to see--as offensive as possible was the goal. Punk rock, more than anything, is a lifestyle (read: IMAGE) of rebellion so as such calling yourself an anarchist and drawing the circle-A is simply part of that self-image. There are plenty of real-life example people I can think of that listened to clearly political bands but never really "got it", much less got involved in politics. It may be that the main contributors to this site are age 20-35 so remember their youth to be riddled with punk rock and circle-A's but a 50-year old would associate Anarchy with the Weathermen and hippies. Ageist POV creates the mind-link of anarchy and punk rock.

90% of the "punk rockers" i've ever met age 35 through 16 don't have a clue about anarchism, let alone have an ideology. really, punk rock today is just another marketing demographic, anyway. The focus should be changed to "Anarchism and Pop Culture" if anything.

Disclaimer: I have personally witnessed non-punk-rocker anarchists (yes they looked like perfectly normal people ages 30+) get drunk and put "Anarchy in the U.K." in the jukebox for a rather boisterous sing-a-long. Maybe they were punks once, i dunno.--albamuth 10:43, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There are plenty of real-life example people I can think of that listened to clearly political bands but never really "got it", much less got involved in politics... Oddly true. I listened to "punk rock" for years before I finally "got it", thanks mostly to people aged 30+.

BTW calling something "punk rock" is like calling something "rock and roll" or "metal" it could mean anything from Avril Lavigne to the Cripple Bastards. Not all these bands would even call themselves anarchist, and not all "punk rockers" even realize that there are bands that actually do have anarchist leaning lyrics. millerc 21:53, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Is nobody else troubled by Sam's suggestion that punks "dream of a time without a police officer to be found, when they can break stuff and loot to their hearts content". I admit, the only punks I know are my parents, both of whom work in the banking industry, but...

I was talking about the glue-huffing guys w mohawks I used to drink with in abandoned buildings. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 14:00, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I would have to agree (somewhat) with Sam on this. The glue-huffing punk rockers and mohawk-bearing metallica fans probably do represent the vast majority of those who would call themselves "anarchists" -- however, where I disagree [with Sam] is that these people seem to either (a) want chaos, which is the public misconception of what "anarchy" means, as opposed to actual anarchism, or (b) be playing on those public misconceptions for "shock value" (much like Marilyn Manson claiming to be a Satanic High Priest, which anyone who's studied in the occult knows is a load of crap).

This angle may not have been well enough presented in the article. If it is to be expanded upon, it should be stated clearly and unequivocally that these so-called "anarchists" aren't actually calling for anarchy at all, but chaos, and that those who call for chaos generally aren't claimed by the bulk of the anarchist community.

Also, what was said about no anarchist calling himself intellectual -- I think that's a pretty sweeping statement. Many anarchists are probably concerned with intellectual endeavors and are intellectually-oriented. At least a few of them, I'd assume, would be self-described "intellectuals" (using these as criteria). Also, let's not for get that Tolstoy was an anarchist, and most people would probably consider him a very intellectual person. --Corvun 01:59, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I meant that no anarchist would claim to be an intellectual in the sense of an expert, part of an elist academic culture. In the sense of being "concerned with intellectual endeavours," certainly. From experience, anarchists tend to read quite a bit - that is, when they're not huffing glue, right Sam? ;) --Tothebarricades.tk 03:48, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

To reduce it to its most basic level, the punk fans you talk about generally want "anarchy" in the chaos sense rather than "anarchism" in the lack of state and capitalism sense. The punk movement does have some role in popularising anarchism, for sure, but most punk rockers or punk fans are not anarchists. In an article entitled "Anarchy", you might have a point, but in an article entitled "Anarchism", they mostly don't fit in. Shane King 04:02, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

They may not fit in, but they need to be mentioned more clearly, due to their large numbers, and even more so due to their calling themselves "anarchists" as often as possible. Most of these folks I am refering to are anti-intellectual, and might well get angry at the suggestion that anarchism ment they might have to work, or share their goods (I recently heard a speech by Noam Chomsky suggesting that the unplesent tasks that no one would volunteer to engage in must be shared by everyone, for example). In any case, it is wiki standard practice to describe common usage of terms, and to allow groups and individuals to self label as they see fit. Ergo, a broader mention of the hedonist / vandal punk rock anarchist archtype needs mentioned. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 12:32, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No, because they are basing their definition of "anarchist" off of an entirely different meaning for "anarchy" and therefore don't even make any claim at all to "anarchism", which is the topic of this page. But you already know this Sam, and you are only here to do whatever you can to bias this page toward your POV. The Nolan Chart talk page just gives yet more evidence for the fact that you are totally uninterested in arguments based on evidence or history that contradicts your previously held assumptions. Kev 14:04, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sam, my point was that they self label as followers of a philosophy of "anarchy" not followers of a philosophy of "anarchism". This is the wrong article for them. Shane King 14:23, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

Hm.. I can't completely disagree Shane, but I would point out that many see little difference between anarchism and the promotion of anarchy, and quite a few anarchy promoters have self labeled as "anarchists" or believers in "anarchism" over the years. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 14:40, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm mostly staying out of this one, but someone should point out that the first line in Anarchy for the UK is "I am an anarchaist", which I take to be pretty much the same thing as an anarchist (q.v. mispronounced), i.e. a proponent of anarchism. On the other hand, the second line is "I am an Antichrist", so maybe we should take Johnny Rotten's words with a grain of salt. - Nat Krause 15:04, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree totally, which is why I didn't think the song had any real relation to the philosophy of anarchism. All of the Sex Pistols' songs were written to offend and nothing else (for instance in the song "Pretty Vacant" the vacant is pronounced "vay-cunt" just so Johnny Rotten could say "cunt" on the radio). The fact that the Sex Pistols thought that "anarchy" was offensive says more about pop culture than it does about anarchism. The addition of that song title is nothing more than a POV attempt to perpetuate pop culture misconceptions. millerc 22:06, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Anarchist Economics

I started this article, mainly pulling the critique of capitalism from the Anarchist FAQ section, trying to clean up all POV statements (but there are a lot of POV statements!). I created other sections but right now I'm hungry so I will save and get back to it later. Please help! --albamuth 02:14, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Be more specific. --Fatal 02:50, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The anarchism article has a section entitled monetary systems that states that "the relevance of this section is disputed". Anarchist Economic theory is actually a hot topic among anarchists and is relevant to contemporary anarchist movements, and since there is so much to cover, it would best be in its own section. --albamuth 04:16, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Funny you should mention that, since I wrote that section. The relevance was called into question a while ago but there has been no discussion about that for a long time. --Fatal 21:26, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Condensing article

Anyone have an idea on why this particular passage is relevant? "Anarchists do not believe, as Jean-Francois Revel wrote in Democracy against Itself, that "... anarchy leads to despotism ... despotism leads to anarchy ..."

It seems it is just redundant to what is said in the paragraph above it, and it does nothing to illuminate the anarchist position or even criticism of that position (which wouldn't belong in this section anyway). Perhaps someone could justify it, else I will remove in an attempt to aid those trying to tidy up the article. Kev 05:02, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Misplaced Quote?

This quote seems to be disconnected with the passage before and after. Any ideas on its relevance?

"It seemed as though a giant grate composed of bayonets shuttled back and forth across the region, from North to South and back again, wiping out all traces of creative social construction. [Arshinov]" Kev 09:51, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wendy McElroy

I have an article in which Wendy McElroy states that if they had known of the arguments of anarcho-capitalists and understood that the labor theory of value was (supposedly) a dead end, then the individualist anarchists of the past would have been anarcho-capitalists themselves. While this conjecture is debatable in itself, I wonder if it is appropriate for wikipedia to list McElroy as an individualist when (even though she does in fact refer to herself as an individualist), her own arguments entail that individualists and anarcho-capitalists are one and the same? Wouldn't it avoid confusion to list her as an anarcho-capitalist, given that there are still existing individualist anarchists who do not consider themselves capitalists and do in fact reject capitalism? Kev 10:32, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree. Individualist anarchism and anarcho-capitalism should not be mixed up. Would she fall under the [non-]label of "anarchism without adjectives" as advanced by Voltarine De Cleyre? --albamuth 01:04, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Given that Malatesta and de Cleyre and Tarrida del Marmol all rejected capitalism in the very definition of anarchism I think this would be problematic. I'm speculating here, but I would guess that McElroy is trying to distinguish herself from anarcho-capitalists and present a broader faction which believes that anarcho-capitalism is compatible with individualist anarchism without actually subscribing to anarcho-capitalism in particular. The problem with this is that I believe she is overwriting the pre-existing individualists who believe that anarcho-capitalism is not compatible with individualism, and would thus be best presented as an entirely different (but related) faction altogether. However, since we can't go making up titles here on wikipedia, and since it is a fact that she considers herself an individualist, maybe it would be best to present it as "Wendy McElroy describes herself as an individualist", which is undisputable. Some might think it would then require an advisory that not all consider this claim valid, but even without such an advisory I think it would be better to present it this way than what is currently written. Kev 01:17, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The return of VV and his moneybags

As Kev has already stated, VV is back and trying, no matter what the results were of the "locked article" discussion, to push his own point of view and promote capitalism in an anti-capitalist environment. Is there anything that can be done about this? I wouldn't say that locking the page is a good idea, because it isn't, but if the problem persists perhaps the page should temporarily take the same route as other pages and be "locked because of vandalism" because that's what this is by now, wiki vandalism. The only thing that happens because of these thing and users is that the people reading the article lose out, people get false impressions of a subject, and that's not what wikipedia or any encyclopedia is about, it's about facts and information, not misinformation. VV, if you want to spout off your point of view and have fights with people about it, why don't you go to a message board, like the one on infoshop.org, and be shouted down there, because this is not the proper forum to be pushing a point of view, and a false one at that.

Oh get off it, I undid a few recent dubious changes and made some tweaks. I'm not pushing any point of view. VeryVerily 05:56, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A rolling eyes emote would really be handy here. Anywho, how about you try to actually focus on the content this time and explain your reasons for reverting these edits (all of which had numerous reasons for being made and were completely in line with a number of consensus points on this page). Kev 09:13, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Your edits were not at all "revert to last NPOV" and definitely were a push of your own POV. It is simple fact that Anarchism was exclusively a Socialist movement until recently, and even then to a very small number of people. By definition, since Anarchism had been socialist before then, those opposed to this new development are "traditional" Anarchists. Furthermore, no one in the movement ever even discusses the "anarcho-capitalist" sect, except in very limited fashion. That is how complete the rejection of this sect is amongst Anarchists. So the fact that this sect, barely notable, is even mentioned on this page is quite enough in my opinion. The fact you attempt to make it out that anyone who isn't an "anarcho-capitalist" considers it Anarchist is rediculous. People who accept it tend to be "anarcho-capitalists" themselves, or otherwise a slim slither of non-political "anarchists". Which again, makes them non-traditional. So this wording is perfect as is, if you disagree, come hash it out. But so far, you're making it very difficult for people to consider this anything but vandalism. (Just to clarify, I have thus far stayed out of editing this article, but was compelled to post after seeing repeated vandalism by VV)--Che y Marijuana 10:04, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

Bull. While most people who call themselves anarchists may be, or have been, socialists, that doesn't mean the term is not appropriately used in regards to persons past and present who desired intense personal freedom for all. This concept that the anarchism page here on the wiki is "an anti-capitalist environment" is an honest depiction of the problem here. This is an encyclopedia, not anarchism.com, and we have an NPOV policy. While POV advocates may have a numerical advantage here, they do not have a monopoly, and the policy is clearly on the side of neutrality. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 11:07, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

First, if anarchists had an actual numerical advantage on these pages then capitalism would not even be mentioned as anything but a footnote, as it should be. The only reason the capitalist bias has remained so long is due to constant reverts by an ever-present group of capitalist watchdogs who want this page to exist as a stumping ground. As for wikipedia policy, NPOV is to provide for all sides of the issue, which wikipedia already does not only in depth in the anarcho-capitalism article itself, but also through referance in this article. NPOV does -not- mean that this article needs to be or should be constantly referancing the relatively minor group which may or may not even be a faction of anarchism in the first place. 12:38, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

So first you say that if anarchists were the majority, the mention of anarcho-capitalism would be a footnote. You then (rightly) explain NPOV as the expression of all POV's... but then insist that the neutral thing to do would be to remove mention of this particular POV you don't like? Thats ridiculous. The editors on this page are surely majority anarchist, and majority good users as well, w respect for our policies. That is why the mention stays. I swear, the more I try to see things from your POV the more I get dizzy ;) Cheers, [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 13:07, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sam, your hypocrisy is astounding. You constantly admonish others not to insult people here, yet just as often you are throw rhetorical jabs at anyone you disagree with. The good news is that I can save these tidbits and present them everytime you try and act high and mighty. And now you are flat out misrepresenting what I say as the only way to maintain your position. You have said that I'm trying to remove the capitalist POV. Could you quote a single instance in which I have said that referance to anarcho-capitalism should be removed from this page, much less from wikipedia? You are arguing against a shadow. Not only have I stated multiple times that mention of anarcho-capitalism -must- stay on the anarchism page, but I have even reverted several attempts by others to remove it! Get a grip and figure out what the hell you are talking about before throwing out completely false statements like these.

My position remains, as it has been before you even showed up on wikipedia (you know, before you shunned the title of Jack Lynch), that the anarcho-capitalist ideology must be referanced on this page and continue to have its own page for in-depth coverage. However, its presence on this page should be minimal to reflect its relation to anarchism as a whole, and its presentation on the anarcho-capitalist page must be balanced by an NPOV description of the history of anarchism itself where comparisons are called for. The only thing making you dizzy here is your attempt to argue with a figment of your own active imagination. Kev 13:24, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Frankly, the difference between the two versions is really minor to me. Listing every single anarchist sub-category just to say who denies the anarcho- in anarcho-capitalism is silly. I like the shortened version, it's a lot more clear. I also want to point out that the one line that hasn't changed from both versions is inaccurate -- it says Anarchists object to capitalism because "production and other social relations are set up by authoritative bodies", well that's simply not true. They say capitalism is exploitative -- usury is wrong and so forth. Capitalism may depend on authoritative bodies to enforce property laws and so forth (hence reinforcing unfair distribution) but then that's a critique of the State, not capitalism itself. Their critique of capitalism is simple to express as "authoritarian and exploitative", with a link to the Anarchism and Capitalism page if readers wish to know more detail, which is how I've changed it. So nyaaahhh! --albamuth 01:48, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I concur. Nicely said, Albamuth. Graft 02:04, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The view of individualists was not that capitalism may depend on authoritarian bodies to enforce property, but that it does depend on authoritarian bodies to enforce property. If they felt that it was only a remote possibility or even a small likelihood that capitalist relations required the state they would not have denounced them so vociferously. The difference between the anarcho-capitalist and the anacho-individualist in this case is that the capitalist thinks that the exact same institutions that capitalism relies on when it co-exists with statism (which is all it has ever done thus far btw) can be relied on in the absence of the state, whereas I have yet to see an individualist text that indicates that this is a relevant distinction to them. As for listing all the different anarchist ideologies that deny the status of anarcho-capitalism (which is all of them), I agree that it is cumbersome. It was only seen as necessary because so many capitalists insisted that claiming "most" anarchists or "most forms" of anarchism was biased and sought to minimize the extent to which anarcho-capitalism is rejected by anarchists by replacing such terms with "many" or sometimes even "some". After that, their attempt was to further minimize it by claiming that only anarcho-communists reject capitalism, which made it necessary to list all the other anarchist ideologies that also reject it. With "most" reinserted I have no problem removing the specific explication. Kev 05:07, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'd like to take this opportunity to also say that anti-statist capitalist is not a synonym for anarcho-individualist. Anarcho-individualism is about individuals and small groups taking their lives into their own hands. If you want an example of a group of anarcho-individualists, look at crimethinc.com. Nearly all their literature promotes an individualist approach. --Fatal 21:21, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

rv blanking?

Perhaps I'm not sufficiently experienced, and missing something...but the page shows as blank to me, even though history says someone has reverted it from being blanked. So I tried to revert it, too...but it STILL shows as blank, after I reverted it to how it looked yesterday when it was OK.

What's going on? Kaz

Click on page history to see the most recent revision. It looks OK to me now. The server is really slow right now, so it takes a while to save, and also your computer might be pulling from a cached (old, i.e. blank) version. Antandrus 21:17, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oddly enough, it still looks blank to me. My caching is always Check Every Time, and I even added a random querystring to defeat any caching. I take it the page isn't blank for anyone else..? Is this the wrong URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism/ Kaz 23:07, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sure is. You added an extra slash. It should be http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism --Corvun 23:13, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Actually, I added the / when pasting in here, because a typical URL is probably poorly formed when the trailing slash, unless it ends in a filename. Any URL not ending in a filename is supposed to have a trailing slash. Apparently their parsing system is different here, but the page text was missing even if you browsed to Anarchism. Kaz 15:57, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That's odd. When I put in the URL with the slash, I got a message saying the page doesn't exist. When I put in the URL without the slashs, the page showed up just the way it was supposed to. I wonder if the huge size of the article might be screwing with our browsers or something. I know I've occasionally had problems viewing large pages. --Corvun 17:42, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I just edited it again and tried to revert it. When you go to edit the page, the whole page is right there, it just doesn't display any of it. There must be a problem on wikipedia's end because all the code is right there, but none of it is being shown. --Fatal 02:28, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I get the same problem, I tried reverting twice about an hour or so ago. millerc 02:30, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sereiously, it displays just fine for me at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism

I don't know why y'all wouldn't be seeing it, but I just haves me an old fashioned 56k modem and only get maybe 42k out here in the boondocks at best. If it were a problem with Wikipedia, y'all'd think none of us be'd seein it. --Corvun 06:06, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Politics / comedy

Maybe its anarchy? ;) [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 18:41, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• I've always held that right-wingers have a crappy sense of humour.--Che y Marijuana 23:11, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • At least they have one, unlike humorless PC fascists. :D [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 23:36, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Che y Marijuana, if you think for a moment about why Sam bothered to link the word anarchy, you'll realize the statement was actually pretty on-the-mark. I got a chuckle out of it. But, Sam, I think anarchists are kinda like the opposite of fascists.

I don't see why y'all are being so hard on Sam. I mean, I don't agree at all with Sam's POV on a lot of subjects. Actually our POVs are probably polar opposites in most situations. But I, for one, think that Sam is pretty damn smart and has a hell of a lot to contribute here on Wikipedia. That's why I voted for him. --Corvun 00:03, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yee-haw! Anyhow, I wasn't trying to point fingers at anybody present w the pc fascist thing, just making a joke / commentary on the various aspects of those on the left and right. My politics are pretty hard to reconcile w being right wing for example, if you review User:Sam Spade/Theoretical Biases. I may not be an anarchist or anything, but most political compasses mark me as a slight left-slight authoritarian centrist. Radical middle populism is where the parties @!! Cheers, [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 00:26, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What made you think I was serious? But yeah, the original joke should be in here too :P--Che y Marijuana 03:52, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

McKinley's assassin

This article states:

Such "propaganda of the deed" was not popular among anarchists, and many in the movement condemned the tactic. For example, McKinley's assassin, Leon Czolgosz, claimed to be a disciple of Emma Goldman, but she disavowed any association with him.

However the Leon Czolgosz article states:

He frequented the speeches of Emma Goldman, who later wrote a piece justifying Czolgosz's assassination of McKinley. It is possible that Goldman may have convinced Czolgosz to assassinate McKinley.

Which is correct? Taco Deposit | Talk-o Deposit 01:57, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

I would call the first passage (the one in this article) historical revisionist, and contrary to general opinion amongst historians and books of reference. When I first read about anarchism (Maybe 15yrs ago) that incident featured prominently in my funk & wagnalls encyclopedia, portrayed as an act of anarchism. Similarly, the Unibomber could use more emphasis on this page, as an example of a "propaganda of the deed" anarcho-terrorist. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 10:52, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Emma Goldman did not approve of his action, but refused to condemn Czolgosz; she was virtually alone amongst anarchists of the time in this regard. As for her relation to him, he had attended a few of her speeches and asked her once for anarchistic literature. Her defense for him as a person was "sympathy for a doomed human being"; she felt that anyone moved to such an act was perverted by the evils of the society in which he lived. But she certainly did not encourage the act or "[convince him] to assassinate McKinley," and any account saying such is referencing unreliable sources from the time (many newspaper articles, etc. made up stories like this, and a veritable (wo)man-hunt ensued). For her account, read her article "The Assassination of McKinley." --Tothebarricades.tk 22:00, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Czolgosz tried unsuccessfully quite a few times to join groups of other anarchists but apparently wasn't friendly enough to be welcomed by any of them. I remember reading that Goldman didn't care much for the guy, however I don't think Goldman would've condemned it. Goldman's friend was Alexander Berkman and together they plotted to kill Frick, a union-busting capitalist. So they were both involved in the "propaganda of the deed" movement. Berkman, however, did afterwards criticize propaganda by the deed as foolish so many other anarchists may have felt the same way. -Fatal 22:39, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Goldman later criticized it as well. You can see a certain "maturation" in their ideas on the topic. I think anarchists now and then have viewed political assassinations as tactically ineffective; they realized that the American public would not accept it, that it would not ferment but weaken revolutionary fervor, etc. I certainly doubt she ever held any sympathy for Frick or McKinley. --Tothebarricades.tk 22:49, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)