Talk:Anarchism/Archive11

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Re: How to evaluate which is the minority viewpoint

Let's evaluate which is the minority viewpoint. Number of revolutions involving large scale libertarian socialist style mobilisations: seven plus (1900 onwards). Number of revolutions involving large scale anarcho-capitalist style mobilisations: zero. Anarcho-capitalism has little political relevance outside of the USA. Is there a formal anarcho-capitalist faction within the (rather popular frontist in a liberal kind of way) US Libertarian Party? If so, is there a membership estimate we could compare to any of the major North American libertarian socialist-style organisations? Fifelfoo 14:47, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

There were seven? I can think of zero, although one might count the anarchists of the Spanish Civil War despite the fact that they mostly fought on the same side as the government, and I suppose I've heard that the communists of Chiapas have some anarchist influence. Still, taking your word for it that there were seven, this sort of reminds me of boxers or wrestlers who make a big deal out of claiming to be "12-time world champion" or something. In other words, are unsuccessful revolutions really the best measure of a group's influence?
As I mentioned, A-C's not so keen on membership organizations, and furthermore, they do tend to blend in with small-government groups. Even if one could measure their number, to get a reliable measure of the relative robustness, we would still have to measure intangible factors such as the members' influence, dedication, etc. In other words, it is impossible.
The next day, Fifelfoo wrote: "Thanks Sam. I think internationally we can award victory to the libertarian socilaists in terms of numbers, historical influence and size of current political movements. Do people agree?" I think that's likely true, I won't dispute it. But, I honestly have no idea what goes on under the radar overseas. Who knew there were libertarians in Costa Rica? - Nat Krause 18:22, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Revolutions: Russia 1905, Mexican Revolution, Russian Empire 1917-21, Italy 1919, Spain 36-7, Hungary 56, France 1968. Movements with a libertarian socialist basis achieved a monopoly of violence in Some areas of the Russian Empire in 1917-21, in some areas in Spain in 1936-7, and in Hungary in 1956.
I'd suggest that if its impossible to measure the influence of a social movement, then the social movement has no influence :). Fifelfoo 23:24, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I'd have to disagree. Measuring the influence of a social movement, especially when that influence is still being felt, is exceedingly difficult, and it's going to be heavily disputed. Snowspinner 23:49, Jul 2, 2004 (UTC)

Seeking a synthesis of proposals

  • the main "Anarchism" page "details the history of meaning for the word itself, and as that meaning branches it links to the articles relevant to it"
  • the "Libertarian socialism" page is maintained as is
  • the "Anarcho-capitalism" page is maintained as is
  • a separate page is used for the debate between anarcho-capitalism and traditional anarchism -- Spleeman 22:32, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Well, damn... Isn't the history solution an idea I gave way back in Talk:Anarchism/Archive8 when I was responding to a comment by Nat Krause. I'm starting to feel like no one really gives a crap about what I think around here. Anyway, here's how I see the "link tree" for the spilt of the articles:
  • main page (w/ history)
    • anarcho-primitivism
      • main page
    • individual anarchism
      • main page
    • left anarchism
      • libertarian socialism
        • left anarchism
        • main page
        • anarcho-communism
        • council communism
      • anarcho-syndicalism
        • left anarchism
        • main page
    • anarcho-capitalism
      • main page
You see the obvious recursion involved... I'm not really sure where to put "post left" as people have been calling it. If someone else has an idea please comment. Libertarian socialism isn't necessarily considered compleately synonimous with left-anarchism by everyone, so you have to be careful on that. Also, IMO the conflict between anarcho-capitalism and left-anarchism isn't important enough to give much emphasis, but it could be linked to at the end of the main article, and on both the anarcho-capitalism and left anarchism pages. millerc 05:41, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Sounds good to me millerc. Kev 18:53, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
The conflict between AC and LS is purely theoretical business, and most of it can be discussed on the AC page. --Sam Francis 17:21, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Yeah, every page I mentioned already exists except for the left anarchism page, and the anarcho-syndicalism page (the anarcho-syndicalism page was redirected to anarchism by AdamRechless). But we can recreate the anarcho-syndicalism page with the info that was copied to this article. I'm not really sure left anarchism would be necessary either if we were careful about how we wrote the history on the anrchism page.
I know others have moved all the info from other pages to here, but IMO that was a mistake. Unlike a normal encylopedia, wikipedia is web-based, so I think in the grand tradition of good software creation, we should comparmentalize as much as possible. Simply moving info to this page and creating a redirect has caused problems on other pages. I had to change many of the links on the libertarian socialism page so that they would point directly to the relevent sections of this article (I guess I could have changed the redirect too, but I didn't think about that). If I didn't know better, and I had clicked on a link to anarcho-syndicalism I might have thought anarchism and anarcho-syndicalism were synonyms, which isn't exactly true. millerc 22:01, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
BTW, I just got through looking at the history and functioning anarchies sections, and find little of those sections to be offensive. Do others feel the same? There are a couple of problems I have with the history section. Such as mentioning the Cathedral and the Bazaar as expounding on the "anarchistic" method used by the free software movement, when its author is known as a Libertarian, and he doesn't seem to differentiate between free software and open source software (only the former one being really anarchistic), but my problems are minor. The rest of the article can go as far as I'm concerned. If the history section is linked correctly, then it will link to all the ideologies that claim to be anarchist, and the ideologies can be expressed on pages which may attract less controversy. millerc 22:26, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I agree with pretty much all of this. Let's do it. Incidentally, millerc, I think you've been one of the most consistently productive correspondents here, so I certainly pay attention to your opinions. - Nat Krause 18:48, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Additional quotes:

"I think all of this is really about how each group is defining the word "anarchism". So the solution is simple, the main page details the history of meaning for the word itself, and as that meaning branches it links to the articles relevant to it. ... It seems to me that if we are to split this article into multiple parts (*sigh* again) then this method would be the most accurate and balanced way of presenting the differences in interpretation and definition that are present before we lead readers into their respective ghettos- er, pages." (Kevehs, June 26)

"I should note that my personal preference is for the minimalist 'disambiguation' page we once had. VV 22:02, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)"

It sounds like there is general agreement on this. A few points: 1) I agree with millerc that the "debate" page is not very crucial, and we certainly don't have a very good one in place at present to use. 2) I understand Kev's feeling about the cyclical nature of some of these proposed changes. I still think that bringing together all of the sub-subjects (i.e. "anarchism and this and that" and "anarchist views of bric-a-brac") was a good idea, and they should be kept together as much as possible. 3) I don't think that the difference betwen the "minimalist" disambiguation page and the "historical" disambiguation page is very much. As far as I know, no one is advocating a truly minimal disambig along the lines of "Anarchism is a word with several meanings, among them are: anarcho-capitalism, anarchism (Viciousite), libertarian black-clad-mad-bomberism, etc., etc." Any so-called disambiguation page should include a little text sketching out the different ideas involved, and naturally this will include historical information. Agreed? - Nat Krause 18:48, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Sure. I just want to stress my belief in the importance of including the fact that a few of these groups are using a different definition of the word. If I recall the previous page (before it had been broken apart and put back together) just listed their historical order with the links, and I think that led to a lot of the in-fighting and attempts to bump other groups from the page. If the process of disambugation itself makes the differences in these definitions apparent I think it will cut down on the edit wars and prepare for the arrival of even more contentious folk like the so-called [national anarchists] and even the (urk) [anarcho-monarchists]? Kev 23:33, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sandbox?

I have a created a sandbox: Anarchism/sandbox. I'm hoping this can serve as a clearing ground for developing an alternative version of the article without the pressure of being live and the susceptibility to edit wars. I have made a beginning on this, based on both the current page and the previous disambiguation one. VV 00:42, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)


This sandbox reintroduces all the problems of the old version without bringing in the many suggested fixes. For example, it lacks any historical introduction for the 3 forms of anarchism it introduces. It also does nothing to mention the different way in which the word "anarchism" is being used by different groups. Finally, it introduces anarcho-capitalism as a "main trend" in the anarchist movement, but strangely fails to mention primitivism, post-left anarchism, or anarchists without adjectives. By giving a historical introduction that explains the way in which each of these groups uses the word we can completely side-step the mine field that is created when wikipedia itself makes the judgement of what is or isn't a "main trend" in anarchism.
In addition, some of the things being claimed by this version just don't hold water. First, if we are going to give examples of individualist anarchists Tucker and Spooner should be some of the first, it is very questionable whether or not Karl Hess could be considered an anarchist of any sort, or whether Thoreau should be amongst the only mentioned. I don't see why voluntaryism is mentioned side-by-side with individualism. There are also problems with sentences like, "their anarchist stance is thus above the debate of economic regime." Individualists have often argued that a particular form of economics follows from individualism (i.e. they are pro-market and pro-possession). Furthermore, of all the anarchists it is far more appropriate to give such a description of anarchists-without-adjectives given that they really don't advocate any particular form of economics while the individualists generally do.
All in all I don't think this is the best framework to use given all the problems that are present and the important information it lacks that really needs to be integrated into the structure rather than tacked on. Kev 06:27, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I should have guessed you wouldn't like it. But, as I said, it was just a beginning. The three trends and so on were simply lifted from the old version of the page, prior to the creation of the "super-page". The Hess, etc., part was lifted from the Diversity of anarchism page (which I changed to a redirect). I based this on existing text, not writing that of my own; any "errors" are not mine. And, eliminating the historical information was as I see it necessary to making this the minimal page that was suggested. Indeed, it seems most favorable to what you want to accomplish to segregate the histories of the various anarchisms, as you see some as fully independent. VV 06:35, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I think you will notice, VV, that I did not once mention your person or accuse you of being responsible for the errors in the version you have put together. So there is really no need for the defensive statements. Further, I wasn't the one who first suggested the historical introductions, and there are many people here who have supported it other than myself. If you will take a look at the talk page, you will see that my own suggestion centered around the difference in each groups use of the term anarchism. This is the change I feel is most important, I support the historical introductions because I think the two complement each other and don't agree with your preferance of a minimalist page.
VV, if you insist on working on this page which you once claimed only to edit because it lacked people to balance the viewpoints (a concern long since remedied with several editors pushing anarcho-capitalist viewpoints), the least you could do is get off this personal grudge long enough to get the work done. Finally, you should know by now that I don't find the various forms of anarchism fully independent. Nor do I even find those groups misleadingly calling themselves anarchists to be "fully independent" of anarchism either. Kev 06:55, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I was under the impression you yourself favored this "minimalist" approach, but perhaps I misunderstood your comments. And you were equally vehement in the past that ancapism did not draw anything from anarchism. Your charges of a "personal grudge" are (as always) laughable; the best evidence you offer are my pre-emptive disclaimers of authorship, while by contrast in the past few days you penned several attacks on me, including that long, meandering tirade. Every time I nearly forget why you are so difficult to work with, you rather rapidly remind me. VV 08:04, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Skipping past your obsession with my person, I would like to point out that several times in the past I made very clear that anarcho-capitalism was influenced by anarchism. That you did not catch this doesn't surprise me. Kev 11:14, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Spanish rev

The subsection entitled "Spanish revolution (1936-1939)" is supposed to be about an historical example of "successful anarchies". Yet almost all of the information addresses not the revolution and the achievements of anarchism during this period, but the civil war instead.

True. I replaced it with what I wrote for the revolution in Anarchism in Spain. I'm sorry if that seems shady, but what was there was mediocre, as you said :P --Tothebarricades.tk 03:50, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Surrealism and Dali

Falsification/oversimplification of surrealism. Fascism and surrealism are incompatible; his right-wing politics were instrumental Dali's separation from the movement. Falsely implies surrealism is an artistic movement. --Daniel C. Boyer 17:06, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)


National Anarchism

Reference to this internet hoax ought to be removed from this page altogether. There is no evidence of the actual existence of such a movement outside of the internet, there has never been a real-life event involving these shadow figures, the evidence that the individuals involved are simply fascists attempting to subvert yet another ideology is overwhelming, and the very definition of nationalism is contrary to all definition of anarchism including the water-down ones used in this very article. The main reason that the anarcho-fascism page went up for VfD was the absurdity and insincerity involved, and national-anarchism is certainly no better in either regard. Kev 12:54, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree. -- Spleeman 00:56, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Somalia is a perfect example of nationalist anarchism, if you were interested in such things. Sam [Spade] 05:32, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

National Anarchism should be treated as (and is) a split from the International Third Position, and it is already covered on that page. It seems to be largely the creation of one person - Troy Southgate - as a result of his dissatifaction with some aspects of the ITP and its leadership in the shape of Roberto Fiore. Others around him all came out of the ITP or associated groups. (Troy Southgate was a member of the National Front prior to his involvement in the ITP) The exception to this is Richard Hunt - a former editor of Green Anarchist, who has always been a somewhat contrversial figure and long since disowned by the UK Anarchist movement including GA itself . Since leaving GA he has drifted steadily rightwards and seems to have ended up with the National Anarchists as the only people prepared to listen to his (somewhat bizarre and increasingly racist) ideas.

--Tallus 03:37, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Very well then. I'm deleting the info about "national anarchism" as it seems to be treated sufficiently on the ITP page. Spleeman 04:06, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Proof of intellectual dishonesty

[1]. Sam [Spade] 05:37, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

...Don't you have better things to do? This is silly. You know the addition of Somalia there is nonsense, so just quit it. And I believe it was Spleeman who made the so-called "personal attack," I was just agreeing with him. --Tothebarricades.tk 05:43, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I find your continued lack of interest in contemplating the obvious to be disturbingly disappointing. Sam [Spade] 05:45, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

There was no personal attack. I labeled as childish something that Sam had done. I did not say anything personally insulting about Sam. I don't know Sam as a person, so I can't say whether he's childish or not, but I can judge his actions on this site. Including information about Somalia, a so-called "failed state", as an example of anarchism in practice, is childish vandalism. I repeat: Somalia is not an anarchist society, by anyone's defintion (including that of anarcho-capitalists). It is to the contrary an extremely archic society. I can't even remember seeing any references to Somalia on the ridiculous "national anarchist" site either.

Please, explain to the rest of us how "anarchy [chaos] and brutal warlordism" squares with the defintion of anarchism in the first paragraph of this article:

"These philosophies use anarchy to mean a society based on voluntary co-operation of free individuals. Philosophical anarchist thought does not intend to advocate chaos or anomie — it intends "anarchy" to refer to a manner of human relations that is intentionally established and maintained."

Or with the defintion of "anarchy" given in the next section:

"One common use of the English word anarchy is 'a state of lawlessness or political disorder', otherwise known as anomie. This use of the word implies a broad definition: usually, any situation where there is no internationally recognized government is considered anarchy. The current political situation in Somalia, for example, is referred to as a state of anarchy using this definition, since it is in a state of chaos [1] (https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/so.html#Govt).

"However, in anarchist philosophies, anarchy means an 'anarchist society', that is, a society where individuals are free from coercion. Few anarchists would point to Somalia as an anarchist ideal, or even as an example of 'anarchy' in the first place. They would argue that the warlord system that is dominant in Somalia is ultimately another face of despotism, characterized by brutal use of force by self-appointed rulers."

Somalis are most certainly not "free from coercion". If you wanna talk about "intellectual dishonesty", how about your including Somalia, an example of warlordism, on the Anarchism page? How helpful and informative to readers is that? Get a life. -- Spleeman 06:11, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Review Wikipedia:Civility, [2] and Anarchy. Then return and engage in a productive dialogue.
Sam [Spade] 06:05, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
You're the real master of "productive dialogue" aren't you, Sam? -- Spleeman
Your tendency to break wikipedia guidelines at will and then act as if those who criticize you are rulebreakers is quite humorous. You still haven't attempted to justify your inclusion of Somalia as an anarchistic society, by the way. --Tothebarricades.tk 06:07, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Information deleted

  • Somalia (1991 to present)

Intermittent civil war has been a fact of life in Somalia since 1977. Anarchy and brutal warlordism have dominated Somalia for thirteen long years, providing a convenient staging ground for international terrorism. Numerous self declared autonomous states exist, such as Puntland, Mudug, Nugaal, Bari and the Independent Republic of Somaliland, but none have recieved international recognition from any legitimate nation state. Beginning in 1993, a two-year UN humanitarian effort (primarily in the south) was able to alleviate famine conditions, but when the UN withdrew on March 3, 1995, having suffered significant casualties, order still had not been restored. The Rahanweyn Resistance Army (RRA) declared a seccesion in 1999. That seccesion was reasserted in 2002. This has led to the autonomy and independence of Southwestern Somalia. The RRA had originally set up an autonomous administration over the Bay and Bakool regions of south and central Somalia in 1999. [3]

This looks to me like an example of anarchy but not anarchism. VV 06:06, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The section now reads "Examples_of_anarchistic_societies". You don't feel todays Somalia applies? Why not? Sam [Spade] 06:08, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
VV is correct. Somalia is an example of "anarchy" in the sense of chaos or disorder (anomie). It is not, by any defintion, an example of anarchism. See again, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism#Anarchy.
I understand that Somalia is not an anarchy according to anarchist philosophy. It is however an anarchy according to the CIA, and according to the common definition of the word anarchy. Sam [Spade] 06:21, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I would say Somalia is an anarchic but not anarchistic society - but perhaps you feel that's splitting the hair too thin. If your reason is that the section is entitled "Examples of anarchistic societies", then perhaps the title should be changed so it does not refer to information not relevant to the article, which is about anarchism (an ideology) not anarchy (a state of affairs). VV 06:45, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
You are exactly correct about my point being based apon the section heading. Sam [Spade] 20:30, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)


"I understand that Somalia is not an anarchy according to anarchist philosophy." Then the argument is over. The title is not "Examples of anarchic societies" it's ""Examples of anarchistic societies", implying that these societies in some way relate to anarchist ideas. This page is not about "the common definition of the word anarchy", i.e. chaos and disorder. It is about the philosophical tendency called "anarchism", and material on the page should therefore relate to anarchism in some way. Instead, your inclusion of Somalia directly contradicts other sections of the article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism#Anarchy ) where the case of Somalia is already sufficiently explained. No one is going to support you on this one, Sam. Please desist in your attempts to vandalize and undermine the integrity of this article. -- Spleeman 06:41, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Examples of societies historically relevant to anarchism

The heading "Examples of anarchistic societies" has been changed to "Examples of societies historically relevant to anarchism" in order to avoid ambiguity about its meaning. -- Spleeman 06:46, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

The only thing under dispute here is the inclusion of your personal POV in the article Sam. You have been informed on multiple occasions in the past that anarchy has different meanings than anarchism, and both the wikipedia article and multiple dictionary/encyclopedia articles state as much explicitly. If you want to throw a tantrum because you are not getting your way at least follow the rules: you are required to state exactly what bias you think is present in the article atm, so please do so soon or the label will be removed. Kev 08:37, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"Examples_of_societies_historically_relevant_to_anarchism" is the primary POV concern at this time. Somalia, and also albania (and a variety of other situations) are historically relevent to anarchism. Sam [Spade] 20:59, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
If your intent is to communicate that an objection to anarchism is that a region without a government is prone to degenerate into an anarchic situation such as Somalia's, then perhaps you should directly state that in an objections paragraph instead. The intent of the section in question is, I believe, to give examples of societies functioning along anarchist principles, not examples of abject failures due to statelessness. VV 21:34, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Yet you are the only person, on wikipedia or elsewhere, who feels this way, so we cannot add it to the article. --Tothebarricades.tk 21:27, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The fact that "numerous self declared autonomous states exist" proves that this is not an example of anarchism. Guanaco 21:35, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)
It would be an example of National anarchism. Sam [Spade] 22:02, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
But "national anarchism" is a self-contradictory neologism confined, apparently, to a few niches on the internet. --Tothebarricades.tk 22:18, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Not if Somalia is seen to be an example of it. IMO any situation wherein the group decides to fully engage in freewill and does whatever they want it nearly always involves Rioting or warlordism, unless were talking about hippies (and even they usually riot when they are feeling especially free). A natural instinct for many in this sort of situaltion is to seize power (warlordism), weapons, resources, and.... land (National anarchism?). The fact that those who normally consider themselves to be anarchists do not approve of how others behave when they suddenly decide to engage in anarchism seems a bit hypocritical, yes? Sam [Spade] 22:31, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Okay Sam, since you are going out of your way to be insincere with these edits, provide me with some hard evidence that Somalia is an example of anarchism, rather than anarchy. I mean, other than in your own personal POV. Kev 23:37, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Begs the question, how could you possibly know if I am sincere? Why assume bad faith? Sam [Spade] 23:42, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
As I said months ago, after you had already been demolishing these pages for a couple months, you are long since past the point of demonstrating your own bad faith and insincerity on this page. Frankly I'm finished with trying to deal with you, I will wait for others to try and resolve this and then respond appropriately to your behavior. Kev 00:50, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
"IMO any situation wherein the group decides to fully engage in freewill and does whatever they want it nearly always involves Rioting or warlordism, unless were talking about hippies (and even they usually riot when they are feeling especially free). A natural instinct for many in this sort of situaltion is to seize power (warlordism), weapons, resources, and.... land (National anarchism?)." IMO says it all, Sam. The thing is, no matter how much you may desire it, your opinions just don't count as fact. And they're certainly not an excuse to undermine the intellectual integrity of this page. As VV has said "The intent of the section in question is, I believe, to give examples of societies functioning along anarchist principles, not examples of abject failures due to statelessness." This is article is intended to be a neutral, factual explanation of the philosophical tendency called anarchism; it is not a place for you to spew your opinions about that philosophical tendency, or to try and disprove it. A wikipedia article is not about proving or disproving at all; it's about giving people information.
It seems there is consensus that Sam is in the wrong on this. My suggestion is that he simply be ignored on this issue from here on out.
Regarding the heading, I'm not convinced my change is the best possible. Should we leave it, change it back, or does anyone have any better ideas?
Also, I think the mention of national anarchism belongs on the Internet phenomenon page instead of on the anarchism page, because it's pretty much just one or two websites, and it's highly controversial whether it can really be considered anarchism at all. -- Spleeman 00:07, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I think the heading should be changed back to either the original "Examples of "successful" anarchies" or the one that started this debate "Examples of anarchistic societies". "Examples of societies historically relevant to anarchism" is bad -- that section was supposed to be a list of examples of societies that were under a variant of Anarchism (as described on the article, not Anomie) for a period of time, but societies not fiting that definition might also be historically relevant to anarchism (as a bad example, for instance).
cesarb 00:56, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I changed it back to something along the lines of the original. I didn't like "Examples of "successful" anarchies" mainly because of the quotation marks, but also because the word "anarchies" is misleading in itself, not to mention uncommon; I didn't mean to incite a riot here, forgive me. I think the new title is suitable, if overly long... --Tothebarricades.tk 01:13, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I think the new title is good. cesarb 01:38, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I have to object to the new title. First, "successfully" is too controversial. Second, it is arguable whether these societies were intended to be organized along anarchist principles. Lastly, it is further arguable whether these societies were indeed organized at all; indeed, at least one example wasn't even a society, but merely a revolution. The purpose of this section, as I understand it, is to list certain events in history that have in some way provided examples of anarchistic organization. With this in mind, I suggest the "Christiania" and "Argentina (2001-2002)" entries be merged with the next section under the title "Examples of organizations with anarchist qualities". The Spanish and Hungarian revolutions would go under the heading, "Revolutions and uprisings with anarchist influences". Other possible additions for this section might include the Mexican Revolution, the early Russian Revolution, May '68 in Paris, and the Autonomia! movment in Italy. Peace and solidarity... Spleeman 01:50, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I don't see the problem with saying "Examples of successful anarchies". The following text can then specify what is meant by success ("according to some anarchists"), and that the examples were not necessarily intended to be anarchist. Alternately, we could say "Examples considered successful anarchies" or "Societies considered successful anarchies". Well, just some suggestions, I have no desire to involve myself too deeply in yet another fight on this page. VV 02:40, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
No please, thanks for the suggestions. One of the issues with "Examples of successful anarchies" is that some of these examples aren't even considered "successful anarchies" by most anarchists, but merely examples of movements or organizations from which anarchists can learn. And to me, this is fine. I think we should be able to include examples that are relevant to anarchism but might not be explicitly anarchist or even "successful". Of course the main problem remains that unless we use ultra-specific language, the page will fall prey to trolls like Spade. Plus, I still like the idea of separating actual societies from revolutionary moments. Cheers. -- Spleeman 03:33, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
How about "Some examples ..." or something on the same lines? Maybe being less specific is the key (since then only mostly uncontested examples would have to go in). cesarb 03:48, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)


Historical examples of anarchistic phenomena? lol, I dunno. Kev 07:55, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"Historical examples of societies successfully organized according to anarchist principles" vs. "Examples of organizations with anarchist qualities"

Is the second really necessary? The Zapatistas, it is true, are not "anarchists" in the strict sense of the word, but neither is Linus Torvalds. --Tothebarricades.tk 15:49, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

As regards the Zapatistas, I feel it is a case of cultural imperialism in the worst degree to attempt to co-opt their struggle into Western anarchism, especially when they have specifically pointed out that they are not anarchists. -- Spleeman 23:06, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Well, we're not saying they are, we're saying their society has certain anarchist qualities. But you have a point, and perhaps we should split it up into "self-described anarchist societies" and "societies with anarchist qualities," or something along those lines. --Tothebarricades.tk 23:14, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Free software movement

What do people think about 192.43.227.18's addition?

I don't know. I've often noted that the open source movement is anarchist in structure but I'm not sure how popular that sentiment is... --Tothebarricades.tk 23:15, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I just realized you used the term open source, and I'd like to warn you (and any possible contributers to the anarchism page) to be careful. Open source and free software are two different things. Free software is a good example of something related to anarchism, open software might be considered anarchist by anarcho-capitalists (doubtful if it would be considered libertarian socialist), but its intent is very different than that of free software. millerc 22:36, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Yeah, I think it's definitely worthy of mention but I'm not sure where he put it in the article is the best place. -- Spleeman 01:44, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Still the fallout of the heading debate? My current opinion is that the one that today reads "Historical examples of societies successfully organized according to anarchist principles" should get only the movements that declare themselves to be a variant of anarchism (and it might also need a better heading -- the current one looks like something out of the Mathematics articles), and the next one "Examples of organizations with anarchist qualities" should get the ones that happen to have, as the section title says, anarchistic qualities.
So, I propose moving free software, Argentina, and Hungary to the second one, next to the Zapatistas.
cesarb 19:58, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Sounds like a plan. -- Spleeman 23:27, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Just thought I'd mention that Richard Stallman said his own political philosophy was somewhere between "leftist and left-anarchist" in an interview (not sure which interview but for some reason I think it was in Wired). I don't know if the free software movement is compleatly anarchist (anarchism is something that's a little hard to pin down exactly) but I think it comes very close. I would call it libertarian socialist, since that term in some people's view encompases more than just "left"-anarchism. The GPL itself represents how a change in the legal structure of society affects the interaction of individuals within society, thus its evidence against the idea that modern "capitalism" is the natural outcome of a "free market" regardless of the legal structure of the state government. millerc 04:59, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Since no one objected, I decided to be bold and go ahead and do what I proposed (minus the more controversial title changing). I also took the oportunity to sort them by rough date (sorta; I put free software at the end since it overlaps with some of the other dates). cesarb 01:32, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
By the way, does anyone feel like adding wikis next to free software on that list? ;-) cesarb 01:43, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Hi, i'm a newbie guy at this :). What about mentioning also that the nature of the GPL itself is such that there is in effect, a collective sharing of resources (source code in FSM), thus a concretization of one of the most "important" concepts of the socialist-anarchist ideology (i guess not of anarcho-capitalist one). Raditzman 21:54, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Ok, I just decided to be bold :) I changed the text to: "The Free Software movement is an example of an emergent movement with anarchist characteristics. The nature of the GPL and many other Open Source licenses is such that there is an enforced collective sharing of resources (in this case, source code) between all developers, thus putting into practice the theories behind anarcho-socialists' perspective on private property.". I took out the references to software monopolies and government because I think these reflected more the consequences of fs and did not explain the fundamental link between fs and anarchism. Hope you like it.Raditzman
IMHO, both free software and wikis are too far removed from anarchism in the political sense to be listed here; if they are "organizations with anarchist qualities", then so is a church potluck. Just about everybody, anarchist or not, acknowledges that some things can be done quite effectively by individuals cooperating in a non-hierarchical fashion. Anarchists differ from just about everybody by saying that this kind of cooperation can create a useful alternative to the state (and, for everybody but anarcho-capitalists, the capitalist economy). Using and developing free software doesn't do anything to reduce your dependence on the police force, the banking/monetary system, public utilities, and so forth. I think this whole section would be more appropriately moved into the mutual aid article, but I'm not feeling particularly bold today (and besides, the article's protected), so I will (for now) defer to some Authority Figure. :-) Sethg 17:28, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I would tend to agree, but this isn't important enough to me to spend time on atm. Kev 19:45, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Anarchy symbol

It's fairly modern and associated more with the punk movement than with "anarchism" as it is discussed in this article. Thoughts? --Tothebarricades.tk 02:58, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The symbol is historically associated primarily with anarchism as discussed in this article. But you're right, it does have other connotations, now. As I said in my comment below, it would be very nice to have a lead image. Hopefully someone will be able to come up with a better alternative. • Benc • 03:11, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I recently added the anarchy symbol to the top of this page as an image, and wrote an article about it. Please feel free to review the article — I'm no expert on anarchism, so the new article could use some expert opinion. One concern, though: the lead in the anarchism article was already very long, even before I added the image. I'm not 100% sure that the image should go up there, although it is nice to have an image at the top, especially for long articles. I leave it to this article's regular contributors to decide. • Benc • 03:03, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The circle-A symbol predated the punk movement. See the Anarchist FAQ, it has a section dealing with the history of anarchist symbols. I however, dislike the way in which the symbol is drawn (drawn as a 14 year old punk kid would draw it), since I think it gives the wrong impression about anarchism. Not all anarchists are punks, although Terry Morgan the author of "I was a Working Class Anarchist" would have you believe otherwise... Just think about Noam Chomsky or Howard Zinn next time you feel like putting something like this in this type of article. If you feel like putting the anarchist symbol into the text, I would be more supportive if it were drawn with the A enclosed in and just touching the circle, and not leaping hap-hazzardly out of it. millerc 05:13, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Move Add it to anarcho-punk? Guanaco 03:05, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I agree, anarcho-punk would be a perfect place. • Benc • 03:11, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I removed it here, it's still on anarcho-punk. I hope no one objects to that. :) --Tothebarricades.tk 05:38, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thank you everyone for your comments and help. I've added an image to the article (which I renamed Anarchist symbolism), a neat, no-frills circumscribed "A" (not drawn by a 13 year old ;-)). This might be a good image for the lead in this article — or perhaps it might not. Again, I'll let you all decide whether these might be a good fit for the main article. • Benc • 07:43, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Good to see you have a sense of humor about what I said... I like the "traditional" black circle-A on the page you created, and I think it would be a good pic for this article if no one else disagrees. millerc 19:24, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Update: I asked for and recieved permission to use three other images of anarchy symbols from [4]. Any one the following three images might work here on the main page: Image:Anarchy symbol neat.png, Image:Black flag.jpg, and Image:Circle A red.jpg. Like I said, y'all can pick any or neither; I'm fine either way. • Benc • 10:59, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Problem with gender inspecific pronouns.

I should start by noting that this is a very minor quibble. In the section titled "Arguments concerning the method of historical materialism", the author very carefully constructed a sentence that avoided gender specific pronouns. Although I appreciate the intent, the resulting sentence reads poorly and includes an internally oxymoronic word, "themself". I highly recommend either of the following options.

  • Reconstruct the sentence so that the subject is pluralized, allowing the use of the word "Themselves", which has the benefit of being a recognized english word.
  • Replace the pronouns with male pronouns, which would agree with the rules of english grammar in situations of gender ambiguity.

I personally would prefer the first option, as it preserves the intentional avoidance of gender specific pronouns, which itself agrees with the general tone of the article. I would have directly edited, but didn't want to step on the author's toes.

KuriosD 04:52, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'd prefer the first, also; the second wouldn't go along very well with anarchist ideas ;) --Tothebarricades.tk 06:10, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Go ahead and make the changes KuriosD, that is what wikipedia is all about. If someone disagrees they will edit it, revert it, or discuss it on the talk page. I would also prefer the first alternative btw. Kev 07:35, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Thanks... Still getting used to the format here, as this is my first day.  :) KuriosD 07:40, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Ah, welcome! I hope you stick around! I've been here three months and I still feel like a stupid n00b fuckup. Oh well. :P --Tothebarricades.tk 08:26, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I was the original author of the Historical Materialism section (woo woo). I naturally write in a gender-neutral pro-noun way, its modern, no? :). However, you might be interested to know that "them, themself, they, their, theirs" are a gender neutral pronoun set for singular gender-neutral humans. The Australian Government Style Manual authorised this usage, and it is (as such) an increasing element of Australian English. However, I'm glad that you decided to go for gender neutral collective, instead of masculine-as-genderless ('cause it isn't :). No need to worry about stepping on my toes, your version reads better /because/ Historical Materialism is all about /collective/ social experience :). Fifelfoo 00:23, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

What others think

From the German version of this article: Bisweilen wird das Adjektiv libertär synonym für "anarchistisch" verwendet.

(says libertarian is another word for anarchist)

From the German version of anarcho-capitalism: Der Anarchokapitalismus betrachtet sich selbst als reinste Form des Anarchismus, ist aber tatsächlich die radikalste Form des Liberalismus.

(says anarcho-capitalism is more accurately described as the most radical form of Libertarianism, rather than as a form of anarchism)

It says "a radical form of liberalism" (liberal), not "libertarianism" (libertär), where liberal is understood in the European sense of laissez faire as opposed to the North American sense of progressive. — Miguel 22:33, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Oops you're correct. I don't know why I didn't catch that (although my German is far from perfect); I translated "libertär" correctly. I guess I just wasn't being careful. Many people in the U.S. use the term "classical liberalism" to mean what "liberalism" means in most European countries. millerc 22:38, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I was just thinking of some of the arguments that have been posted here and on the libertarian socialism page in the past. Well appearently the Germans think "libertarian" is just another term for "anarchist", and they appearently don't think of anarcho-capitalism as a form of anarchism. I'm not proposing that we should change the current article, but just for some prospective on the issue in future discussions. millerc 19:16, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I venture that British English speakers would agree with the Germans, especially on the meaning of liberalism. Think about the contradiction between the American meaning of "liberal" and the meaning of "neoliberal" in the context of globalization. — Miguel 22:33, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
By the way, the OED meaning of libertarian is a simple approving or advocating liberty, while the article on liberal goes on for several pages, distinguishing the usage in the US, UK and continental Europe, both in political and religious meanings, but not attempting to summarize what most of the meanings are. Ugh. — Miguel 22:40, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I'd like to point out that the German article doesn't say anything libertarianism, anarchism, etc. It talks about "libertär" and "Anarchismus". It's normal for words with the same etymology to have slightly different meanings in different languages; see list of false friends. On the other hand, with respect to the English speaking world, one might point out there is a Libertarian Party in Canada, a Libertarianz party in New Zealand, and a Libertarian Alliance in the United Kingdom -- none of which are socialist groups. And also the British Liberal Democrats are fairly leftish. - Nat Krause 11:05, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
You are correct about the different meanings. But its also important to ask why words so recently coined to describe political philosophies (these words may have ancient origins, but their modern use as political terms is relatively recent in all languages), have wildly different meanings to people in different areas. What I'm saying is that the German words have had their meanings conserved for a longer period of time, as did the usage of the words in England as Miguel has pointed out. Its NPOV for the article not to take a position on the "real" meaning of the words, but its also enlightening (and would be enlightening to readers) to note that the meaning of the terms have evolved quite rapidly in the political climate present in the United States in particular. The only reason I brought it up anyway, is because it reminded me of previous discussions involving the issue where some people acted as though the historical context of the terms did not matter. millerc 04:36, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Also, from what I can tell most of the German words in the list of false friends are false cognates (I may be wrong on this since I didn't go through the trouble of looking up the etymology of every one -- I would think the German word "Car" is a cognate of "car", in my experience people who use Texas German say "Car" instead of "Auto"). But the words as I have translated them above are terms that were used in one language to describe a political philosophy and then translated into the other language using the closest possible pre-existing word (so they're not really cognates, but at one time they were used to describe the same political philosophy). millerc 04:50, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Poor phrasing at Examples of organizations with anarchist qualities?

Amongst the instances in which anarchism arose there are many examples that share some of the qualities of anarchist organizations.

Doesn't parse right for me. Might be just a redundancy, but I'm not sure. If it's an instance in which anarchism arose, surely it should have some of the qualities of anarchist organizations, right? And what's an instance in that context?

cesarb 22:34, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes, those sections have rather verbose headers. It's because we've had problems in the past with those sections: Namely, should a movement be called "anarchist" if it displays many anarchist qualities, but does not call itself anarchist? So that distinction was made, and the headers gradually worsened to combat some objectionable additions (see talk on Sam's addition of Somalia). I can't think of anything (at the moment anyway) that is succinct, and yet specific enough to prevent vagueness and edit warring. --Tothebarricades.tk 00:50, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Deletion of Anarcho-Capitalism

While my personal belief is that anarcho-capitalism is a foul, ruling-class derived, fascism inspired nightmare of classical liberalism in a populist mode seeking working class support--it unfortunately exists as a minor social phenomena, linked into other populist neo-liberal movements as a tendency. Perhaps a seperate article is required with a top link for disambiguation? We can't stamp social reality out of practice by deleting words from dictionaries or entries from encyclopedia.Fifelfoo 00:30, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Anonymous user 212.163.254.197 deleted every mention of anarcho-capitalism in the article. The proper thing to do when removing large amounts of information is to copy it to the talk page. My first impulse was to salvage all the amterial from the diff onto the talk page, but it consists of too many paragraphs from too many different sections, so I chose to revert instead. — Miguel 00:35, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

FYI, this exact issue has also cropped up repeatedly on Talk:Anarchist symbolism. Several people there (including myself) support moving most of the anarcho-capitalist information off of the main page (keeping a link, of course). • Benc • 00:55, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
FYI, I have been involved in the discussion here and also over at Libertarian Socialism ;-) Anyway, I went and read Anarcho-capitalist in full, and I think that Anarcho-capitalism can legitimately be described as anarchism. Philosophically, the article claims a lot of the same precursors (before 1850). The current articles (correctly) say at every turn that traditional anarchists and anarcho-capitalists disown each other as true anarchism, and we should leave it at that.
As far as my own POV goes, from the principle of free association of indivisuals it follows that: 1) in a truly anarchistic society, if a small community chooses to freely associate along anarcho-capitalistic principles, it is wrong for the rest to impose socialist anarhism on them; 2) similarly, if in an anarcho-capitalist society a small community chooses to organize on the basis of libertarian socialism, it is wrong for the anarcho-capitalist majority to impose their social organization on the socialist community. Since both left anarchists and anarcho-capitalists would have to agree that it is morally wrong for the majority to impose their view on the minority in both cases, I don't understand what the dispute is all about. Face it: in an anarchist society you can find yourself in a completely different social organization just by moving over to the next town. Philosophical absolutism is at odds with anarchism. — Miguel 06:14, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)


The fact that you read the anarcho-capitalism article on wikipedia and came away thinking that anarcho-capitalism can be legitimately described as anarchism due to the fact that the article claims "a lot of the same precursors" speaks to the incredibly skewed nature of the article as it stands. Lots of people can claim lots of things, but anarcho-capitalists claims as part of their tradition even individuals who resolutely and unambiguously decried capitalism in all its forms. Yet we are supposed to consider these claims legitimate just because they are repeated many times?
Sure, anarcho-capitalists and traditional anarchists have disowned each other at every turn, the operative part being that one of these groups actually follows in anarchist tradition, actually existed before this other group spawned in direct opposition to the tradition it now claims as its own. The fact that you use this term yourself (traditional anarchist), but it has been actively banned by POV warriors from use on that page, speaks volumes as to the need to reform these articles.
Your first 1) claim is mistaken. You assume that anarchism means nothing more than absence of a state. But to "traditional" anarchists this is not and has not ever been true. To claim that a "truly anarchistic" society could not stand against a community that freely associates as anarchists is to entirely side-step the real issue. Anarchists claim that no such voluntary community can exist, anymore than a community of individuals who freely decide to organize as a state and therefore constitute "anarcho-statism". Statism entails involuntary relationships, and to an anarchist capitalism does as well. It is very telling to hear the only capitalist defense that exists against this argument. It generally goes something like, "well many anarchist (they change the name to left-anarchist to suit their rhetorical aims) forms of organization could be seen as coercive, so to deny anarcho-capitalism would be to deny left-anarchism as well". But this nifty little trick of dialogue only serves as an argument against anarchism itself. Even if it is correct it would only mean that no one has ever reached the anarchistic ideal, not that anarcho-capitalists are actually anarchists.
As for 2), it is true that both anarcho-capitalists and anarchists agree that it is wrong for a majority to impose their will upon a minority. What anarcho-capitalists disagree on is that economic relations based on private enforcement of entitlement constitute coercion, and thus that such relations would result in a minority of wealthy individuals imposing their will on a majority. They are free to disagree on this all they want, but their very disagreement sets them apart from anarchism, which has always stood against both majority and minority enforcement in any form. This is no different than the "national-anarchists" who attempt to dress fascism in the image of anarchism by claiming that, yes it is wrong for a minority or majority to impose their will, but that actively restricting others from communities of "volunatarily segregated" ethnicities does not constitute coercion. Yes, any ideology can call itself anarchism if they change the very definitions or interpretations being used, but it is scary to think that so many would call the anarcho-capitalist claim to anarchist tradition legitimate without even seeing that such a change is being attempted. Kev 03:08, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Re-Deletion of Anarcho-capitalism

Sorry if I did not do it in the right way.

Here it is irrelevant our opinion about anarcho-capitalism. We are not talking about that. Anarcho-capitalism could be the very best solution for all the problems of the whole world and that would not make it to become a part of anarchism. The problem is if anarcho-capitalism is part of anarchism, or if it is part of liberalism and capitalism. The whole tradition of anarchism is a fight, some times bloddy, against capitalism, and in fewer times against marxism-leninism. It is a very hard insult against all the anarchist murdered by capitalist driven forces to see a pro-capitalist moovement within anarchism in Wikipedia. I do hate fascism much more, but of course, I'm sure there must be a page about fascism in Wikipedia. And Anarcho-capitalism has its own page here. They do not need to invade the one about anarchism.

I'm sure it is a tryal just to make confussion and an encyclopedia should be neutral. As anarchism is an enemy of this system, they try to manipulate Wikipedia to make confussion. This is a political biass. They do more efforts to keep it in anarchism than to explain their theories in their page in Wikipedia.

A bad way to keep a serious encyclopedia.

First of all, thank you for posting on the talk page instead of deleting the content a second time. This is what Wikipedia is all about: reaching consensus to ensure we have a factual, neutral-point-of-view (NPOV) article.
Now, to address your concerns: from what I've seen, the majority of editors here would be inclined to agree with you that anarcho-capitalism is hardly anarchism. I'm one of them. However, this is our point-of-view, and Wikipedia is all about NPOV in our articles. It's one of our central tenets.
It is POV to make the blanket statement that "anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism" because a significant (if relatively small) number of people assert the opposite. Therefore, we need to at least make some reference to them on the main anarchism article. Of course, we're free to disclaim the statement, noting that anarcho-capitalism is a small faction that's rather reviled by other anarchists. But to completely remove all reference to anarcho-capitalism from this article is POV and unacceptable. • Benc • 02:11, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Oh great Benc! so, you say to completely remove all reference to anarcho-capitalism from this article is POV and unacceptable and to keep it is not POV??? why??? They do have the right to keep their pro-capitalist moovement within anarchism and we do not have the same the same right to do the opposite? Is that your idea of "neutral"??? Perhaps in Wikipedia the pro-capitalist point of view has more rights than the anti-capitalist one?
Please, think something more logical and coherent, othetrwise I will think that the right way is to delete capitalist point of view every time I want. If somebody has the right to hit me, why I can't do the same?
Sorry if don't answer next time qwickly, it's too late to me.
You're missing the point. To reiterate: it is POV to state that anarcho-capitalism is not anarchism. It is also POV to state that anarcho-capitalism is anarchism. To achieve NPOV, we need to cover both sides of the issue. (Yes, one side is much larger than the other, but that is irrelevant to the NPOV concern.) Purging all references to anarcho-capitalism is not a good way to achieve NPOV. I encourage you to read and understand the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy. • Benc • 03:33, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)


I encourage this anonymous editor to consider this page an opportunity to inform the reader as to the relation between anarcho-capitalism and anarchism, rather than to simply ignore those who claim to be anarcho-capitalists in some hope that they will just go away. If it is true that anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism, and I personally think this is very difficult to deny, then it should be evident by the facts presented. We should have faith that a reader can discern this for themselves.
At the same time, this problem has cropped up many times before. While I would like to believe this page is far more NPOV then it had been, it does appear that many readers still get the impression that it is pushing a false conception of anarchism. Many editors were prepared to overhaul the status of anarcho-capitalism on this page some months ago, but this was put off pending a proposed series of changes in the page content that never came about (which I personally think is for the best). It is true that this page should mention anarcho-capitalism and perhaps even describe it to some degree, but NPOV policy does not dictate that we ought to place such a great emphasis on anarcho-capitalism. Currently there are several headers like "7 Major conflicts within anarchist thought" and "Anarchist economic organization" which spend far more time detailing anarcho-capitalist arguments then their theories merit given their general political influence relative to anarchism at large, this distracts from the article itself and present a skewed image of anarchism. I agree disambugation is the right move in this case. When anarcho-capitalists use the term 'anarchism' they mean something very different than it meant in the anarchist tradition that came before them, or then it means to the anarchists who oppose them, as such it would only do this encyclopedia good to move all substantive comparison between anarchism and anarcho-capitalism to the anarcho-capitalism page (in fact most of it is there already, making the duplicate texts here redundant) and leave this one with links that clarify just what these differences in meaning are for the reader and point them to that page. Kev 06:13, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The main point that I made (or should have made) when this subject was discussed a couple months ago (sure did get off on a lot of tangents, though) is that I don't think that it is very important whether anarcho-capitalists think they are anarchists, and I also don't think that it is very important whether anarchists (however defined) think anarcho-capitalists are anarchists. What I think is important is that I suspect that a large majority of the speakers of the English language would think that A-C's are anarchists, because they want to "abolish the government" (actually the state, to be technical), if they had heard of them at all, which they haven't (they haven't heard of left-anarchism, either). That is what I thought before I became one myself, and since joining the ranks of the A-C's, I am now less certain than before that they are anarchists.
Given the above, I think that it would be very misleading to have this entry without discussing anarcho-capitalism or prominently disambiguating. On the other hand, I don't think it's desirable to try to deal with A-C and left-A as an integrated whole, which they are not. Didn't this talk page reach an agreement a while back that the whole anarchism page should become a disambiguation? On the other hand, I suppose I would also be amenable to an arrangement like the one on libertarianism, where the article is generally about one flavor but contains a disambiguation notice at the top pointing to the other flavor. Although, right now, someone's trying to screw with the balance of that page, too, so maybe it's not the best example. - Nat Krause 06:38, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalism has got about as much to do with anarchism as national-socialism has got to do with socialism. That is, nothing, except half of the name, and a few superficial similarities as to the actual beliefs. I guess that similar problems have come up in the socialism article, and probably we should look at how they solved it. The actual social aims which the proponents want to achieve with these belief system are completely different. Are there any "authoritative" sources that deal with the anarcho-capitalist vs. anarchist problem? - pir 08:54, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Actually this problem exists more commonly. Christianity was divided into orthodox and catholic, and until this day both sides view other as heretics. Anarchist movement is divided among many issues (pacifism vs. militancy, capitalism vs. communism/syndicalism, individualism vs. communalism, class anarchism vs. lifestylism), and many times at least one of the sides will make a statement like "we are more anarchist" or "we are the only anarchists". Look at what happened with Green Anarchy and AK Press dispute. Now both sides label the other as anti-anarchist, and refuse to reconsile any differences... now is that anarchist. If this article is about Anarchism as a movement and not as some ideology that was written in stone by some upperclass heterosexual white men a couple of centuries ago, then editing of this article must also show that. This is all i have to say for now... take it as you will... Beta m 10:38, 2004 Sep 6 (UTC)
I think a different - maybe better analogy is convergent evolution in biology. Just because insect and birds have wings does not mean that they are closely related. Conversely, just because insects and birds are not closely related does not mean we need a different name for birds' wings and for flies' wings.
Catholicism and Orthodox christianity represent two branches of a common tree, not two different converging philosophies. In the realm of religion, however, there are syncretic religions that synthesize ideas from different, unrelated religions.
The evolution of philosophical ideas is much more complex than biological evolution because both divergence and convergence are easier. People don't need to agree with everything that an author work even if they think that they provided the best expression of some idea. It is not impossible nor far-fetched that someone would agree partly with Adam Smith, partly with Proudhon, partly with Marx, partly with Hayek...
The wikipedia articles on political philosophies are choke-full of paragraphs such as "so-and-so-ists, while drawing this concept from this guy, disagree with this other key concept of his philosophy".
Miguel 03:51, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that the comparison to Chrstianity is very suitable. To me anarcho-capitalism looks like an opportunistic attempt to co-opt and pervert anarchism to achieve social aims contradictory to those initially intended by anarchists, rather than a genuine split within an evolving movement trying to achieve similar social aims. - pir 11:50, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Do you have any evidence for this theory? Do you think that the early ancaps' opposition to the state is not sincere? That they didn't believe what they said and wrote? That they dreamed up this whole theory, writing dozens of books and articles elaborating and defending it, just to stick it to the "real" anarchists? This strikes me as quite absurd. VV 14:44, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
It's not a theory, it's just my personal view and you can make of it what you like. Of course I don't imply that anarcho-capitalism is one big conspiracy, but rather, that people always look around for ideas when they run out with their own ideas, and when they find something useful they use it for their own purpose, no matter what the initial aims were. My reasons for thinking this is that anarcho-capitalism came up much later and derived from economic liberalism rather than anarchism (the article states "many anarcho-capitalists think of themselves more as an anarchist flavor of classical liberalism than a capitalist flavor of anarchism") and that they are far more friendly towards liberals than other (anti-capitalist) anarchists. And how someone can claim to be opposed to co-ercive authority while at the same time promoting wage-slavery, "free" market fundamentalism, and private property rights, and fail to see how "capitalism" would fall apart without state intervention and control, is simply beyond me. As an aside, I've always been interested in your politics - are you an anarcho-capitalist? - pir 15:39, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
"Anarcho-capitalism has got about as much to do with anarchism as national-socialism has got to do with socialism. That is, nothing, except half of the name, and a few superficial similarities as to the actual beliefs." This is simply POV stated as fact. It depends entirely on how one defines "anarchism" and I am suggesting that the definition the above assumes is a fairly obscure one. - Nat Krause 09:53, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)


And the definitions you rely on are hand-picked to produce the results you advocate Nat. You make claims that most people in modern society would consider anarcho-capitalists to be anarchists, but then you admit that most people haven't even heard of anarchism, much less anarcho-capitalism. In truth, "most people" probably think of anarchism as nothing more than the philosophy of chaos and whiskered bomb throwers because that is what they have been told and they have never attempted to educate themselves on the matter. But the fact that misconceptions exist doesn't mean that the anarchism page should be all about them misconception, anymore than the Catholicism page should go in-depth into the canabalism of catholics simply because some Southern Baptists make this claim concerning communion. If such material should be on wikipedia at all, it should be on the Southern Baptist page or even an off-shoot of that one, and the same applies to anarcho-capitalism. Rather than simply push one meaning we have to disambugate between the popular meanings and the literal and historical meanings. I agree with you and others above that the solution here is to disambugate between the meaning given to anarchism by the anarchists who began the tradition, the meaning given to it by popular media and the state, the meaning it had before it was ever adopted as a political philosophy, and the meaning given to it by the so-called anarcho-capitalists. By doing this we finally move toward defeating the POV that reigns over this article by insisting that anarcho-capitalism be portrayed as far more substantive a part of anarchist history and modern politic than it actually is. Kev 15:01, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The people here who want the A-C content removed seem to think that it is just a recent invention. While it is true that it has only recently re-entered the academic debate, it certainly has a basis in the early enlightenment texts which were the basis of much anarchist thought - and therefore it is perfectly valid for it to be included on an article about the philosophical/academic basis of anarchism. I also find it amusing that the left-anarchists seem to think that the capitalist brand of anarchism is some kind of contradiction, when the A-Cs have the opposite view - that communal-socialist groups are only sustainable when a state is around to sustain them. Personally I find both views rather utopian and thus unrealistic (in the short term at least), I take a more pragmatic approach. --63.218.54.3 00:08, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Saying that anarcho-capitalism has a 'basis' in texts from a period of time that predated anarchism and also formed the basis of anarchism does not in any way indicate that anarcho-capitalism should play a primary role in an article about anarchism anymore than an article about Islam should include large passages concerning The Church of Later Day Saints just because they both draw in some some tradition from the texts of Abraham. If one wants to argue that the tradition of anarcho-capitalism -as such- extends far beyond anarchism and formed the basis of anarchism then that would be a different matter, but it would also be a false claim in that anarcho-capitalism -as such- did not exist before anarchism and the scant evidence that it did based merely of the fact that there were some similar qualities in, say, classical liberalism, is not compelling in itself. Anarcho-capitalism by that name and in that tradition is a recent invention, similar ideas from other ideologies notwithstanding, and if you claim that this is untrue then please provide the evidence rather than simply the claim.
I'm glad you are amused that anarchists believe anarcho-capitalism is a contradition and anarcho-capitalists claim the same thing about traditional anarchism. What you neglect is that the very people who first constituted an anarchist ideology would, according to this logic, contradict themselves according to the capitalists who now co-opt and seek to reform the title, requiring distortions and twists of logic to safely arrive at the anarcho-capitalist conclusion that traditional anarchists are not anarchists at all. But I agree, the world can be pretty amusing when you see it through fun-house mirrors. Kev 03:00, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ok, i'm going to try to restart this discussion a little bit. Since for now it looks like it's going in a circle. Where is Anarcho-Primitivism on this page? (I'll tell you where, it's a link that you can find if you go to Ecological Anarchism). And Crypto-Anarchism is simmilarly just a link from Technological Anarchism section. Now these two views of anarchism oppose each other (will anybody disagree with that). And they are both disambiguated. So if you remove An-Cap to a separate page... please do the same to Anarcho-Syndicalism; if you don't it will simply be a POV. I consider myself to be "anarchist without adjectives" sort of "post-left" flavour. (Also note that i can't see much about Post-Left in the article.) So i can't see either forms of Anarchism as true revolutionary theory, but only as a half way compromise... and therefore they should be treated equally, no matter which one of them came first, and which one of them is based on earlier texts. Beta m 10:30, 2004 Sep 8 (UTC)

I believe that there has been general agreement not to remove all mention of anarcho-capitalism from this page, but rather to use this page to disambugate between different theories of anarchism. As ever, I am neutral toward the view of stripping this page apart completely and leaving it solely for the purpose of disambugation, but I will note as I did before that everytime this has been done or suggested a large number of people desired to reverse the process. If the page is not moved toward strict disambugation, then I must disagree that it would be POV to present anarcho-syndicalism on this page to a greater degree than anarcho-capitalism. NPOV policy does not state that equal time or representation must be given to competing theories on wikipedia, it merely states that theories which are represented need to be represented in a neutral light. This is why it is a mistake to simply throw ought all discussion of the history of anarchism or the basis of its theory, because if this page is going to actually give information on anarchism it is not only NPOV but also justified to spend most of the page detailing those theories which have been more closely associated with anarchism for the longest time and have represented anarchism to the greatest extent. To argue otherwise is to open every page on wikipedia to every crackpot theory about anything, does anyone seriously believe that equal time should be given to Apollo conspiracy theories on the Apollo program wiki-page, or that if such theories are merely linked to on that page then most of the history of the Apollo program should also be put in links as well to remain "neutral"? Kev 15:23, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
And the definitions you rely on are hand-picked to produce the results you advocate Nat. The idea that I would really go out of my way to associate myself with the word "anarchism" is pretty ridiculous. Wouldn't I prefer to co-opt a term that people actually respond favorably, like, I don't know, NASCAR? (Hmmm, Capitalo-Nascarism, I kind of like the ring of that ...) In truth, "most people" probably think of anarchism as nothing more than the philosophy of chaos and whiskered bomb throwers because that is what they have been told and they have never attempted to educate themselves on the matter. But the fact that misconceptions exist doesn't mean that the anarchism page should be all about them misconception, Your first sentence is very likely true, although I submit that the association with chaos is weaker for "anarchist" than it is for "anarchy", and weaker still for "anarchism" rather than "anarchist" (consider the statements, "Somalia is in a state of anarchy"; "Somalia is full of anarchists"; and "Somalia puts into practice the ideas of anarchism"). Given that this is the most common usage, I think we should we should definitely address it, but there just isn't much to say about it because it isn't based on much that relates to reality. I'm fine with moving this page toward a historical disambiguation, which would probably be the ideal solution; I'm also fine with removing most of the A-C references from this page as long as it is prominently disambiguated. I have no desire to see A-C portrayed as part of the history of the main (socialist) anarchist movement (leaving aside the issue of the individualists for the moment), and I'm not sure who it is that does want that (except for maybe anonymous, above). So I don't see any major practical points of disagreement between myself and Kev.
By the way, I'm more comfortable now with the use of the expression "traditional anarchism" than I was previously, due to Kev's as-yet-unrebutted observations linking the individualists to the various communal anarchisms. I still think it should be deprecated for sake of clarity, particularly on the anarcho-capitalism page and other directly related articles. - Nat Krause 07:13, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)


Perhaps my wording gave the wrong impression. I do not think that you are personally going out of your way to associate capitalism with anarchism. Rather, it appeared to me that you were going out of your way to defend the association which is aleady claimed by many capitalists, and that part of that standard defense includes a sort of reformation of the word anarchism to mean something different than it once did (and for many still does). But I may have been mistaken. Anyway, I understand the concerns that some have expressed that the use of "traditional anarchism" might be taken to imply that anarcho-capitalism does not have a tradition. Anarcho-capitalism does have its own tradition, and it also follows in the tradition of a number of prominent ideologies. However, I don't think that comparing it to traditional anarchism gives the necessary implication that there is no ac tradition, and so long as we state explicitly on the anarcho-capitalism page that it is not meant to indicate such I think "traditional" really might be the best way to put to rest the multitude of problems that arise with alternatives like "left-anarchist", "anti-capitalist anarchist", and others. However, I am hesitant to make any such edits myself because I don't want to spawn a revert war on that page. It is still possible that someone will think of a new alternative that avoids all the concerns individuals have, but if not I will post a sort of warning and give editors to the anarcho-capitalism page plenty of time to respond before attempting further edits concerning this subject. Kev 16:56, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)


I completely agree that "anarcho-capitalism" is not anarchism. This is common sense based on the basic ideology of anarchism. Anarchy is society without hierarchal structure. Capitalism is just that, so it is a ideological paradox. "Anarcho-capitalism" is like saying "Non-oppressive fascism", it just doesn't make any sense. I see no need to show so many "anarcho-capitalist" perspectives in this article, because doing this shows it as a form of anarchism which is not and couldn't ever be. This is not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of what is correct and what isn't. Anarcho-capitalists hide under the false assumption by the mainstream that anarchism (if not being "chaos") is strictly "no government". Anarchism isn't, and never has been limited to just the instituion of the state, the very root of the word is "without rule" which would include all hierarchy. Hierarchal structures cannot exist in a non-hierarchal society. "Anarcho-capitalism" is fake anarchism, it's a stupid and calling someone a racist anarchist, it just can't exist. Opinion: the article should be revised to get rid of the abundance of "from an anarcho-capitalist perspective" stuff and simply the only reference to this in the article should be a few short sentences saying basically the following, "anarcho-capitalism is an ideology promoted by some individuals, it is however contradictory to anarchism and is an ideological paradox, since capitalism (a hierarchal system) cannot exist in anarchy, a non-hierarchal society." And so on, if there's anything else that should be mentioned. But seriously, this isn't opinion, it's a simple fact that one cannot be for capitalism and for anarchism at the same time. --Fatal 15:41, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree "anarcho-capitalism" should be moved out of the article. Perhaps the best would be to add something in the beginning of the article like "This article is about anarchism, for anarcho-capitalism that has no history or ideas common with anarchism see that article." // Liftarn

Deleting some of the so-called Basic Principles

Due process assumes law. This is highly arguable. The access to wealth stuff and discussion of violence are poorly worded summaries of better summaries below. The other two basic principles are poorly worded (one included "Democracy," which is a debatably anarchist method for resolving differences in goals). I suggest the other two should get the chop too.Fifelfoo 06:17, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

music

A name which ought to be presented in the music vs anarchism is John Cage.

Why? --Fatal 18:40, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

New "anarcho-capitalist" argument, the final abolition

Another way of explaining this occured to me recently. Anti-statism is purely against the state. Anarchy is against all hierarchy. Capitalism is hierarchal and therefore could not coexist in a non-hierarchal society. "Anarco-capitalists" in my opinion just want to sound cool by calling themselves "anarchist." They are anti-statist capitalists, and THAT is what they should call themselves. It's really very simple, this is a black and white argument. What I have just explained is all that should be said about this in the article. --Fatal 01:05, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Not everyone agrees with that analysis. Some take anarchy to mean no government, not no hierarchy. Also, not all consider capitalism hierarchical. See archives of this Talk page for the previous 238 times this issue was discussed. VeryVerily 05:54, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Some take Greenland to be bigger than Africa on some maps, but that doesn't make them right does it? Anyone who takes anarchy to mean ONLY "no government" is wrong. Anti-statism is strictly no government. Anarchy emcompasses all rule, the very entymology of the word is "without rule" which includes all hierarchy and always has. As far as capitalism not being hierarchal, I'm sure this has been said before but that's just rediculous. In countless examples in recent history is it proven that the more capitalistic a country becomes, the more restrictions taken off of capitalism (by the government) the more hierarchal it becomes, the poorer the poor get and the richer the rich gets. Anti-statist capitalism is the ultimate goal for capitalists, it can clearly be seen that with no government capitalism by itself at least would be more hierarchal than it is now. Anarchy has always been more than no government, anarchy being a synonym with anti-statism is common misconception. Capitalism by its very nature is hierarchal, the people who created the ideas of it had hierarchy in mind, capitalism was promoted with the use of crap like "social darwinism" that claimed some people were better than others and that they should succeed and the poor should be trampled on. You can this non-hierarchal? The Harmarket tradgedy was not suffered by capitalists, the spanish revolution was not fought by capitalists, the paris 68 events were not started by capitalists, and it's obvious that modern day anarchists are anti-capitalists. All of the zines listed at the bottom are anti-capitalist, all the books are anti-capitalist. ANARCHY IS NON-HIERARCHAL. Anarchy is and always has been against hierarchy, against inequality, and has NEVER been a way for a a few individuals to enhance their profits. Capitalism is hierarchal, period. And to say that anarchy is just no government is to take the position of the average commoner who knows nothing of anarchism. -Fatal 19:56, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

ParEcon

Fatal's latest edits mention Participatory Economics -- is ParEcon really anarchist? It sounds more like state socialism to me. - Nat Krause 05:35, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The monetary systems section belongs in libertarian socialism. VeryVerily 05:58, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

ParEcon is an economic system accepted by some anarchists, and Michael Albert himself is an anarchist last time I've checked. The section isn't really meant to advertise ParEcon, but to talk about the monetary system issue. This may not be a well known issue but anarchists do have differing opinions on it. ParEcon, however, is notorious for showing itself off as something that would "work better with a state." So remove it if you wish, that's just the only differing argument I could think of...didn't want the whole section to be denouncing money since some anarchists aren't totally against it. Example: it's clear that the authors of the Anarchist FAQ are not against money. -Fatal 15:40, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Robert Nozick was rightfully removed

I looked up Nozick and sorry but he is not an anarchist, which is why I edited out his book as being listed as an "anarchist classic" because it isn't. Nozick believed in a minimal state, he was no anti-state. Furthermore, it does not seem as though he was against hierarchy. A guy who is not only not against hierarchy, but not against the state, is definitely not an anarchist. If anyone can give a good argument to the contrary, then that would be a different story. -Fatal 00:20, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Good call -- by any standard, a critical work rather than a classic. - Nat Krause 03:37, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Elimination of the state? try anti-statism

VeryVerily, you cannot continually hold the belief that anti-statism is exactly the same as anarchy, it is false. You might view the original article as the point of view of anti-capitalists, but it is more than that. The former description of "anarcho" capitalism is true. This article does not denounce anti-statist capitalism, it should simply state what it has, that capitalism cannot exist within anarchy, it's contradictory. And never before in the past 150 years has anarchy only meant anti-statism, it has always been against hierarchy. Just because some hotshots in recent years have tried to capitalize on anarchism does not justify the changing of its definition to mean something else. You'll notice very clearly, that the only sites that claim anti-statist capitalism is part of anarchism are anti-statist capitalist sites. And in every other medium, this is the recurring theme, the anti-statist capitalists are the only ones that think they're anarchists. A gay person can pretend to be homophobic, but it's not going to happen. Supporters of cheese can pretend that cheese is in the lower part of the food pyramid, but it's not going to happen, because it's illogical and false. The same goes here. When "anarcho" capitalism came out VERY recently (as far as history is concerned), it was rejected by all anarchists. The only base of small support this ideology draws is not from the anarchist circle, but from those unfamiliar with anarchism and find anti-statist capitalism as an alternative to state capitalism. Who? Former members of the Libertarian Party certainly, and do you think ANY anarchist would be a member of that? Once again, this is not meant to totally demean the ideology of anti-statist capitalism, one can believe whatever they wish. But as far as facts are concerned, not opinion, anarchy is NOT strictly anti-statism and anti-statist capitalism is NOT a part of anarchism. Anti-statist capitalist ideology replaces one ruler with another, a political ruler with an official economic ruler. Look at every major anarchist event for the past 150 years, not a single one had anything at all to do with "anarcho" capitalists. Why? Because they are no anarchists, they are anti-statists. My strong suggestion is that you stop vandalizing this article with pro-capitalist modifications that are false and CREATE A WIKI ARTICLE FOR ANTI-STATISM! --Fatal 22:47, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

We spent a long time hammering out this introduction. The way it is phrased now - that it is a generic term describing various philosophies which reject the state - is accurate. It may be true that many or most of those philosophies have other tenets; this is not excluded by the text of the introduction, and in fact the remainder of the article spells this out. Claiming anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron is POV b/c many disagree with that position, and Wikipedia's NPOV rule means we do not take a side on this issue. This has already been discussed several times, please don't start it all up again. VeryVerily 23:48, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It can be objectively said that anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism, but a different use of the word, in the same way that National Socialism is not a form of socialism. Being NPOV does not mean that Wikipedia has to take all POVs as equally valid regardless of how far they deviate from otherwise universally accepted knowledge. - Anon 172.190.227.67

This is just not true; many use the word anarchism more broadly. That's why the second paragraph says right away that "There is also considerable variation among the anarchist political philosophies, to the point that groups with radically different views may consider themselves anarchist, at the same time denying that other points of view should be called anarchist." This presents this neutrally. VeryVerily 02:46, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
There is an objective set of criteria by which we judge whether or not something belongs in a certain political category. Different variants of a political theory have shared goals. The goal of anarchism is a society without any forms of hierarchy. If anarcho-capitalists do not share that goal they are not anarchists. If they do share that goal, but believe that capitalism can deliver such a society, then fine, anarcho-capitalism should be included in the article as a type of anarchism, but the disputed edit to the introduction should stand. The abolition of hierarchy is the key goal of anarchy, everything else is subsidiary to that. As to the wider use of the word, I might say, "it was anarchy on the trains this morning". That doesn't mean an account of over-crowding on public transport at peak hours should be included in this article. (By "everything else is subsidiary", I mean that anarchists oppose the state because it is a form of hierarchy or authority, and similarly they oppose all other forms of hierarchy and things that allow hierarchies to exist.) - Anon 172.190.227.67
Exactly Anon, perfect analogy. Just because something is a POV doesn't make it necessary to put in the article. Believe it or not in this world there are like two people that believe in anarcho-monarchy (really, i'm not making this up) but that does not mean that it should be in the article. Why? Because it's contradictory and rediculous! Just like this is! You have to at least agree that anarchy is not just anti-statism, at least agree on that. Anarchy by it's very entymology is non-hierarchal, "without rule". --Fatal 02:20, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The soundbite that I recall hearing, back in my undergraduate days (shortly after the Haymarket riots :-) is that "anarchist organization" is not a contradiction in terms because anarchists are not opposed to organization; they are opposed to organizations being imposed on other people. ¶The state is the most obvious example of an organization imposed on its members. Organized religion obviously has a large influence on the way people behave, even when it does use state power; is it a contradiction for an anarchist to be religious? From what I've read, some anarchists would say "absolutely" and some would say "of course not". Do anarchists need to work to eliminate patriarchal attitudes and practices in their personal relationships? Again, some would say "of course" and some would say "that's not important". Etc. It's easy to see that "coercion" is not just guys with truncheons threatening to beat you up you don't obey them, but once you acknowledge that, you can argue forever about the boundaries of what is and is not coercion. ¶The question that divides the anarcho-capitalists from the anti-capitalists, it seems, is: "would a system of private property and contract law in which people were formally equal, even in the absence of a state, give some people power to impose on others?" It seems to me that this is a legitimate philosophical question (even if I disagree with the people who say "no"), and people who come down on both sides of it deserve to be mentioned in the same Wikipedia article. Sethg 18:17, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I totally agree that the basics of this debate should be present on wikipedia, and of course it would be impossible to properly describe it without having both sides in the same artcile. Contrary to those who have sought to eliminate anarcho-capitalism from wikipedia, I believe it needs to be carefully and properly illuminated. But that doesn't mean this particular debate should be explicated in -this- article. Further, anarcho-capitalism should definately be mentioned in the same article as all other theories claiming the title (i.e. this article), as I've said and supported through reversion in the past. However, mentioning it is really the extent of recognition it deserves here, there all far more significant issues in both modern and historical anarchism that belong on this page long before it would be appropriate to describe the convoluted arguments of a relatively minor segment of the whole, and even those more significant issues should probably get their own pages while this page can exist as a tie-in for all of them to avoid this endless series of edit wars.
Finally, while I agree that there are many good arguments for and against religion in anarchism, I don't think it is legitimate to compare a system which does not -necessarily- involve the forceful restriction of finite resources needed to survive with another whose primary focus is just that. And when religion does begin to make claims along the lines of "you do what we say or you starve to death because you don't have divine right to our resources", I can't think of any anarchists in history who would hesitate to reject it outright as a form of domination. Kev 19:56, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Reverting Edits

I have no strong opinions one way or another on anarchism. I have, however, tried to tighten up the prose and bring this unweildy article down to an acceptable length. It is very frustrating when someone reverts many of my changes just because there was another change made before mine with which the individual disagreed. Please, when you wish to revert, revert only the changes you disagree with. Sometimes this cannot be done easily, but in the spirit of Wikipedia goodwill, you owe it to your fellow contributors. Deleting Unnecessary Words 23:10, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree, please review Wikipedia:Revert. Sam [Spade] 23:25, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I have restored your edits after a short delay. I apologize for that delay, but it was my intent from the start to restore your edits when I got the various revisions figured out. VeryVerily 23:50, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
OH, I had no idea they were to be restored. Carry on then :) Sam [Spade] 00:32, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't see what the point of adding that sentence - "Most anarchists oppose this relatively new ideology and would argue that it is not a form of anarchism because it does not reject all hierarchy." - to the ancap paragraph is. It already says, "They reject the traditional anarchist labelling of capitalism as an unjustified hierarchy" (which may itself be too strong). Why beat on this point? VeryVerily 02:44, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Observations about the current edit war

With regard to the current edit war. It seems to me that it has been agreed to on several occasions in the past by myself, Kevehs, and other parties that this article should be completely rewritten in order to focus primarily on a discussion of the various ways the word term "anarchism" is used in English. It is also the case that I do not want to execute this rewrite myself right now. Therefore, I can't criticize anybody else for not doing it themselves, but I do think it would resolve the conflict if somebody did. Under the circumstances, then, I can't muster up much enthusiasm for either side of the dispute (although I do, of course, agree with VV's edits). Let's scrap the whole thing. - Nat Krause 05:55, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

A rewrite would be great, but is likely to engender as much conflict as we have now. Fatal's position that the article should reflect a particular POV is of course untenable, and independent of the article's format. For those that don't know, I started Anarchism/sandbox as a proposal for creating a hollowed-out version. Needless to say, Kevehs, who is near impossible to work with, began attacking it relentlessly with (lame) criticisms. So though I find it a decent launching point I don't see it as a magic bullet to end the anarchism wars. VeryVerily 06:18, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
That is funny VV. You seem to be involved in a new edit war every week, in fact you have one going on right now, not to mention having been able to get this page protected again so soon after your return. The only person I've ever been in a prolonged edit war with is you, yet I'm the one who is impossible to work with? I gave my reasons why your sandbox was inadequate, feel free to respond to them rather than to engage in this silly slander you are obsessed with. A rewrite of this page is definately called for, but the whole definition of anarchism reversion you are engaged in is so obviously not NPOV it really baffles me that you continue to claim it. You want to give the most "broad" definition of anarchism by limiting it to mere anti-statism, ignoring its entire tradition in the process? You want to be NPOV by pushing the peculiar definitions of the anarcho-capitalists right in the opening paragraph? Then please explain to me why you are not being NPOV by allowing for those national anarchist definitions that do not entail anarchism as anti-state? Perhaps because, low and behold, you DO have a POV you are pushing here, and you just aren't honest enough to admit it? The definition being suggested by others atm is far more prevalent amongst anarchists today, is in keeping with most of its historical meanings, and follows straight from the etymology of the word itself. What reasons do you have to trump all these advantages? Kev 09:28, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
In a word, accuracy. And clearly you're not difficult to work with at all. VeryVerily 11:58, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Anarchism as "anti-state" is not accurate. It does not conform exactly to the truth, given that anarchism is and always has been more than mere anti-statism. The only reason it is being pushed is to give the appearance that anarcho-capitalist claims to anarchist tradition are legitimate. Wikipedia should neither endorse nor reject these claims, which is exactly why it should not be used to stump for anarcho-capitalism by putting its peculiar definitions at the forefront. Again, why do you push a definition that happens to allow anarcho-capitalism within the category of anarchism, but would specificly deny other subversions like anarcho-nationalism? Certainly not because anarcho-nationalist definitions are less accurate, they are also at times seen as more "broad" and allowing for a greater diversity of viewpoints within anarchism. What is it that makes anarcho-capitalism legitimate but anarcho-fascism illegitimate, what POV are you expressing in this process? If you really want to attempt NPOV, then the first sentence has to go altogether, because anarcho-capitalists -do not- hold the same definition of anarchism that traditional anarchists do, that much should be clear even to the most ill-informed individual right from the outset. So no, as it is being used in this article, anarchism is not a single generic term used to describe X. Rather it is a series of slightly or largely different terms being used by one or another party to describe X, Y, and Z. THAT is being neutral, in the sense that it is not a description that favors any particular viewpoint, but rather expresses the fact that each of these viewpoints holds a fundamentally distinct perspective on anarchism. Kev 14:37, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Current Text

I'm the person who wrote the current text featured under the anarcho-capitalism heading in this article. I, as an anarcho-capitalist, appreciate the fact that historically anarchists have been opposed to private property, which is the lynchpin of the entire capitalist system, however I do not think the support of private property places anarcho-capitalists completely outside the anarchist tradition anymore than, say, Stalin's devotion to oppression and political violence places Stalinism outside the generally humane and peaceful socialist tradition. The sine qua non of anarchism, in my view, is an insistence that all hierarchies and authorities be justified, not merely arbitrary. No one, or at least no one with whom I am familiar, claims that no one should ever have authority over anyone else or that everyone must always be exactly equal; anarchists simply claim that no one should be forced into a submissive or unequal status.

The historical mainline of anarchist thought holds that private property forces some into a submissive and unequal status; anarcho-capitalists think it does not. Both sides agree that no one should be forced into such a position however, and thus I hold that this article would best serve the public by including information on anarcho-capitalism, including anarcho-capitalism's differences from the historical mainstream of anarchism, and perhaps by also including samples of arguments for and against private property from an anarchist perspective.

Definately not. This suffers from a madly misplaced emphasis. Anarcho-capitalism is -at best- a minor footnote to modern anarchism. At worst it is a wild subversion of anarchism akin to national anarchism, or anarcho-fascism. To spend so much time comparing anarcho-capitalism to the rest of anarchism on this page is to neglect far more prevalent traditions, including but not limited to anarcho-individualism, egoism, primitivism, anarcha-feminism and eco-anarchism. Why should we detail so much the relationship between anarcho-capitalism and traditional anarchism and neglect, say, the relationship between individualist anarchism and communist anarchism, or between mutualism and syndicalism? This page really needs to be moved toward explaining the history and meaning of the word and then linking to subpages which detail how that meaning has changed (like it surely has for anarcho-capitalists). But in the meantime, there is no justification for what amounts to inordinate advertising for anarcho-capitalism at the cost of educating wikipedia readers about far more substantive parts of anarchism in this article (which is, as a few editors have repeatedly noted, already far too incoherent). Kev 09:32, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
What madly misplaced emphasis? Anarcho-capitalism gets an entire paragraph in the current article, and I am at most proposing the addition of another paragraph discussing property. Sections discussing the similarities and differences between the other varieties of anarchism would not be at all misplaced, either. As for "subversion," what a terribly bizarre claim. How, pray, might a family of ideologies be "subverted?" You sound like a damned Leninist.
Yes, anarcho-capitalism already gets an entire paragraph in the current article (more actually), and many editors have expressed their opinion that this is already far too much. In fact, that paragraph had already been cut down several months ago and was going to be eliminated entirely due to its redundancy but this was put on hold because nearly everyone agreed that an entire rewrite of the page was necessary. Again, it is misleading to create sections comparing "varieties of anarchism" on this page when the varieties being compared have different definitions of what anarchism means. I'm not saying such a comparison is out of place, but it needs to be in the context of explaining what this word originally meant and how that meaning has changed over time, not pigeon holing anarcho-capitalism into a tradition in which it does not belong. As for an ideology being subverted, you do know that the term subvert originated to describe the systematic undermining of a politic? I'm sorry if I sound like a Leninist to you, I have no idea where that claim comes from, but I will refrain from explaining what you sound like. What I will say is that anarcho-capitalism attempts to fundamentally undermine the anti-tyrannical principles of anarchism by portraying one major form of tyranny as a means to freedom and prosperity for individuals in a society. Anarcho-capitalism denies a fundamental tenet of anarchism while claiming the title itself, it is thus subversive to the tradition of anarchism through and through. Kev 21:33, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)


I am unsuprised that opponents of anarcho-capitalism wish to see it excised entirely from the article; such attempts have a long and glorious history, taking in the expurgation of Trotsky's views from Stalinist texts on Communism and heading all the way back to the total lack of any non-Roman teachings in Roman texts on Christianity.
Spare me the lame attempts at drawing false comparisons. No one is suggesting the anarcho-capitalist descriptions be shoved down the memory hole or censored. What has been and currently is suggested is that there is a place for these detailed comparisons (the anarcho-capitalist page) and a reasonable emphasis for this page that does not include in-depth information on anarcho-capitalism. Kev 23:59, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Then what is your problem? The article currently does not include in-depth information on anarcho-capitalism. Save passing mentions, anarcho-capitalism gets one entire brief paragraph of what, four sentences? Such detail! Such elaboration!
At any rate, as I stated all the varieties of anarchism share a common goal, they simply do not all regard the same things as obstacles to the achievement of that goal.
More than it merits, more than other movements which are more relevant to anarchism, more than is necessary given that all this information is already present on the anarcho-capitalist page and merely requires a link. And anarcho-capitalist does -not- share the same goals with anarchism, merely the same language. Fascists and state communists also spout off about human freedom from domination, but they use the words to mean entirely different things. Anarcho-capitalists call "freedom" what all other anarchists call "tyranny", this is not the same goal reached via different means, it is an entirely different goal cloaked in identical language. Kev 02:55, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Unfortunately, your stating as much does not make it a reality. I would agree that all varieties of anachism share common goals. Amongst those are the abolition of exploitative human relations, which squarely puts anarcho-capitalism outside the category of anarchism. Kev 23:59, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
If only there were universal agreement that capitalist relations are exploitative relations, it would. Alas, there is no such agreement.
There is universal agreement amongst one group, all anarchists before and after the creation of anarcho-capitalism. That rather puts anarcho-capitalists in a different category altogether, eh? Kev 02:55, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
As for subversion, yes, a political entity can be subverted, but how can your ideology be subverted? Don't like anarcho-capitalism? Don't be an anarcho-capitalist. Quick, easy, done. I assure you, anarcho-capitalists are not part of some global cabal devoted to destroying traditional anarchism via the clever use of words. We are sincere in our beliefs, and you won't be rid of us simply by defining us out of existence.
I have no doubts at all that many anarcho-capitalists are sincere about their beliefs. Lots of people can be sincere and still be wrong. There is no attempt here at defining anarcho-capitalism out of existence. The ideology of classical neo-liberals will exist regardless of what it is called. The only challenge here is the appropriateness of associating anti-state capitalism with a tradition that soundly rejects it. Further, there is no attempt here at even changing this highly misleading name, people can call themselves whatever they want. The only attempt here is to ensure that wikipedia does not give the impression that the mere fact that someone calls themselves an anacho-capitalist means that anarcho-capitalism claims to the anarchist tradition are valid. Kev 23:59, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Tell me- was Martin Luther, whose doctrines of salvation by faith alone and sola scriptura were radically different from Christian tradition at the time, not entitled to the label "Christian," and were any attempt made at an even-handed evaluation of Christianity, would his beliefs not merit, say, four sentences under a subheading?
First, anarcho-capitalism is not a significant movement in anarchism, it is hardly comparable to the protestants in christianity at this point and time. If that changes, if anarcho-capitalism creates a huge social upheavel like we saw with the protestant movement, then perhaps your comparison will suddenly have some relevance. And that is the major issue here, the degree to which this page should focus on a relatively insignificant modern day movement which does not share its history with anarchism, but rather with classical liberalism. Second, Luther had a valid argument that the church at the time had subverted the original christian movement in order to turn it into something it had not been before, he used original doctrine to trump the churches current position. The anarcho-capitalist claim is entirely opposite, it wants to turn anarchism into something it wasn't by ignoring the original movement it claims to base itself off of, it wants to use modern redefining of words to trump the original claims of the movement. Kev 02:55, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Which fundamental tenet of anarchism do we violate? I was under the impression, mistaken I suppose, that anarchists rejected capitalism because they thought it to be an unjust and unjustified hierarchical structure sustained only by force- in short, that they rejected it due to arguments based on principles, not simply as a principle. Anarcho-capitalists agree with the principles on which the argument is based but think the argument is severely flawed. It is a disagreement of reasoning, not one of principle, unless you claim that anarchists must reject capitalism simply as an article of faith from the beginning and that this rejection must never be questioned. Our different reasoning on the issue places us at a significant divergence from the anarchist mainstream, and that divergence is worth noting. Simply saying, oh, well they aren't real anarchists, and casting us out of the article altogether undermines the article and its usefulness to Wikipedia visitors, which is what I thought this was all about.
Where did I say that anarcho-capitalism should be cast out of this article altogether? Not only have I not said that, but I have repeatedly express on this very discussion page how essential it is that anarcho-capitalism be mentioned, and in fact I have on more than once occasion reverted attempts in the article to completely remove it. So please, really, you can stop with the drama. What I -am- attempting to do is define anarchism in a manner consistent with the following variables: its history, its understanding amongst anarchists, its understanding amongst non-anarchists, and its basic etymology. Unfortunately, this -requires- that one single definition will not suffice and that the peculiar anarcho-capitalist definition being suggested here is even worse than the others. Your proposal entails that we not only accept any manner of claim to anarchism as automatically legitimate, but that we structure this article so that this claim is supported, and so badly distort the definition of the word as to use wikipedia as a stumping ground for anyone claiming to be an anarchist. You pay taxes voluntarily? Then hey, whadda ya know, the hierarchical structure of the state does not -need- to be sustained by force and thus statist are anarchists! Sure, sure, there are those who would disagree with paying taxes, but if they don't like anarcho-statism all they need to do is not be anarcho-statists! I'm sure, after all, that no state would ever require someone who does not voluntarily engage with it to pay taxes, just as no anarcho-capitalist would require anyone who does not voluntarily give a large percentage of their earnings to investors who give nothing in return to pay rent as part of some landlord's entitlement via property enforcement. Anarcho-capitalism is at face value a hierarchy sustained by force and threat of force, but according to you NPOV means we should abandon any coherent meaning in anarchism and give equal time and representation to even the most minor and insignificant of quacks. As I've said before, those quacks have a place on wikipedia, but just as the page on moon landings has no mention whatsoever of the "moon landing conspiracy", the anarchism page is not benefitted from anything more than a sentence about anarcho-capitalism and a link to that page for futher information.
My proposed definition entails no such consequence. Your anarcho-statists, for instance, would forcibly punish those who refuse to pay taxes- in short, those who refuse to surrender their property. I hold that the right to property is a human right, and that violation of that right merits force. You do not hold, presumably, that the right to property is a human right, but you do hold that other violations of rights you do support merit the use of force, non? In your version of anarchy, would not individuals be entitled to defend themselves? I simply expand that right to defend themselves to include the right to defend their property. All societies employ force somehow, therefore the simple employment of force cannot be used to exclude ideologies from the anarchist heading, unless you desire the only legitimate anarchisms to be ludcrious fairy tales of perfect worlds, a la Rousseau.
Ah, I see. So one would not be forcibly punished if they refused to pay rent or hand over a portion of their labor product? I could stay in my home if I refused to offer up this "tax by any other name" to the landlord, I could continue to use the means of production to sustain myself if I refused to offer up the blackmail money capitalists require for the priviledge of using something they forcibly restrict from me? I had no idea, it appears you know a lot more about anarcho-capitalism than I, and here I had spent many years studying it.
As for your implicit assertion that society must be fundamentally based on enforcement, you can claim all you want that it is fantasy and naive to believe that human beings can live without dominating one another through propertarian or legal means, it simply means that you reject the most fundamental anarchist argument there is. And that itself is fine too, just odd that you would then want to claim to be an anarchist as well when your foremost position is to reject most of what it stands for at the outset. Kev 02:55, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
But I will make you this deal. You show me a single anarcho-capitalist theorist of any renown at all who suggests that property entitlement is not enforceable and I will happily accept the ridiculous claim that hierarchy in anarcho-capitalism is not enforced hierarchy. Kev 23:59, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Oh, this is easy. All of them. No anarcho-capitalist believes anything is enforceable, as enforcement is traditionally understood. If anarcho-capitalist belief in the right to use force to defends one's rights constitutes enforced hierarchy, then you must either believe in no rights or think that if only your dream came true, we would all be loving and peaceful.
No capitalist believes that property is enforceable as enforcement is traditionally understood? Maybe you should go back and read some more Rothbard, I think you missed a thing or two. And again, your arguments here do nothing to suggest that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism, they only suggest that you do not personally believe that anarchism is attainable. Kev 02:55, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

How fitting that the page was protected after it was modified to be pro-capitalist. It's clear that I agree totally with Kev, but I'd just like to restate once again that this debate within wikipedia and outside it really isn't complicated at all. Anarchy is against hierarchy, capitalism is not. Therefore it can't be part of anarchism. In this debate, it really is pretty much black and white and easy to understand. Anti-statist capitalists continue to argue this simply because they don't want to give up the label of themselves that they love to use, even though it's grossly inaccurate. --Fatal 03:32, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Anarchism is by tradition against (amongst other things) hierarchy, private property, political authority, and usury. Period.

"Anarcho"-Capitalists (more rightly "Anti-Statist Capitalists") want to keep private property which in turn creates hierarchy because those who don't own private property are doomed to follow those who do. The only way to keep this working is with authority. Anti-Statist Capitalists get around this by saying things like "the owner can rent his property to the user." This is complete bullshit. The property is STILL private property and the user is STILL limited to what he can do with it because technically he isn't the owner of it. ALL these are against the basic ideas of anarchism. It doesn't matter if any of these are voluntery or not.

Another problem with these people is that they want to basically create police forces and courts and such, which can only exist with authority and hierarchy, again. They want to do this to protect their property, that is private property. So basically, an individual has as much freedom as he does property.

Anti-Statist Capitalists claim that it's OK for all this to happen becuase the State isn't doing it. If it's wrong for the State to do it, then what makes it right for others to do it?

The above was by me, I forgot the signature. --Jazz Remington 19:01, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What's wrong with hierarchy? Since when did anarchy derive to mean no-hierarchy? The two words evolved differently from the same root; one is not a negation of the other. --Golbez 09:35, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
And since when did anarchism (not anarchy, which is not our primary focus on this page) derive to mean merely anti-statism? It has always meant more than this, even when "anarchist" was used purely as an insult it meant more than this, even when it was first adopted by Proudhon it meant more than this, and especially since it became the basis for an international political movement that refuses to have itself stripped down due to the perogative of people who stand firmly against that tradition. As I've said before, describing the full history of anarchism requires that this page not focus on the peculiar meaning it has for a relatively insignificant group that may or may not be a split from anarchism itself. Kev 21:04, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
"...that may or may not be a split from anarchism itself." Much like anarchy/hierarchy, I would say that anarcho-capitalism and traditional anarchy evolved separately from the same root. I do need to read the page, as the difference between anarchy and anarchism has always been slightly confusing to me. I'm not getting in to what should be on the page, since I have not yet read it; I came to talk to see why it was protected. I just wanted to comment on the hierarchy deal, and the etymology section of anarchy correctly doesn't include it. --Golbez 22:36, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
Golbez, you clearly don't know much about anarchism if you think that it doesn't seek to abolish hierarchy. Correctly?? That is incorrect. The entymology of anarchy is "without rule." Since when did "without rule" not include all hierarchy. This is why the term anti-statism was invented, to describe a more specific splinter of the idea of anarchism. Anarchism is anti-statist, but pure anti-statism is not anarchism.

Anarchy is derived from the greek root "archy" which means "ruler." "Hierarchy" means, literally, "rule of a high priest." The root word of BOTH these words means "ruler." So in essence, one IS a negation of the other. If you WERE an anarchist, you would see why anarchism is against hierarchy: it's oppressive. Voluntary or not, it is oppressive and unjustifable. --Jazz Remington 09:05, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oy, let's not hate on a brother. Why are you so sure that the "-arch-" in anarchy refers to all forms of authority? Personally, when I say "ruler" I mean a political power, i.e. the state, which would imply that, if "-arch-" really means "ruler", then "anarchy" is cognate to "anti-statism". - Nat Krause 09:19, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Nat, does your boss not rule over you? Do systems you cannot control not rule over you? (Example: monetary system) Ruler is not politically exclusive. --Fatal 16:25, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Yes to your questions. I certainly do take issue with your use of the English language, although this is not important. Actually, my main point is that this issue of etymology is irrelevant and so it should no longer be brought up. - Nat Krause 16:32, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
That different interpretations of the etymology of the word are possible does not make it irrelevant to set the basic parameters by refering to it. For example, when we discuss anarchism as the denial of rulership, it becomes more difficult for a fascist to lay claim to anarchism than it would otherwise be. True, they can still use convoluted logic and cherry picked definitions (like the capitalists do) to justify their take on the word. But regardless of how we justify the use ofthis word in particular settings, the most broadly based definitions undeniably go far beyond the state, that much is evident not only in the many interpretations of rulership itself, but in the basic definitions of anarchism, anarchy, and anarchist that can be found in most any dictionary or encyclopedia (except, at times, wikipedia). Kev 20:39, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Resolution to the dispute

I think rather than trying to resolve the dispute and lift the protection, editors are getting side-tracked into political discussion. I'd like to return focus to the actual edit dispute. Looking at the recent history there seem to be two disputed edits:

1. "advocate the elimination of hierarchy and authority" (or words to the effect) vs "advocate the elimination of the state". I cannot understand why there is a conflict here. As this is the first line of the article and purports to give the primary definition of anarchism, it is wholly inadequate to say that anarchism advocates the abolition of (just) the state. Anarchists advocate the abolition of hierarchy. They also advocate the abolition of the state, but that is because the state is a form of hierarchy. Anarcho-capitalists also, AIUI, believe in the abolition of hierarchy and authority - the disputes between anarchists and anarcho-capitalists are over what constitutes hierarchy and authority, not that these things should be abolished. Can we all agree that the first of these two options, "hierarchy and authority", is NPOV and pertinent?

Yeah, that's, like, your opinion, man. I don't think it's accurate to say that anarcho-capitalists are against hierarchy and authority. They are against unjust authority and coercive hierarchy. Hans-Hermann Hoppe is a notable example of an A-C who is in favor of authority and hierarchy; I read something he wrote one time where he explicitly advocated a society that would be more authoritarian and hierarchical than the present one. Now, to me that sounds pretty crazy, but I think he is within his rights as an ancap to advocate it, the same as he would be within his rights to advocate a religion I don't agree with (he does that, too). - Nat Krause 13:34, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
How about changing the bold phrase above to "advocate the elimination of coercive authority"? A-Cs and other anarchists simply disagree about whether or not the power that comes from owning large amounts of private property counts as coercive authority. Sethg 15:39, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
This is stripping everything from anarchism and using NPOV as an excuse. Coercive authority can mean -anything-. Fascists can (and sometimes even do) claim that a dictator is not coercive. State communists can claim that a vanguard is not coercive. Capitalists can claim that property entitlement is not coercive. Suddenly everyone in the world is an anarchist and this article because nothing more than static, no longer conveying information but just reflecting vague impressions of those who visit. Is it just coincidence that anarchism arose to defy these particular institutions, would it really still be the same movement, mean the same things, had it come about in a slightly different way and supported international corporate enforcement and other authoritarian institutions, because they are "just" authoritarians? We are at the point where the arguments being used to justify the anarcho-capitalist sentiments don't need a reductio ad absurdum because they are already absurd. Kev 22:56, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
"Does it follow that I reject all authority? Perish the thought. In the matter of boots, I defer to the authority of the boot-maker." ~Bakunin
I don't think that it's right to say that anarchists reject all authority. I think it would be closer to say they reject centralized and static authority, or maybe that anarchists believe that the burden lies on any institution claiming authority to justify it to all that authority affects. This does get kind of complex, though, and I think it might just be easier to leave it at saying anarchists reject hierarchy. To not do so defies the definition of the word. If any A-C's take objection to this, I think it would be necessary to make two separate articles, because if objection to hierarchy is not a common characteristic among the two groups, there are none.Tomorrowsashes 02:52, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The problem here is that the English word "authority" means two different things. It may mean authority as in an authoritarian figure, and it may mean authority as in an expert. The boot-maker that Bakunin refers to is an authority in the sense of being an expert (specifically on boots). Noam Chomsky (whose ideas it looks like you're implicating in the explanation above) agrees that there is a distinction between someone who is an expert and someone who is given a position of social dominance. It is the person who is given a postion of social dominance (created by hierarchy) who must explain why it is necessary. The person who is merely an expert need not give any explanation, because he/she is not in a position to tell someone else what to do; he/she can only make suggestions which others might follow based on their respect for the person's expertise (see Language and Responsibility).
This really isn't that complicated. And given the explanation above, an anarchist may still be accurately described as "anti-authoritarian". The only clarefication that needs to be made is that the word authority is (probably somewhat purposefully) ambiguous. millerc 23:44, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
That sounds fair enough, as long as, as you pointed out, the exact meaning of authority is made clear. It might be a little confusing to somebody reading the Wikipedia article, and seeing that anarchists reject authority, then, upon further research on Bakunin, found the above quote. Perhaps a distinction should be made between externally imposed authority (the state on the citizen, the boss on the worker), and authority which one grants another voluntarily, based on their merits (the student recognizes the teacher's authority based on their knowledge), but this could go later in the article. The opening statements should be concise and pointed. Tomorrowsashes 04:44, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

2. Whether or not to include the following: "Most anarchists oppose this relatively new ideology and would argue that it is not a form of anarchism because it does not reject all hierarchy". I think the first part of this statement is obviously true. Most anarchists do oppose anarcho-capitalism (whether or not one considers anarcho-capitalists to be anarchists). I think it is the second part that is the problem, because it adopts the POV that capitalism, property ownership, and so on, are forms of hierarchy. (I do personally agree with that POV but I think it is a biased statement as currently written.) I would propose the following as an NPOV wording: "Most anarchists oppose this ideology and would argue that some of the things it supports are hierarchical and authoritarian".

Anon (172.186.114.179)

I don't really have a problem with this sentence, because I suspect it is true. However, I think it would be both more relevant and more accurate to say "Most notable anarchists oppose ..." because none of us really have any hard evidence on what "most anarchists" think. "Notable anarchists" is still a little iffy, because, really, who are the "notable anarchists"? Chomsky? Howard Zinn? Chumbawumba? Anyway, supposing that they exist, I imagine the balance of them could be shown to be against anarcho-capitalism. It might be better to phrase this in terms of the fact that the key historical anarchists -- Bakunin, Emma Goldman, etc. -- were hardcore socialists and therefore would presumably oppose A-C if they had lived to see it. - Nat Krause 13:34, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/n/a/Talk%7EAnarchism_Archive11_3f9a.html"