Talk:Anarchism/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

An Anarchist FAQ

I highly recommend An Anarchist FAQ [1] for use as a resource. It is incredibly comprehensive and clarifying. - Ben 07:21, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Theodore Kaczynski

Clearly there's been a lot of discussion here by folks who have taken a regular interest in this article, and I'm just a newbie jumping into the middle of the conversation. But I read this para and did a double take:

Beginning in the later part of the 20th century anarchist primitivists like John Zerzan began to proclaim that civilization — not just the state — would need to fall for anarchy to be achieved. A rejection of industrial technology is also prominent in the views of many primitivists, such as Theodore Kaczynski. This primitivist worldview was also associated with the growth of the anti-roads movement in the UK, and also the Earth First! movement in the US.

Am I crazy, or does the above text cite the Unabomber as an influential thinker in this branch of anarchism? I'm obviously not as conversant with anarchism as others here (and from what little I know of Kaczynski the label "anarchist primitivist" is not an unfair description of his worldview), but to me that just screams POV. It's like saying that Tim McVeigh is one of the leading thinkers of libertarianism because McVeigh was influenced by the anti-government militia movement. He's just a murderer who also happens to share certain philosophical ideas about government. Ditto Kaczynski and anarchism. The fact that Kaczynski blackmailed a major paper into publishing some of this stuff should have no bearing on this. Schmeitgeist 19:11, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't say he's an "influential thinker" but his ideas are clearly related to the primitivists and I think Zerzan had something to do with his trial. Don't know enough about it to say whether or not they actually sympathize with him or his deeds. I doubt any anarchists outside Zerzan's circle would claim him as one of their own (I hope not anyway). --Tothebarricades.tk 04:02, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In his speaking tour that I attended, John Zerzan declared that he did not consider himself a primitivist and in fact he said, "I'm not even sure what a primitivist is". The two other panelists certainly proclaimed themselves as primitivists (after all, this was a Green Anarchy Mag speaking tour) After the talk, I was standing there talking to him and he borrowed and used my friend's cell phone to make a long-distance call. If anything, Zerzan is a theorist and a writer--he's quick to point out civilization's evils but is not very active in destroying civilization. However, he did go on to back Kaczynski's ideas if not deeds. The above section is a little misleading, though, because I doubt anybody read Kaczynski's rambling 30,000 word manifesto except the FBI. --albamuth 17:57, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is incorrect and should be changed. Kaczynski is not a primitivist. His beef is with "techno-industrial society" - something that is a far more recent development than civilization (which is commonly linked to agriculture). That being said, he is influential in primitivist and anti-civ circles and deserves mention. -Nihila 22:35, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

WTSHTF

Eventually, WTSHTF (When The Shit Hits The Fan = real anarchy), hierarchy will become increasingly obvious. Its already here of course, but its weak, and impure. When concentrated hierarchy is foisted upon us (when an aggressor or inferior intrudes in a demanding manner) we must act, or react. Either dominate the situation or prove to be an inferior; its our choice. thats anarchism. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 01:39, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No, that's not anarchism. That isn't even anarchy. Anarchy, as the word implies, is the lack of any -archy. You cannot have hierarchy and anarchy at the same time. Nor can you have matriarchy and anarchy at the same time, or patriarchy, or any other sort of -archy. Anarchy is the complete lack of any variety of -archy.

If what happens "when the shit hits the fan" is what you believe will happen, that will not be anarchy in the strict sense of the word. It may be chaos, and the colloquial usage of the word "anarchy" may certainly be synonymous with chaos, but that is not what the word "anarchy" means. Anarchy first and foremost requires little or no violence. Violence is a means of domination. If someone has a gun to your head, that person is in charge of you. Such cannot happen in a true anarchy. If something such as this does happen, the previous state of anarchy would cease to exist.

Again, perhaps the colloquial definition of "anarchy" does mean something akin to "chaos & confusion" -- however, the sort of chaos & confusion you seem to think the word "anarchy" implies is not only incompatible with, but is in fact the exact opposite of, real anarchy. --Corvun 02:21, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

True anarchy doesn't seem capable of actually existing, at least on a scale larger than a very small-scale community of like-minded individuals, barring a massive change in human nature. This applies both to the traditional socialist/communist forms of anarchism which can be practised in small voluntary communes and collectives but rapidly break down when extended; and to anarcho-capitalism which might be practicable in a small isolated community of self-selected individuals of the "Galt's Gulch" variety. Where larger society as a whole is concerned, anarchism (socialist or capitalist) is more of an abstract platonic ideal which may be useful for thought experiments about what direction you think society should move, but if actually attempted to be put into practice is likely to yield an "anarchy" more like the general public's "definition" which equates it with chaos. Human nature pretty much guarantees that somebody will try to coerce, dominate, or otherwise take advantage of somebody else; this happens often even among friends and family, so how is it going to be stopped worldwide, except of course by the application of more force to try to stop it -- you can then get into heavy philosophical debate about whether this or that force is really just "retaliatory", but you ultimately wind up with somebody imposing their will on others... not anarchism by any reasonable definition, except perhaps for the absence of a formal institution actually calling itself a "government". If there are strong social norms (which can be either pro-capitalist or pro-socialist as long as they are universally and consistently held), then you can have order without coercion, and a form of anarchism consistent with the norms can exist, but this is extremely unlikely to hold with such unanimity over a larger society. Dtobias 12:18, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This is where a split seems to occur between those who view anarchy as an ultimate goal, and those who view anarchism as an immediate solution.

As an ultimate goal, true anarchy is recognized as something that can never truly be achieved, but by trying to create the sort of society that no longer needs "law" or "rules", in which no one attempts to coerce anyone else, ever -- well, if we keep going in that direction, we will all be better off even if we never really make it there. I would assume that at least a good portion (though I don't mean to imply any sort of majority) of those who see anarchy as an ultimate goal don't see anarchy as an immediate solution to any current problems.

Those who see anarchism as an immediate solution may or may not believe in the "ultimate goal" above, but I imagine many do (I count myself among them). Now I can't speak for anyone else, but having lived on both proverbial sides of the tracks, I can tell you that I feel a hell of a lot safer around the car thief and the friendly neighborhood drug dealer than I do around cops, judges, doctors, and anyone else in some glorious uniform with perfectly groomed hair and sparkling white teeth. I've known judges who snort cocaine, cops who beat their wives, business managers that molest children, military dudes that sleep with other guys' girlfriends, doctors that don't really give a damn about their patients; I could go on forever. It seems the unspoken, unofficial code of honor among the lawless is more seriously upheld by criminals than "law" is by the lawful, or than "morals" are by those who live in "moral society". Perhaps someone else sees violence as being all too common, and doesn't think it's very intelligent to let people organize into militaries and law enforcement organizations so they can work together to be violent better (and even less intelligent to fund them with our taxes). The reasons may be different for each person, but I suspect that whatever the reasons may be, those who see anarchism as an immediate solution to current problems have concluded that chaos is absolutely undersirable, but that it's a lot less undesirable than organized domination (government). --Corvun 13:10, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Personal attacks: Anarchist or no?

Sam, your conception of anarchism or anarchy is clearly contradictory to what most people believe it is. Wikipedia is not a place to push your particular ideological platform, and in the case of anarchism it seems that all of the other editors have a completely different idea than yours. --albamuth 06:35, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I agree w most of the above, especially Dtobias. Please make discussions about arguments, not the individuals who make them, and never, ever, attempt to exclude an editor because he doesn't conform to the average POV on a given page. Thats not only in complete opposition to the wikipedia values, its also intellectually dishonest and unencyclopedic. If you think I'm violating policy, initiate Wikipedia:Conflict resolution elsewhere, but don't suggest I am pushing a "particular ideological platform" (which is against policy, BTW, LaRouchites have been banned for it) especially withiut evidence. What is the particular ideological platform you presume I am pushing? If you guessed NPOV, you'd be right ;) For the record I niether support nor oppose anarchism generally, I merely find the subject stimulating. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 16:43, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You choice for the section subtitle is strange. You're trying to accuse people of "not being anarchist" because they launch personal attacks. Why would wikipedia editors care about being anarchist? It sounds like you have a particular bone to pick with anarchists. NPOV or no? --albamuth 18:36, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

lol, Sam. You have SAID that you are pushing a particular ideological platform. You have gone -out of your way- to make it entirely clear that anarchism as it is defined on this page and by anarchists themselves is impossible and that you intend to see the pages discussing it make this "fact" clear and portray any other arguments as incoherent and silly. You've tried to delete one of these pages, you've tried to merge another, and you've consistently overlooked overwhelming evidence against your constant assertion that the words anarchy and anarchism have identical meanings. Its not just us that see this Sam, over and over comments by people about your POV pushing have surfaced in all sorts of contexts, including polls, requests for comment, talk pages, and discussion pages. Don't you dare try to pawn this off as some kind of "don't attack me, I'm just trying to be unbiased" BS when the evidence against such a caricature is right in front of our eyes. Kev

I agree - SamSpade, RJII, and Dtobias obviously have a problem with Anarchism and are here to troll merrily away! If volk want to debate the merits of anarchism or libertarian socialism - go on a newsgroup etc max rspct 19:37, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Why on Earth are we having this discussion yet again? I was going to just remove it but I'm not feeling that bold at the moment. :P --Tothebarricades.tk 20:45, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Anyone paying attention can see Sam Spade is the biggest proponent of personal attacks on here while playing the victim. Sam Spade has numerous times outright admitted his contradictions, lack of knowledge about anarchy and anarchism, and proudly displayed stereotypes that he points to be as fact. When I recently (Check the archives, he archived it to hide it) called him out on this and posted in large bold letters the announcement that warned other users of the overt contradiction and lies of Spade, he hid it and then came on my Talk page and started attacking me and when he knew he couldn't win an intellectual argument and said simply "do not persist in your personal attacks, you have been warned with this personal attack from myself." Check my Talk page for that. Once again, it should be clearly indicated here that Sam Spade knows nothing of anarchism, wishes to deface this page in any way he can with false ideas and attack anyone that calls him out on it! If he responds to this with yet another attack, that only further proves my point. --Fatal 23:10, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps its time to organize a faction to counter the uneven influence people like sam have around here?--Che y Marijuana 03:53, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

No need. Most people on wikipedia don't take Sam at all seriously, he shoots himself in the foot often enough to discredit him the rest of the time. Kev 04:16, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sam Spade did this. Sam Spade did that. Sam Spade doesn't agree so it's trolling cause we know we're right. .... May I recommend you never use the words "Sam Spade" again? Refute his arguments, statements and position; or ignore him. For a bunch of anarchists you sure seem to want to impose a lot of your rules on other people. Practise what you preach? by Always_Anonymous

What rules, exactly, are we imposing? There is a reason people are focusing on the individual as well as the edits in this case, because these edits are not happening in a vacuum of space. They happen to have an identifiable source, and that source is demonstrating a pattern, which would tend to make the source a relevant subject of discussion, eh? Kev 08:50, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Certainly not according to policy, review Wikipedia:Civility, Wikiquette, and Wikipedia:No personal attacks, along w Ad hominem for good measure. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 10:10, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What rules? Let's see, in THIS SECTION ALONE we have the following. Albamut accuses Sam of a "conception" or "idea" that is "contradictory to what most people believe it is" which while vaild for trying to redefine anarchism is invalid in refuting Sam for discussing the results of attempting anarchism (a chaotic situation in which an authortarian government is the unintended (by the followers, anyway) result. Rule : "don't have contradictory idea". Kev states Sam believes "anarchism as it is defined on this page and by anarchists themselves is impossible" and is thus biased and thus is not NPOV. Having a belief proves nothing about a specific editorial contribution. You yourself have NO beliefs??? Rule : "Have no different beliefs". Max Rspct indicates a discussion page is no place for a debate. I beg to differ, sir. Rule : "No debate on discussion page." Fatal attacks Sam, says Sam attacks him, then dares Sam to attack back. Who is the troll?? Rule : "Don't respond to our personal attacks. When WE do it is isn't personal." "Perhaps its time to organize a faction to counter the uneven influence people like sam have around here?" Rule against "uneven influence". by Always_Anonymous

Alb stating that Sam's conception of anarchism is contradictory to what most people think it is is completely justified because that is exactly Sam's argument to everyone else, meaning that it is either insightful in that it demonstrates Sam's argument to be worthless, or it is valid for the same reasons that Sam's argument is valid. Sam's belief that anarchism is impossible is not the problem here, but it is extremely relevant information when he claims that he is not pushing a political platform (i.e. it demonstrates his claim to be false), and it was followed with in indication of how this has led to behavior that is a problem, namely, trying to bias the anarchism articles according to his personal whim. And perhaps most importantly, all of the things you describe are actions by single individuals, not rules enforced either collectively or individually. Kinda strange that you can't tell the difference. There -was- in fact a rule used by someone on this page. That would be the wikipedia rule to censor particular forms of content, in this case Sam enforced it by removing a comment that indicated that we should not waste our time talking to anonymous people (who could very well be sock puppets). Kev 14:30, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Your response is beside the point in a few ways. Point 1. Debate the issue not the person. Point 2. I remarked on anarchists imposing rules. That they each do so individually is as inconsistant as if the did it collectively. Besides, we both know mob psychology when we see it, right? (Don't think different; don't debate us; and when we pick on you don't fight back. Hey, let's "organize a faction " against Mr. "uneven influence".) This, by the way, is an example of why anarchism can not work in a human society. 3. Believers in rules (like Sam) enforcing rules has NOTHING to do with non-believers in rules making rules for other people against their will. by Always_Anonymous

Rather impossible not to debate a person when debating the issues, but I think your point is that we shouldn't focus on Sam's personal characteristics to the denial of the relevant issues to the article. Don't worry, we're not. As to this BS about following rules individually, my you have a strange idea of rules, apparently to you any action can be construed as some kind of general rule. I responded to you here, so I must be following the "respond to trolls" rule. You made a bunch of specious arguments, so you must be following the "anons make specious arguments" rule. As for Sam being consistent with his core beliefs when he censors people, you bet he is, I merely used him as an example of something that actually is a rule, to compare with your "anything anyone does is a rule as long as I say so" take on things. Kev 15:50, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wow! This is great. We are successfully communicating. We undestand each other's points in this section (I believe) with the exception of one last point; small, but like a negetive sign it REVERSES the thing. That thing is "WHO is to follow the rule." See, I have no problem with anyone following their own rules and (obvious to both of us) THAT is certainly NOT in any way not "Practis(ing) what you preach". BUT, on the other hand, trying to impose rules on Sam IS "(not) Practis(ing) what you preach" WHEN DONE BY SOMEONE WHO SAYS THEY BELIEVE IN NOT IMPOSING RULES. Browbeating, bullying, and name calling to get another to follow rules they don't wish to follow (while not near as bad as the use of force) seem against the spirit of the anarchism movement. Maybe I'm the one missing the point : that anarchism theory is that anything short of physical force is acceptable in manipulating others to do your bidding. Is that the case? by Always_Anonymous

I wouldn't call the unabomber a primitivist, he used techonology and didn't oppose it completely, he opposed computer bigtime though. If you want a comparsion, you can compare his view with that of Henry David Thoreau, with the exception of non-violence of course. --Fatal 17:42, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Involuntary hierarchy? Coercive hierarchy?

Enough, anarchism is opposed to hierarchy. The exceptions are not the meaning of hierarchy that is being referred to. Saying that they are only opposed to "coercive hierarchy" implies that, within social hierarchy, there are exceptions. There aren't. Saying they are opposed to "involuntary hierarchy" implies that oppression is acceptable so long as it is veiled in the guise of "voluntary relations", which it is not. Do not revert, come here and discuss this.--Che y Marijuana 04:05, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not so sure I should be attempting a rational discussion with someone who thinks that "oppression" can be "voluntary." But here goes. As I brought up above, hierarchical structures include things such as sports teams and orchestras, etc. I don't think anarchists typically oppose the existence of these hierarchical structures since the coaches and conducters aren't forcing anyone to join into the structure. One can always opt out. But, given that you think there is such a thing as "voluntary oppression," you probably think anarchists would think they were being oppressed by voluntarily joining these organizations, right? It's so bizarre that it obliterates the meanings of "voluntary" and "oppression." Anarchists oppose having anything forced upon them by another, period, whether hierarchies or anything else. Your opposition to the article saying that they oppose "involuntary" or "coercive" hierarchy is really odd. RJII 04:14, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm saying there's no such thing as "voluntary oppression". The problem with you RJII, is that you refuse to take the word hierarchy for the meaning being used, social hierarchy, conductors aren't exceptions, they never enter the equation at all! There's no such thing as "voluntary hierarchy" insofar as what is being discussed. The addition is meaningless, except to blur lines to further confuse the reader.--Che y Marijuana 05:53, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

There most certainly is such a thing as "voluntary oppression" and its the worst kind of oppression. This wikipedia article discusses one kind : "The Stockholm syndrome is a psychological state in which the victims of a kidnapping, or persons detained against their free will – prisoners – develop a relationship with their captor(s). This solidarity can sometimes become a real complicity, with prisoners actually helping the captors to achieve their goals or to escape police." Children brought up as slaves and others deliberatly addicted to mind altering drugs are also enslaved not only in body but in their mind as well. ( see the series on sex slaves in the New York Times). (signed the "Isn't this like communism guy" ...anonymous)

On responding to Internet trolls

Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 10:18, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

(Sam attempted to remove the following comment citing the "remove personal attacks" policy page. Unfortunately, as usual, Sam neglected to read the page first and note that comments directed toward a plurality are not considered personal attacks and thus not to be removed by eager censors. I have thus reinserted the comment below:) Kev 15:02, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

IF THEY DON'T SIGN THERE NAME DON'T PARLEY WITH THEM. ITS A BIG WIND-UP THEY'RE TAKING THE PISS - max rspct 09:07, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

M:Foundation issues, number 2. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 22:56, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Che, for bringing up again the rediculousness of capitalist's attempts to change the wording of this page to fit their own wants. --Fatal 00:17, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Saying that we shouldn't allow ourselves to be jerked around by anons is not the same thing as saying that they can't edit the articles without registering. But thank you once again for the demonstration of your inability to read what you cite Sam. Kev 02:06, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ta for saving me the trouble of answering (never invite junkies or vampires into your house). Some people seem to have selective intelligence... yawn >>>> max rspct 12:32, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There is great wisdom in not responding to trolls. "Internet trolls are people who affect a deliberately inflammatory persona in order to provoke a vehement response from other users." (quote from troll diambig page) Everyone has the right to decide for themselves which communications qualify as trolling and which don't. Example : ask yourself is THIS communication "trolling" by the wikipedia definition. by Always_Anonymous

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Wrong on all counts... If anYOne fIts that description tis U Sammy - aLSO U proffer insults regularly - are dishonest in your conduct - and go out of your way to abuse wikipedia policies etc I also fear hypocritical, insidious Entryism (a Trotskyist and social democrat tactic bytheway) But NO FEAR for we are TAO max rspct 12:45, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm actually getting very impatient with the crap we get from these trolls. But it makes me feel better about wikipedia that I'm not the only one :)--Che y Marijuana 10:32, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Always_Anonymous is not Sam :P Always_Anonymous was calling Sam a troll.--Che y Marijuana 15:04, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Oh he's not sam? My apologies... Confusions like that would be reduced if the relevant person signed or at the very least highlighted their handle or nom de plume. Where did anon call sam spade a troll? max rspct 21:12, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I HAD READ THIS -Sam Spade did this. Sam Spade did that. Sam Spade doesn't agree so it's trolling cause we know we're right. .... May I recommend you never use the words "Sam Spade" again? Refute his arguments, statements and position; or ignore him. For a bunch of anarchists you sure seem to want to impose a lot of your rules on other people. Practise what you preach? by Always_Anonymous max rspct 15:55, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Good lord, I wish we were having this conversation in person. The Internet is probably the least hierarchical place there is, and you see what happens. The less hierarchy, the less civility. There is s a clear correlation. In person no one has ever spoken to me so rudely, nor shown so little respect. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 22:04, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Your normal inter-personal bullying isn't working out here Jack? Gee, how sad. If only you had everyone nicely cowed into submission so that you could get what you want out of them... Kev 23:24, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sam, I'd luv to meet you in person and give u a CRASH course in Anarchy... But quite simply I have not the patience or inclination right now. I have better things to do than encourage the trolling of Nazi sympathisers - Such as falling in Love ;o
max rspct 09:03, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Calling your opponent a "Nazi sympathizer" is just what is covered by Godwin's Law, and usually implies that you've lost whatever argument you're having. (Of course, by pointing this out, I've also lost, by tradition... oh well.) Dtobias 11:36, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes you've shot yersel in both feet:
'Notes:
When discussing with actual neo-Nazis, Godwin's law should not typically apply, as Hitler is bound to come up on one or the other side of the argument sooner rather than later. It is also interesting that, among Nazis, a "reverse Godwin's law" exists where, as an argument devolves into a flame war, there is an increasingly greater probability that one or the other side will invoke a comparison to Jews as an insult, much the same as a comparison to Hitler or Nazis is regularly an insulting one.'

This part of this discussion page is discussing Nazi trolling - Godwins law is the institutionalisation of a dialogue on internet behaviour by someone in a position of power .
End of the discuusion on 'Godwin's Law' . max rspct 11:55, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Advocate, advocate........advocate!

Anarchism advocates what its opponents wish it didn't advocate. To say that "their proponents maintain that they claim to....advocate" is rediculous. That is anarchism. If one does not advocate what anarchism does, then they're not anarchists. It is rediculous to make it look like anarchism claims it is against hierarchy and coercive institutions, buuut what? Secretly anarchism is for coercive force and state violence? This is a stupid edit war. Anarchism advocates what the article states in the beginning, if one is not an advocate of that then they are not an anarchist and they're clearly looking at the wrong article! --Fatal 01:43, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Anarchists must proseletyze? Doesn't that imply some "hope" that the states and nations be dissolved in our lifetime? The best we can hope for is to unite with libertarians and limited government conservatives, to shrink the sizes of governments and reduce the tax burdens, conscriptions, and drug dictorships they impose upon the peoples.--Silverback 02:35, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sure would be convienent for the caps if we focused purely on the state and neglected to even try to restrict the domination of capitalist business in our lives. Sorry, as anarchists we fight on both fronts. If that means it lose, then at least we didn't "win" by handing the world over on a silver platter to one of our enemies by pretending they are one of our allies. Kev 08:48, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Liberal govt?

Anarchism advocates a liberal democratic govt? I don't think you'll even find something that rediculous in a "libertarian" party speech. --Fatal 23:56, 22 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oh I see how it can be read.. Sorry - abolish both is what it's meant to read. ABOLISH capitalism and liberal democracy. savvy? But maybe its the way i'm looking at my screen - from tri-colour to green.. its far up from down here u ken .max rspct 00:50, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Fatal, the second paragraph after u changed it is not reading coherantly no? _ max rspct

The commas? Well I didn't put in the "at its core" thing, personally I don't care much for it. The commas might not look good, but they're much better grammar than the sentence was without commas. I see what you mean that it's kinda unreadable but that's due mostly to what used to be there being replaced with the "at its core" thing. --Fatal 02:18, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

change it man, is too confused.. I will later if u don't max rspct 17:38, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I prefer how it was before, how do you think it should be worded? --Fatal 22:05, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Alphabetical order or capitalist "look at me" effort?

Since RJ refuses to talk about anything he does other than on the history page, I'll take this discussion to the talk page for him. Opinion: The push for alphabetical order is to put an unnecessary focus on something that isn't even anarchist and is only on the page to disprove what capitalists are saying. Of course RJ would like to have "anarcho" capitalism be the first thing on the list above all real anarchist points of view. --Fatal 22:09, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Not true. I was just pointing out the shady way in which it was moved. The editor, "Che" removed the sentence saying that the list was in alphabetical order and that same editor moved anarcho-capitalism to the bottom of the list justifying it by saying it was "minor" but leaving "anarch-feminism" at the top as if it was the most major. RJII 01:35, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Actually "anarcha-feminism" manages to be first alphabetically, due to its feminine suffix. And the assertion that a type of anarchism you dislike "isn't even anarchist" is POV, and depends on a self-serving definition of anarchism. Dtobias 23:39, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm the one who put them in alphabetical order originally. I don't see why it's been reversed; anarcho-capitalism wasn't first. And I'm certainly not trying to put any focus on anarcho-capitalism... --Tothebarricades.tk 00:36, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Makes sense ..it's the most NPOV thing to do. Or even put it in reverse alphabetical order. Makes no difference as long as it's NPOV. RJII 01:35, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The assertion that anarcho-capitalism is a "type of anarchism" is also POV and relies on a self-serving definition of anarchism, something you apparently fail see cause it happens to be your own bias and self being served Dtobias. Kev 02:07, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Anarchism is any ideology that opposes the existence of government, period. At least that's one major definition of the term. Alot of people that edit this page, including you, are insisting that this page should use another definition of anarchism ..which is fine. It just presents a problem. The solution would be to devote a page to "anarchism" that is defined as any system that opposes the existence of government. If necessary I'll create one. RJII 02:24, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No, anarchism is not any ideology that opposes the existence of government, period. The word currently means, and has always meant, far more than that. You seem to already know this yourself, thus your attempt to qualify your absolute statement right after you made it. On the one hand you want to paint a picture that absolutely pushes your POV, but then you want to add just enough back-pedaling to make it difficult to call your portrayal skewed.

A solution to the problem you mention was offered a long time ago, to use -this- page for disambugation between the various meanings, giving the history of the word up to today and throwing readers into the various relevant articles as the term changes or is embraced by new groups of people. This solution has been proposed three times and implemented on this page twice now, and it took a lot of work by those who did it (I took no direct part in any of the attempts), and each time it was reverted back by individuals who gave no clear reason as to why. Creating a seperate page for this might be another solution, but it is also one that sets a particular precedent that people might not accept on other pages, like for example the libertarian page. Kev 02:51, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The fact is, our (correct ;)) opinion that it is not a form of anarchism is made very clear in the article. This wasn't always the case. At least for its section under "schools of anarchism," it's fine. --Tothebarricades.tk 02:58, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The sequence issue doesn't matter to me at all. I merely reverted back to one with ac on the bottom because in the interim the extraneous text I removed was also put back in. The version as it reads now was broadly agreed upon as sufficient for some time, and I think albamuth's recent survery reflected that for the most part this is still the case. The only reason it kept growing was because one ac would arrive to add one sentence (that just -had- to be there), then another would arrive to tack on an addendum to that sentence, then another would supply two sentences providing an exception, and so on. Eventually it created a section that rivaled all the others, which makes no sense given that all this data is already present in the article itself and as it relates to anarchism in general (thus this article), ac is a minor movement. Kev 05:23, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I moved it, because when someone's looking something up, the most important info's at the top, and the extraneous comments are at the bottom. Anti-State Capitalism is extraneous, so it's at the bottom. We should reorder the rest of the list by historical importance and/or size of movement. I didn't change the rest of the list, because I was reverting a change made to the Anti-State Capitalism section when I did it. Though I would argue that Anarcha-Feminism is the largest because *all* Anarchists are also Feminists ;) With that, I would say the rest of the list is *already* pretty much in that order. --Che y Marijuana 23:21, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I would think its importance would be increased by being placed at either extreme. If it's just buried in a longer list that's clearly alphabetically ordered no assumptions about its importance can be made. --Tothebarricades.tk 03:41, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

For me anarcho-capitalism shouldn't be in this article.. THere are major differences. This push to have it at the top of the list is silly, irrational and unfounded - Don't succumb! -- max rspct 14:46, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

unamed one, why discuss things here if you are just going to make mere assertions. You should present your lines of reasoning, not just your conclusions/assertions.--Silverback 11:55, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The types of anarchism should be in alphabetical order, but I don't feel like reverting all the spelling, grammer, and wikilink improvements which have been made in the alternate version. Can someone merge the two versions? I'd be happy to revert to that if you did ;) (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 16:52, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Then in alphabetical order they shall be, the types of Anarchism that is...--Che y Marijuana 22:15, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

What are the distinguishing characteristics of anarchist philosophies?

For those wondering, I believe we should work off of the previous collective process, that brings this down to a sensible conclusion, particularly this section:

• A movement against hierarchy, which requires opposition to capitalism, statism, racism, etc. (8 responses)

But evidently not against collectivism based on the appeal to "collective process". The above reference to "capitalism" did not mean anarcho capitalism, which is totally voluntary and only increases available choices. Not all capitalists "hire" workers, some may just run capital machinery themselves.--Silverback 23:39, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalism is totally voluntary? This is a fact, yes? No, it is an opinion, your own personal POV, and an opinion not shared by most anarchists. Kev 00:48, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Positive liberty is voluntary? This is a fact, yes? No, it is an opinion, your own personal POV, and an opinion not shared by most people. Anarchists should not define anarchism, especially not here on the wikipedia. (Sam Spade | talk |

Most people do not hold a view of positive and negative liberties, that is a phenomena inordinately popular amongst neo-classical liberals and us libertarians but not particularly widespread elsewhere. Even amongst those who do hold such conceptions there is widespread disagreement on what exactly constituted a negative or positive liberty. And you are correct, anarchists should not define wikipedia on anarchism. What we should to is explain the definitions that already exist, and if the history, etymology, and common-use of the word happens to rule out anarcho-capitalism (and it does), then your NPOV complaints are hollow. Kev 21:19, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

contributions) 15:54, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC) The point is, anti-state capitalists are not considered anarchists by anyone in the movement. Their claim to anarchism is entirely their own. So to bend over backwards to change definitions for them is unjustified.--Che y Marijuana 16:46, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

Depends on what movement you move in, I guess. For me, 20-plus years of involvement in the (U.S.) Libertarian movement almost never gave me the slightest hint of the existence of anarchists other than anarcho-capitalists, nor the existence of the oxymoronic libertarian socialists. Dtobias 17:10, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Of course it didn't Dtobias. That is because anti-state capitalists are happy to delude themselves and their followers into believing a sanitized version of history that washes out everything they don't like. Kev 21:19, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Here's an example of the libertarian movement's treatment of anarchism: from A Liberty Primer, by Alan Burris (Society for Individual Liberty, Genessee Valley Chapter, Rochester NY; Second Edition, 1983)

Anarchy has a different meaning to libertarians than to most people. The word is usually connected with chaos, lawlessness and terrorism, which hardly anyone, including libertarians, would favor. Some, claiming to be anarchists, oppose even voluntary organizations, or would impose communes and abolish the right to own property. Libertarians see the word meaning peaceful voluntary relations between people, with the absence of government violence. Instead of trying to get the world and the dictionary to agree to a change in meaning, it would seem more productive for Libertarians to avoid and disclaim the word. When the statists accuse us of anarchy, we can ask what they mean. After they explain, we can say that they are wrong, as we do not favor those bad things but rather all these good things. We don't need a word for no government interference -- we already have a good one which rings clear and true: liberty.

Dtobias 21:51, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• An extension of the word "anarchy" (1 response)
• Opposition to any individual, group, or organization governing or ruling over any individual without any other implications. (1 response)
• The lowest-common-denominator is simply a system with no government. While most anarchists also add opposition to various other sorts of structures or arrangements, there are many disputed definitions involved. (1 response)
• There are too many interpretations of anarchism for it to be defined by strict criteria. (1 response)

Anarchism and Anarcho-Capitalism

Main article: Anarcho-capitalism

Anarcho-capitalism is an ideology which rejects the state and, unlike anarchism, embraces capitalism. Prominent anarcho-capitalists include Murray Rothbard and David Friedman.

Anarchists reject the idea that anti-state capitalists are anarchists at all, citing the fundamental anarchist critiques of capitalism that view it as inherently authoritarian and exploitative; whereas subordination in a political dictatorship is enforced by the threat of incarceration, corporate subordination is enforced by the threat of impoverishment and even starvation. Anarchists see capitalism as giving power to a few, principally the capitalist class, but also the coordinator class, over the working class and hence see "anarcho-capitalism" as a contradiction in terms, while viewing anti-state capitalism as an exclusionist take on democracy harking back to before the consolidation of universal suffrage.

Whereas anarchists view capitalism as a system of subordination, anarcho-capitalists view relations between individuals, including between employer and employee, as voluntary in a capitalist system and claim to oppose anything that could be considered subordination.

It is not acceptable to define anarchism in a manner which excludes anarcho-capitalism. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 16:55, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"A movement against hierarchy, which requires opposition to capitalism, statism, racism, etc. (8 responses)"--Che y Marijuana 17:01, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

NPOV, one of the M:Foundation issues, and thus non-negotiable policy. Your talk page majority doesn't change that. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 17:13, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Anarcho-capitalism" is a misnomer and a terribly misleading term. It should be described as such. —Christiaan 17:56, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That is your opinion (i.e. at best original research) and not relevant here. Find an expert who agrees w you and cite him saying so. Others can cite other experts, and the reader can make up his own mind. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 18:15, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

My opinion and the opinion of every other anarchist. The word is there simply because that's what they call themselves. Find me an anarchist who doesn't call themselve's an anarcho-capitalist who believes that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism.

We are arguing about the defintion of anarchist should be here. Relying on the definition of anarchist that you advocate is not very logical. Of course this isn't really about logic, is it? Its about you frustrated lefties and you standard Orwellian word games. Find me an anarcho-capitalist that believes he isn't an anarchist.

In the mean time you might like to read a comment that Chomsy has made on the topic:

Many "anarcho-capitalists" claim that anarchism means the freedom to do what you want with your property and engage in free contract with others. Is capitalism in any way compatible with anarchism as you see it?

Anarcho-capitalism, in my opinion, is a doctrinal system which, if ever implemented, would lead to forms of tyranny and oppression that have few counterparts in human history. There isn't the slightest possibility that its (in my view, horrendous) ideas would be implemented, because they would quickly destroy any society that made this colossal error. The idea of "free contract" between the potentate and his starving subject is a sick joke, perhaps worth some moments in an academic seminar exploring the consequences of (in my view, absurd) ideas, but nowhere else.

I should add, however, that I find myself in substantial agreement with people who consider themselves anarcho-capitalists on a whole range of issues; and for some years, was able to write only in their journals. And I also admire their commitment to rationality -- which is rare -- though I do not think they see the consequences of the doctrines they espouse, or their profound moral failings.

this doesn't address whether or not anarcho-capitalism is anarchism. Its just a doom and glool prediction that almost any non-anarchist would put forth concerning just about any flavor of anarchy.

I see. The hierarchy of the 'true' anarachists has spoken! Anarcho-capitalism has been branded a heresy. Defining Anarcho-Capitalist to not be anarchist shows such self-evident left-wing political bias that it really discredits Wikipedia.

—Christiaan 18:46, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This reminds me of debates about whether or not Mormanism is a part of Christianity or not. The Christianity article handles it this way : " Christianity has many branches, including 1.1 billion Roman Catholics, 367 million Protestants in a number of traditions, 216 million Orthodox, 84 million Anglicans, 414 million Independents (unaffiliated with the major streams of Christianity), and 31.7 million "marginals" (Jehovah's Witnesses, Latter Day Saints (Mormons), etc.), these last being denominations which describe themselves as Christian but are not standardly recognized as such by other denominations." Perhaps there is something to be learned in how Mormanism's claim to being a Christian religion is handled by Wikipedia. 4.250.198.221 19:37, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I like the new edit, but I think it should be made more clear what it is the author is trying to say. --Fatal 19:39, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In a conversation I had with a pair of Mormon missionaries a few months back, I brought up the subject of Christianity and implied that they were a Christian denomination. One of them said "are we Christians?" and the other replied, "I think so, technically". They were right. Mormons do believe in Christ, so they are technically Christians, but Mormonism differs from mainstream Christianity on a number of points. Therefore most mainstream Christians and even a large number of Mormons have disclaimed Mormonism's place as a form of Christianity in all but the most literal sense of the word.

This is very, very different than the case of anarcho-capitalism. Anarcho-capitalists cannot literally be anarchists, since they support capitalism, which if uncontrolled by the state would be just as bad (if not worse) than government. In times past this was a non-issue for Anarchists; when the "capitalist" system consisted mainly of the Mom & Pop store down the street, the local corner grocery, captialism was not a threat to individual liberties. But with the emergence of corporations like Microsoft and Wal-Mart, capitalism has shown itself to be something that is truly dangerous to the Anarchists' goals.

Whereas Mormons technically are Christians, even though neither they nor mainstream Christians typically hold this to be the case, anarcho-capitalism cannot "technically" be considered a form of Anarchism. The ultimate goal of any corporation is to make as much profit as possible, regardless of who must be oppressed in the process (hence the existence of sweat-shops). So anarcho-capitalism isn't really to Anarchism what Mormonism is to Christianity, it's more to Anarchism what LaVeyan Satanism is to Christianity: not quite a polar opposite, but something altogether incompatible nonetheless.

As I see it, including unconstrained capitalism on the Anarchism page under the "anarcho-capitalist" label would be pretty much the same thing as including Satanism on the Christianity page under a "Luciferean Christianity" label. Maybe it deserves a brief mention in for using the "anarcho-" prefix, but it is a misnomer and oxymoron, as it is in direct opposition to the most defining, fundamental features of Anarchism. This fact cannot be over-stated in regard to it. --Corvun 22:55, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

It is strange that you mention corporations which are really a branch of government and cannot exist without government. Do you really think you can limit liability for your actions without government guns backing you up? Sorry, in anarcho capitalism you won't get off so easy. Can you say "non sequitur"?--Silverback 23:01, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The ties between corporation and government is exactly one of the main problems Anarchists have with capitalism. Anarchism is essentially a proposed system in which anarchical or "grass roots" forces are the main forces "governing" a society. This contrasts with democracy in many meaningful ways (in a democracy, the wants of the majority outweigh the needs of the individual, for instance, as can be seen in the debate about medicinal marijuana, where those people who've been duped into thinking marijuana is dangerous get their way simply because the masses are easily duped, regardless of who genuinely needs the stuff).

In an Anarchism, or "grass roots government", the WTO meetings in Seattle would never have happened. In an anarcho-capitalist system, however, the WTO would've had its own police on the streets busting people's heads. This is the danger of anarcho-capitalism. Capitalism would essentially become the new government, with its own interests placed before the well-being of its subjects. Some smart businesses might conserve resources and keep prices low to ensure future survival, but on the whole there will always be some CEO trying to suck as much as he can from the public before retiring to the grave, not caring for who starves to death in the meantime because of his wanton desire to amass the most superfluous wealth and "die with the most toys". --Corvun 23:33, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

What good does "caring" do if you don't have property to help people with? In anarcho capitalism the WTO meetings would not have happened either. Trade would no longer be impeded by government so treaties would be unnecessary.--Silverback 06:11, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Funny that you would say that corporations are a branch of government Silverback, given that capitalism is defined as including corporate ownership. This would kinda make anarcho-capitalism a contradiction in terms even if we accepted the stripped down meaning of anarchism as merely anti-state. Kev 01:52, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Please cite a respected source that supplies a definition of capitalism that says it has to contain "corporate ownership." Every one I've ever seen says "private ownership." RJII 02:15, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

But you forget, in "anarcho"-capitalist ideology the supporting role that the government provides for a capitalist economy is taken over by other corporations. So its not really government (or is it?) ;). Anyway I'm sure the guns of Securicor will be a sufficent replacement for the government guns, to back limited liability. millerc 02:21, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Whoever said it "has" to contain corporate ownership? It is sufficient just to demonstrate that capitalism is entirely compatible with corporate ownership, because it would follow that "anarcho-capitalism" if it is actually capitalism, would also be compatible. As for a definition from a respected source, why don't you try the very source you have peddled in several of these articles (www.m-w.com). Opps! Turns out corporate ownership is such an integral part of capitalism it is even part of the definition. It was you that kept arguing that complex socio-political theories could be reduced to dictionary definitions, right? Kev 06:37, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

How are you going to have a corporation without a government? As far as the Merriam-Webster definition you bring up, it says "private or corporate ownership." So according to that definition corporate ownership is not a necessary element of capitalism. Private ownership is sufficient. Or do I need to explain the meaning of the word "or"? RJII 02:13, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well I'm sorry RJII, that anarchists deal with reality, not pipe-dreams. I know its not quite Ayn Rand's unknown ideal, but Capitalism will always require some sort of legal enforcement. millerc 02:21, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oh really? Go to the anarcho-capitalism article and look at the external link about Somalia. There is no government there, yet capitalism and business exists (not corporations). Then tell me, what does paleo-anarchism have to do with reality? RJII 02:27, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Most voluntary exchanges even in today's societies seldom need recourse to enforcement mechanisms, either because business reputations are too valuable to risk, or the transactions are too small to be worth the expense of enforcement, etc.--Silverback 06:11, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I know you types get confused between state government and enforcement agents. Ever heard of private militias/police forces, they do exist? Point is, simple minded anti-statism still isn't anarchism. millerc 02:33, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wow, I just realized that we have a taker on the situation in Somolia. "Paleo-anarchism"? I get more hits on Google for National Anarchism. millerc 02:46, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Paleo-anarchism as in "traditional" or socialist anarchism ...a dinosaur. RJII 02:56, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What does this comment have to do with corporations versus non-corporated private business? RJII 02:37, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Corporations are only symptomatic of the entirety of the problems associated with capitalism. Private property itself requires some sort of enforcement agent, any system in which one portion of society controls legal enforcement is bound to formulate a method by which the upper class achives even greater control. millerc 02:46, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Banning private property does not eliminate the need for protection, home invasions or burgluries may no longer be crimes under anarchism, but they will still be dangerous and unwelcome. All anarchism still needs "enforcement" unless you are proposing a change in human nature. People will still protect their family, shelter, equipment and other resources, it is mere obfuscation to no longer call it "property". Anarcho-capitalism will at least be without the artifacts of governments, corporations, unions, intellectual property, etc.--Silverback 06:11, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ah, right. There will be no governments (just laws, prisons, legislative bodies, and contract enforcement), and there will be no corporations (just businesses protected by those laws, enforced by PDA police). You are correct though Silver, in anarchism people will still protect their families. People will, not thugs hired by businesses to maintain a monopoly (that you excuse because it is supposedly natural), not police in the employ of some mogul who kick the shit out of anyone who feels like going on a walk and happens to enter his private dominion at his summer house in Paris, not private military forces commisioned to forcefully evict families from home and farm because they defaulted on some insane bank loan.

Now if you want to argue that all of these things are necessary because of human nature, be my guest. But understand that you are not arguing for anarcho-capitalism, you are arguing against anarchism. Once we get that far, I can show the BS behind the "human nature" argument as well. Kev 06:47, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

When coercion is abandoned, anarco-capitalism is what happens, coercion must be applied to result in anything else, note that voluntary communal living and production is allowed under anarco-capitalism, although the commune itself is not recognized as a separate entity since it has no mass, so any outside exchanges will have to be performed by responsible individuals. Please let me know the BS behind the "human nature" argument. Do you propose selective breeding or culling in order to achieve some result other than anarco-capitalism?--Silverback 08:45, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The "BS" behind the human nature argument is that you rely on it. Everyone does to make all sorts of idiotic statements, its one of the most common backups for people who have no clue how to support what they are saying, "its human nature," or, "its against human nature." As for your having defined everything at the outset to lead to the conclusion that anarcho-capitalism is what exists when coercion is removed, good on you, you too have the ability to make statements in the absence of a shred of evidence and support them with hollow rhetoric. Oh, and BTW, I love the claim about how communes will be left free to operate in capitalism. I can just imagine it now, "hey, your economics can be praticed here freely, but gee... if you actually do what your economics say you are free to do we will shoot you because you aren't being a responsible individual." Kev 09:50, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

communal living is even allowed to be practiced in today's mixed-capitalist-socialist economies, although the need for legal tender to pay property taxes unfortunately forces some interaction with the general economy. The lack of property taxes will allow communes even more independence. As for the shooting, most likely it is the commune that will be shooting the member who exchanged some good without permission that they considered communal property. The individual who claims the authority to sell goods, is responsible if they don't really have that authority or if they make representations about the goods which are not true. Markets have occurred naturally in most cultures under a wide variety of conditions, there is no reason to think they won't occur once a non-coercive society is achieved. It will take coercion to suppress them, and even that is usually not always successful.--Silverback 11:26, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yep yep, you anarchists are allowed to live communally or however you want, so long as you follow our enforcement of property rules and compete according to our economic assumptions in the society at large. Sorta like being given the opportunity to join in a footrace after having your feet cut off, its always possible that other economies with flourish, just not very likely. As for free markets occuring in the absence of suppression, I totally agree with you. Indeed, it will be very difficult for capitalists to obstruct the free market when they don't have a state to rely on and back their coercive pratices, as such mutualist businesses and interest free banks will finally be able to prosper and the market will thrive. And in such a free economy those who do not wish to partake in the market really won't need to, because their lives won't be beholden to yet a new set of masters in the form of landlords, collection agencies, and corporate backed judges.

Tell me, personally, do you think any of your arguments are new? Its all straight out of the capitalist handbook thus far. Do me a favor and think of some unique criticism. Kev 14:21, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If you had heard the property tax criticism before, I'd like a cite. That has always been one of my pet peeves, because otherwise the tolerance of capitalism for collective communes gave it clear moral superiority over overtly collectivist societies that had violent intolerance of capitalism.

How can an interest free bank "prosper"? By "interest free" do you mean it doesn't pay interest on deposits, thus providing no incentive to save and postpone consumption? Or you do mean that the loans don't charge interest? There would be very little profit in that so how could the bank "prosper", or even compensate those who run it?

BTW, the footrace analogy is invalid, the commune doesn't have to compete at all, and only has to make exchanges if it wants to or only with those who also don't want to compete or compete by rules they approve of. Of course there will always be the temptation of lower prices from more efficient producers elsewhere, but that is entirely voluntary.--Silverback 15:40, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Okay, so the Anarchists aren't forced to interact with the Capitalarchists. So you have Anarchy over here, and Capitalarchy over there -- where's the Anarcho-Capitalarchy? Oh wait, it's nowhere, because the moment you bring in Capitalarchy, the Anarchy (a.k.a. the lack of -archy) ceases to exist. --Corvun 19:16, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

Wait, a commune doesn't have to compete at all? So there will be plenty of free land with clean water and mineral resources and good soil and lots of free tools with which to build all of this? Everyone who wants to freely exit your system of domination will be able to leave without having their homes taken from them by landlords, and their tools taken from them by banks? Or maybe not. Maybe all these people will be forced into your way of business from the very start, forced to deal with the capitalist enforced priviledge system all around them, forced to by back the fruits of their own labor which have been stolen from them for thousands of years, and told "hey, if you can beat us at our own game or go start your own out of thin air and leave ours, be our guest."

As to explaining the very basics of mutualism to you, there happen to be lots of resources you can pick up yourself to do just that without wasting my time and going off on irrelevant tangents on wiki talk pages. Might want to start with What is Property by Proudhon or Individual Liberty by Tucker, each one gives a good description of interest free banking along with lots of other institutions you will inevitably expect me to explain to you as well. And as far as your property tax argument being original, my god man, you are an anarcho-capitalist and you've never been to the forums at anti-state.com? Kev 18:42, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think you are confused by scale issues. Just as a commune can exist on private property, so can anarchy, if neighboring other-archies leave it alone. Anarco-capitalism would do just that.--Silverback 16:35, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Here's a question: When the Capitalarchists, finally realizing their dream of having no government around to keep them from running the show themselves, find that no one in this new Anarchist society is willing to deal with them (for the same reason they disposed of government), what do they plan to do about it? Hire a bunch of soldiers, er, I mean "debt collections managers" to force people into cooperating with them? After all, they won't be owning any land, which means the land they are on is technically un-owned; if a Capitalarchist chooses to "buy" the land those people are habitating, it is his capitalist right to charge the trespassers for living on his land, isn't it? He can evict them, or, with no government around to stop him, beat each head of householed within an inch of his/her life and make him/her afraid not to pay what he/she "owes". That's not Anarcho-Capitalism (which is an oxymoron anyway), it's Tyranno-Capitalism (a redundancy, I know). --Corvun 16:06, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

Why do you assume violence? The reaction of the capitalist to a particular anarchists or communes failure to pay debt, might be no more than insistence on payment in advance the next time or refusal to extend any more credit, or publication of the party's untrustworthyness. This might be a considerable inducement to get the immoral party to deal in good faith. There might be other remedies specified in the contract. Perhaps you expect a society with no consequences to actions? --Silverback 16:35, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Maybe he assumes violence against non-owners at the hands of owners because anarcho-capitalism legitimates it and as anarchists we are taught to always be wary of those who are given power over us. People with the power to crush other people will do so, even if only on occasion, and to an anarchist that is plenty enough justification to ensure that such power is minimized. Kev 18:42, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Okay, there's a bunch of people settled together on a big stretch of land. Some fancy businessdude comes along and wants to buy the land. He meets a guy who says he owns the land. He buys the land. The people currently on the land are Anarchists who don't believe in "private property", which means they have no right to claim ownership of the land. Therefore, Mr. Businessdude tells them to vacate "his" land. They refuse. Mr. Businessdude payed a lot of money for that land, and sees it as belonging to him. Now, suddenly, the people who lived there long before he ever came along and had no knowledge of anyone claiming to "own" the land are somehow "immoral", "untrustowrthy", and deserve to be denied future credit (a big deal if capitalism is still around) and have their financial futures stripped away from them? See, capitalists have this way of thinking that because some "document" or "contract" or some other piece of paper says something, that makes it true in the real world. If they have a piece of paper saying they own something, they're going to do whatever it takes to get it away from those "immoral" people keeping them from their precious acquisitions.

Now, if these organizations are willing to put liens on people's homes for something like, say, not being able to pay a medical bill, and have police forcibly remove those people from their homes; then what, in an "Anarcho-Capitalist" society, is there to stop Mr. Businessdude from hiring his own goons to "escort" those folks out of their homes and off the land that was sold out from underneath them without their knowledge or consent? Do you honestly think he gives a damn about what happens to those "immoral" people that refuse to let him have his land?

There's a million other possible situations in which the end result would essentially be the same. Whatever Mr. Businessdude wants, Mr. Businessdude gets, regardless of who is forced to suffer or starve for his gold-plated Dodge Viper and his jewel-encrusted summer home. Mr. Businessdude is the badguy of this story, of every story. There's a very popular saying among anarchists concerning Mr. Businessdude: "Stay warm, burn the rich!" --Corvun 19:10, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

Some of you guys' anecdotal examples make me think of the bad old serials with "businessmen" with long mustaches who tied their victims' girlfriends to railroad tracks in between serving eviction notices on their houses. However, when you're making up stories, you can say anything, favorable or unfavorable to any side... like, one could make up a story about two contending groups of anarchist communal-lifestyle people who denied the legitimacy of private property, and got into an irresolvable conflict over just which of the groups gets to use this really cool beachfront land that would be such a far-out spot for a commune. Some piece of paper indicating that one group or the other actually owns it might come in handy at that point. Dtobias 20:20, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Businessdudes with long mustaches who tied their victims' girlfriends to railroad tracks in between serving eviction notices on their houses has become the stereotype for a reason. This is how they present themselves to the world. Cold, uncaring, willing to do anything to make a buck at the expense of everyone else. Dealing with a credit card company, insurance agency, or a collection agency will teach one very quickly that they don't care what anyone actually owes them, they only care about getting what they percieve as rightfully theirs, whether tha have any right to it or not.

As far as the Anarchists arguing over the beachfront land: Ever heard of flipping a coin? Besides, beaches smell funny, and a lot of people would feel very nervous living so near such a huge and unpredictable body of water as an ocean.

It doesn't matter how "handy" a piece of paper is. It will always be just a piece of paper. This hypothetical beach was there long before anyone even invented paper, before hominids were even walking on two legs. No one can "own" it. Writing stuff down on paper doesn't make it true. If I write on a piece of paper that the Earth is flat or that the sky is purple, that won't make it so. You can't put a beach in your pocket and take it with you. It isn't a personal possessition, it's a geological formation and a geographical feature. Any piece of paper saying someone "owns" it is a laughable piece of fiction. The same goes for money: at first we traded things straight across, then we used gold, then gold coins, then paper money and otherwise worthless coins that "represented" a measure of real gold, then we got rid of the gold standard and we use checks and credit points with a "paper-standard" backing it up. Soon there may not even be a paper standard. And when you take it all back to its source, gold is nothing but a shiny rock anyway. All of it is fake. We might as well be using monopoly money.

What I don't understand is how people accuse Anarchists of being crazy when we're the ones who're refusing to play make-believe. While everyone else is working within a reality that doesn't exist anywhere but on paper (money, maps showing political boundaries, legal documents, titles, deeds, whatever), all we wish for is to live and function in the real world, which -- gasp -- isn't made of ink on paper, but of green grass, trees, grey skies and the brown earth. Every day we see cops & robbers and businessdudes all playing this game of pretend together, and all we want is the right to be left alone without being made to engage them in the pretend world of law and business they've created. I mean I like D&D as much as the next guy, but some of us need a break from the roll-playing now and again, and find it a little ludicrous that they would seriously enforce this make-believe world such that it has life & death consequences in the real world. (People in prison, for example, don't get to put their character sheets away and go home to their warm beds at night.) We find it a little ludicrous that a simple game of pretend should have life & death consequences just because the people who have gotten good at it want to keep on pretending it's real and want everyone else to keep pretending with them. And the world of business is just as guilty of it as government is. --Corvun 01:57, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like your in the wrong place, Kev. The wikipedia is a book of reference, a place to cite and discuss tired old arguments and the experts who made them. Please seek the original research you desire on http://anarchopedia.org or some such. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 15:21, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What original research? Oh right, you mean my replies to your POV speculation. Appropriately enough, I don't put my replies in the article, and I remove your POV speculation when you put it there. Kev 18:36, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Don't any of you non-anarcho-capitalist "anarachist" think that it is ironic that on the anarchism page, its against the rules to refer to anarcho-capitalist as an anarchist? The hierarchy of the Orthodox Anarchists have kicked off those-who-believe-too-strongly-in-property, thus making this page their property.

This definition is silly. Anarchism is opposition to the existence of the state. It doesn't imply anything beyond that. Should the state fail and not be replaced, we'll all probably get up and go to work as if nothing really happened. We'll come home, have a beer and watch TV. Somehow, I doubt we'll be looking to join some commune full of losers. Nothing would change except we'd all have more money to spend. Thats it. If you want to join a collective and vote on everything from what's for dinner to what job you'll be doing, that's fine. It might work out well for you - I honestly don't know.

Non-anarchist source material

Sources cited by the Britannica website: from [2] The best general accounts of anarchism are Peter Marshall, Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism (1992); James Joll, The Anarchists, 2nd ed. (1980); Paul Avrich, Anarchist Portraits (1988); George Woodcock, Anarchism, new ed. (1986); Harold Barclay, People Without Government, completely rev. ed. (1990); Daniel Guérin, Anarchism: From Theory to Practice (1970; originally published in French, 1965); Paul Eltzbacher, Anarchism (1960, reprinted 1972; originally published in German, 1900); and Richard D. Sonn, Anarchism (1992).

Good anthologies of anarchist theory include Irving Louis Horowitz (ed.), The Anarchists (1964); Leonard I. Krimerman and Lewis Perry(eds.), Patterns of Anarchy (1966); and David E. Apter and James Joll (eds.), Anarchism Today (1971).

For a comprehensive bibliography of anarchist literature from different countries over the last two centuries, see Denise Fauvel-Rouif (ed.), Anarchism (1982); and Helene Strub (ed.), Anarchism, vol. 2 (1993). There are also useful selected bibliographies in all the books listed above.

Enjoy. --albamuth 06:33, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Union of egos

Is that from Stirner? I was thinking about removing it from the related concepts, because its obscure and I doubt we'll have a page on it anytime soon. Unless someone is more informed than myself and wants to create the page. --Tothebarricades.tk 04:05, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That is from Stirner. Please don't delete it because the concept is still relevant even though the phrasing itself has been rendered obsolete by Freud. Post leftists and individualists draw heavily on some of Stirner's ideas. Thanks! - Nihila 22:44, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

On second thought, it doesnt need to be on this page. It is taking up enough space at List of anarchist concepts. :) - Nihila 22:47, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Supplying definition backed by dictionary to support disambugation"

Kevehs: What dictionary is this? The most popular and respected dictionary, the Merriam-Webster, defines anarchism as "a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups." What second-rate dictionary are you using? RJII 06:20, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Why, I'm using that second rate dictionary known as Merriam-Webster, of course. Perhaps you neglected to read the sentence, "This page refers to anarchism as a philosophy of those who...", in other words it refers to the practitioners of anarchism, anarchists themselves. Since Dtobias thought it was circular to simply say that it refers to anarchism as defined by anarchists, I gave a definition of anarchist as it is supplied in the very dictionary you constantly shove onto people as supremely authoritative in this matter. Give it a look. And please, embarass yourself by insulting your own favored dictionary again just because it gave a result you disagree with, that will be fun to watch.

You gave one of the definitions for "anarchist," not "anarchism." The name of this article is "anarchism" not "anarchists." Besides, the (2) definition says anarchist are those advocate anarchism. And anarchism is exactly what an article titled "anarchism" is supposed to be about. The anarchists that this article would properly describe are those that advocate anarchism (2). You've really screwed yourself now. RJII 06:31, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The sentence specifically indicates that it is refering to anarchists, that is the point actually. And yes, it just so happens that the people who fit the (1) definition also fit the (2) definition. Gee, imagine that? Kev 07:47, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The definition of "anarchist" that you're referring to (number (1)) says that an anarchist is "one who rebels against any authority, established order, or ruling power." Now, if someone is rebelling against the established order and the established order is that which exists in your utopian anarchism, then he's not much of an anarchist in the sense of being someone in favor of anarchism is he? Therefore the definition of anarchist that applies in the context of the article, being an article titled "anarchism," is the number (2) definition: " : one who believes in, advocates, or promotes anarchism or anarchy". And, "anarchism" is defined in that same dictionary as "a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups". Enough said. Reference: www.m-w.com RJII 14:24, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Its funny how, when I give a definition as a single piece of evidence for an edit you insist that this definition can't be the one we are working with and we must look elsewhere for more definitions. Yet, when you give a definition that is obviously incomplete given the history of the word your immediate conclusion is, "enough said." Actually, one who rebels against existing order is in fact a definition of anarchist, even one that fits this article, as anarchists have long embraced the concept of continuous revolution, the idea that society will never be in the utopian state you posit above, and that institutions of hierarchy and coercion must always be resisted whenever they arise. Oddly enough, even the definition you -insist- on clinging to after rejecting (1) of anarchist because it doesn't meet your bias and claiming that it only refers back to anarchism in (2) does exactly what you don't want it to do. That is, in (1) it gives the definition you want, and the only one you want, and then in (2) it refers back to anarchist! So obviously unless we wanted to put on the blinders and pretend that there is only one definition of the word, and a very limited meaning of it at that, the most complete meaning would be to refer to the definitions of both words since each refers to the other. It just so happens that this article fits the definitions of both words, and the fact that they refer back to each other. Now you want it to refer to only one word, and you even want to make that definition as stripped down as humanly possible. So be it, you are using a different definition, and this page has already been disambugated for exactly that purpose. Kev 17:06, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

None of those dictionary definitions actually mentions capitalism or socialism; one's position on the merits of economic systems is not considered a definitional feature of anarchism as far as the dictionary is concerned. Anarcho-capitalists certainly believe that their desired system is based on voluntary cooperation and free association, and they would argue that it is socialism that involves coercion. Dtobias 12:45, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't mention "hierarchy" either. RJII 14:12, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

All I've got to say is "oi". Just because something has the anarcho- prefix doesn't mean it's a school of Anarchist thought (Anarchism). Anarcho-Capitalism may in fact be very "anarchic" compared to other schools of Capitalism, but it's Anarcho-Capitalism, not Capitalo-Anarchism. It's a variety of Capitalism that just happens to have some Anarchism-like features (hence the anarcho- prefix), such as opposition to the state. Meanwhile, the reasons behind these similar features are in complete opposition to each other. The Capitalists desire Capitalarchy -- the removal of government so the Fat Cats are free reign as the supreme lords of the land without any superceding force encumbering them. This is made rather obvious with their opposition to systems that would attempt to equalize wealth, such as socialism.

True Anarchists (not Anarcho-Capitalistsb but Anarcho-Anarchists) oppose any sort of social structure that has the means and goal of superceding individual choice.

Note that "purchase from our monopoly or starve to death" is not a choice. So, yes, Anarcho-Capitalism may be an "anarchic" form of Capitalism, thus justifying the term, but it is definitely not a form of Anarchism.

And concerning this dictionary definition of Anarchism: Look up the word "elephant". Notice the definition says nothing about elephants not being flies. Therefore, a housefly can be a type of elephant. Make sense? Didn't think so. --Corvun 15:04, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

In response to your last paragraph: I could use the same bogus argument replacing "elephant" with anarchism and "fly" with "anarcho-syndicalism." It would be a logical possibility for anarcho-syndicalism to be a kind of anarchism unless the definition of anarchism included the note that being a anarcho-syndicalism is inconsistent with being an anarchism. Likewise, it would be a logical possibility for a fly to be a kind of elephant unless the definition mentioned that a being a fly was incompatible with being an elephant. The way we know that a fly isn't an elephant is that it doesn't fit the definition of an elephant. If the definition of anarchism is "a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups" then if anarcho-capitalism is a theory that advocates the abolition of government in favor of voluntary cooperation, then anarcho-capitalism is one of those theories. This is the same way we know that anarcho-syndicalism is one of those theories. RJII 15:22, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Not only does anarcho-capitalism use a very peculiar definition of voluntary and of government in order to sneak in under the wire of that definition, not only is a single definition not proper material for basing a socio-political article on, but there also happen to be several other applicable definitions you are purposefully ignoring. Kev 17:06, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sure, go on believing there is a capitalist conspiracy going on to manipulate the meaning of "voluntary." It would all fit in with leftism wouldn't it? Just another way that evil rich capitalists and elites are out there trying to keep the little guy down. RJII 17:21, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Who said anything about conspiracy? When capitalists use the word voluntary they do so in a very selective way. So, for example, if a person is starving to death and the only land available for her to farm is currently restricted from her by capitalists, any contract she then makes to sell her labor for use of that land to feed herself is entirely voluntary according to ac. That is simply not voluntary according to many systems of philosophy, which would hold that situation to be a form of blackmail. More obvious is your clearly peculiar definition of government. Apparently, to an ac, judges, prisons, police, and legilative bodies can all exist without "government". Mind you, all of these institutions are generally considered to be governing institutions, but in order to accept your claims of rejecting government we have to pretend that a society can have all of these things (and more) and still call itself "anarchist". Kev 17:48, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

On the other hand, if the only land available for the starving person to farm is currently controlled by an anarchist collective commune, and it won't accept her as a member unless she agrees to their definition of anarchism, then that's entirely voluntary, isn't it? Dtobias 18:10, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No, it isn't, and I would be the first to rebel against any so-called anarchist collective that denied use of necessary resources to another because they refused to... what, accept a definition? Maybe that is where you and I depart Dtobias, I rebel against coercion regardless of its guise, whereas you just don't like coercion that upsets anarcho-capitalist status quo. Kev 19:33, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is not a dictionary, this is an encyclopedia. It is excepted universally that dictionaries often do not have accurate descriptions of words, if you watch the Malcolm X movie, they have a whole scene about how the dictionary defines "black" and "white." Dictionaries are not books of total facts, encyclopedias however are supposedly supposed to be. Also, nearly all dictionaries do not limit the definition of anarchy to "no govt" but say lack of any authority, hierarchy, etc. And authority is not limited to govt at all. --Fatal 17:46, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Dictionaries are widely considered as authorities on supplying the typical usage of words. That's a given ..that's what a dictionary does. As such, they are a great reference source for editors on Wikipedia. Not all dictionaries are going to say the same thing. But, some dictionaries are more highly-regarded than others more their NPOV and as being recognized authories on typical usage of words. The Merriam-Webster dictionary is one of those dictionaries. There are a few others. It makes sense that we supply the typical definitions in these articles. The definition I put in the intro is typical of all the commonly-referenced dictionaries I've checked. You may have a POV to push but if you have to fudge on what the common usage of a word, is your POV really worth pushing? If the consensus represented by dictionaries say that black is white, then in Wikipedia, we must say that black is defined as white. We are here to rehash consensus definitions and information and present it here. Dictionaries have an important place as a reference source in Wikipedia. RJII 17:59, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree that dictionaries are a resource in building an informative article like this one, but that isn't really what is in question. You only want certain particular definitions, and even then only parts of them, and even then only from certain dictionaries, to be represented at all. On top of that, you want to go further than using these books of referance as mere referance, you want to use them to delimit the very boundaries of this article and insert your own POV in order to ensure that this article, which has already been disambugated from the meaning anarcho-capitalists use, actively pushes the POV you represent. Dictionaries are a resource, they are not an ultimate authority, and if encylopedias began to use them as such then we would have to radically rehaul every single politic topic in every encylopedia in existence. The way you want to use dictionaries, I could go and use the Encylopedia Britannica entry on anarchism by Kropotkin as definitive proof that anarcho-capitalism is a contradiction in terms. But that is not how we use referance material, and your selective use of it is highly objectionable. Kev 19:33, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Show me any dictionaries that say anarchism is opposition to "hierarchy." Merriam-Webster certainly doesn't. [3] The well-respected NPOV The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy doesn't. [4] What dictionary does? If anarchism is defined in the intro it should be a good definition. A good definition is one that reflects the consensus use out there. That's what dictionaries do and that's what we should be consulting for definitions. Either supply a proper definition or don't provide one at all. What good and widely respect NPOV dictionary says that anarchism is opposition to "hierarchy"? RJII 19:42, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As we have already demonstrated, there are several definitions for and related to anarchism that you don't like at all, right in your favorite dictionary, that you have gone out of your way to suppress from wikipedia or ignore altogether. Yet when you find one that happens to allow your POV, you cling to it like it is some ultimate authority. As I said above, dictionaries are a great referance, they are also not the -only- referance we should look to, especially when we are writing an article on a political theory. You want to see a dictionary that says anarchism is in opposition to hierarchy? I'll show you one once you show me which part of merriam websters defines anarcho-capitalism. After all, if the dictionary doesn't mention it, why should wikipedia, regardless of any other facts or history we have on the table?

Now, if you want other -referances- to anarchism as opposition to hierarchy, I can supply you with more than you are likely to bother looking over, ones from articles over a hundred years old or a few days old, from people all over the world. But those referances won't all be in a dictionary, much less your personal favorite one, much less the particular passage of a particular definition in your favorite dictionary that happens to allow anarcho-capitalism to be interpreted as a part of anarchism. So is it referances that you are asking for, or only referances that support your POV? Kev 20:25, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"A political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups."

If you look up "governmental" in any dictionary, you'll find it means something akin to "pertaining to government". If you look up "government" in any dictionary, you'll find the term covers a lot more than just political organizations. Government, in its broadest sense, is simply the act of governing. It is a synonym for authority and hierarchy. If you accept that Anarchism opposes all forms of governmental authority, you cannot limit this to political government. All forms does not mean one form.

As I said: Anarchists oppose any sort of social structure that has the means and goal of superceding individual choice.

Anarchism holds that not only political government is undesirable, but every form of government; political, social, monetary, whatever. If you want to argue that Anarcho-Capitalism is using a narrower sense of the word "government" than the Anarchists use, you'll essentially be admitting that it cannot therefore be a form of true Anarchism, since Anarchism, by the Merriam-Webster definition specifically states that Anarchism opposes all forms of governmental authority, not just the one single form that Anarcho-Capitalists oppose. --Corvun 21:01, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

Whether dictionaries are largely factual or not is not the issue, it's clear that you're not using a dictionary as your source for a "commonly accepted definition", because by that you obviously mean what the average idiot on the street thinks the definition is and that means nothing. The average person might not know how to silkscreen, but does that mean a dictionary definition or encyclopedia article on silkscreening should include the line "Generally, the definintion of silkscreening is accepted as meaning 'using silk to protect one's TV screen'" Who defines it as that? Someone who knows nothing about silkscreening? Their ignorance of the topic is irrelevant! --Fatal 21:00, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I'm going to assume this wasn't directed at me, because it doesn't seem to address anything I've said here. --Corvun 23:30, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

Corvun, you say that government is a synonym for "authority and hierarchy." Well, it's not. If you really thought that, then why would you not allow the definition to say "government" instead, like the consensus definitions state? RJII 21:36, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Because most people take "government" only in its political sense. Government, governence, governor, governing -- these words all have a political meaning, sure, but they have other meanings as well. The political sense of the word "government" is not its sole definition. If anarchy is against all forms of government, then that includes more than just political government. It would include any sort of social structure that, as I said, has "the means and goal of superceding individual choice". --Corvun 23:30, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

More definitions

Okay, I'm going to try this again, this time with actual examples. Perhaps that will reduce some of these strange misunderstandings.

Example definitions of "Anarchism" from dictionary.com:

• The theory or doctrine that all forms of government are oppressive and undesirable and should be abolished. (Emphasis mine)

• Active resistance and terrorism against the state, as used by some anarchists.

• Rejection of all forms of coercive control and authority: “He was inclined to anarchism; he hated system and organization and uniformity” (Bertrand Russell). (Emphasis mine)

Okay, so let's assume for a moment that only the first definition is "truly anarchism", and ignore the other two. This is the definition with which the arguments have thus far been concerned.

Example definitions of "government" from dictionary.com:

• The act or process of governing, especially the control and administration of public policy in a political unit. (Emphasis mine)

• The office, function, or authority of a governing individual or body. (Emphasis mine)

• Exercise of authority in a political unit; rule.

• The agency or apparatus through which a governing individual or body functions and exercises authority. (Emphasis mine)

• A governing body or organization, as: (Emphasis mine)
  • The ruling political party or coalition of political parties in a parliamentary system.
  • The cabinet in a parliamentary system.
  • The persons who make up a governing body. (Emphasis mine)

• A system or policy by which a political unit is governed.

• Administration or management of an organization, business, or institution. (Emphasis mine)

True, there is a very strong political sense to the word "government", as is reflected in a couple of these definitions. However, the majority of these definitions do not specify anything having to do with politics, particularly that last one, which would clearly place capitalism as a form of government.

I'll remind everyone that the definition of Anarchism over which this argument is taking place clearly states: all forms of government -- not just those one or two definitions that have to do with politics. Most of the definitions simply have to do with governing.

Clearly, Anarchism is opposed to much more than just political government. Anarcho-Capitalists, for example, must (1) reject the 3rd definition of Anarchism listed above, and (2) contradict the first definition of Anarchism anyway by excluding most definitions of "government". All forms of government does not mean one form of government.

The only reason I'm arguing not to use the first definition, is that most people, like the Anarcho-Capitalists, will probably assume "government" is being used in the political sense alone, when in fact this is not the case. I believe in order to give people an accurate and unambiguous definition of Anarchism, we should either use the definition proposed (similar to the 1st def. I listed above) in combination with the 9th def. of "government" listed above (since it pretty much encompasses all of the first 8 definitions), or simply use the 3rd def. of Anarchism above. --Corvun 23:30, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

What does it matter what they "assume"? Governing is governing. Is it our fault if they don't know what that means? You could elaborate on this, but in providing a definition of capitalism "government" should be the word .."all forms of government." That is the consensus definition. You yourself said you agree that what you mean by "hierarchy" falls under that. I will say that "hierarchy" is more vague than "government." Does having an acting coach constitute "hiearchy"? It sure does, but does it constitue a form of "government"? Not in the sense of anarchist opposition to government --of course not, it's obviously voluntary ..one can come and go as they please, obey or not obey with no repercussions other than being a bad actor. "Government" is the much more precise word. It doesn't have the confusion of "hierarchy." If you want to say "hierarchy" I think you would have to qualify it as "coercive hiearchy" or something like that. But, why not just used the standard consensus definition? It covers the "all forms of coercive control or authority." "Hierarchy" is a vauge word, and as you would expect, it's why it's not in any definitions that are considered to be consensus ones. And, again, the consensus definition is what we're supposed to be supplying here. RJII 18:02, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If you use "government" in the most inclusive sense permitted by its various definitions, and regard anarchism as being entirely opposed to all forms of it, then you've basically defined anarchism as being incapable of existing in the real world, as it's impossible to rid the world of all instances of anybody or anything being "governed" in some sense unless you want "anarchy" by its other definition, that is, complete chaos and disorder. Even a private, nonprofit organization, such as an anarchist workers' collective or commune, has some sort of "government" to decide its actions and principles; if it's instead run on the basis of "anything goes", then it's not really an organization at all, and has no way of upholding any sort of principles, even anarchist ones. For instance, when any of you uphold Wikipedia's policies against vandalism or revert wars, you're involving yourself in the government of this site and upholding its principles and integrity, something that presumably ought not be permitted in a truly anarchist society (Wikipedia explicitly states that it is not an experiment in anarchy). On the other hand, enforcing a rule against enforcing rules of this sort is itself an act of government, so you can't win. (Even Anarchopedia, which is intended to be run on anarchist principles, enforces policies and principles on its contributors.) Dtobias 19:12, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Anarchist opposition to government is complimented by the belief that people can govern themselves, that they don't need representatives, or state officials to do it for them. Collective decision making, with all affected involved in the decisions, is practiced with that goal in mind. This extends to the workplace as well, where anarchists believe that management is not needed to govern the workplace, and people can govern themselves there too. It is that hierarchal relationship that is opposed. The reality is, you really can't define this away, no matter how hard you try.--Che y Marijuana 23:49, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

On th AC issue neither the Oxford [5] and Cambridge [6] philosophy reference works mention Anarcho-capitalism and certainly not part of the anarchism entry . - max rspct 13:48, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

==English and US contributions to anarchism==

My understanding is that English and US anarchists have not made a big contribution to global anarchism. I copied a lot of information from the main anarchism article to Anarchism in the English tradition and we may want to remove some of that from the main article. I think that information about English anarchism should only be maintained to the extent that it has influenced non-English anarchism. Anything that has been contained to Anglophones should probably be contained to Anarchism in the English tradition. That being said, it is hard to say that someone/something did not influence someone else. For example, Thoreau is influential in the US, and I think many US anarchists reference his ideas. However, did he have much influence elsewhere? I heard that Ghandi was influenced by him.

Anyway, let it be known that Anglophone information has been copied to Anarchism in the English tradition and can be deleted from this article if it is not relevant. AdamRetchless 23:04, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Bill White

This is a solicitation for contributions to the recently created article on Bill White, the third-positionist who has, in the past, described himself as an anarchist. I know that some of you have probably interacted with or, at least, been aware of White and his (by his own admission) nutty politics. Clarifying White's relation to anarchism might help reduce confusion about so called "anarcho-nationalism" - Nihila 00:13, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

He has no relation to anarchism. He has no serious relation to any political school of thought. He seems to be affiliated to...everything, though. --Tothebarricades.tk 06:05, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)