Jump to content

Talk:Anarchism: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 171: Line 171:
[[User:Bengalski|Bengalski]] 23:24, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
[[User:Bengalski|Bengalski]] 23:24, 26 October 2005 (UTC)



::Great edits! --[[User:Albamuth|albamuth]] 06:06, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


====Nihilists - 1860's====
====Nihilists - 1860's====

Revision as of 06:06, 4 November 2005

Talk archives

If you want to talk about Anarcho-Capitalism (A-C), make sure you take a look at past discussions about it. Same goes for other controversial topics.--albamuth 21:33, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Open tasks

Template:AnarchismOpenTask

Whatever Happened?

I've been gone for two months, and not much has changed in the article, as far as I can tell, except for the new little section about "Issue and Movement Anarchisms". Whatever happened to the epistemological approach, drafted at Anarchism/historical? If I was the only editor inclined towards such a radical reorganization, then I'll gladly drop the idea. --albamuth 05:01, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Who what where? never seen the draft page before. u ain't gonna get collaboration if people keep starting spinoff pages naebody knows about till theyv'e written an essay. max rspct 10:29, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely like the changes offered in the historical version, which I feel breaks anarchism down in a much more sensible, topic-by-topic fashion, resolving a number of the structural issues with the article at present. Sarge Baldy 03:47, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I hope then we can start working on it as an eventual replacement for the current article, which is barely readable (as in large obnoxious blocks of unbroken text). --albamuth 04:16, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vote of Confidence for Anarchism/historical?

Well, in my limited amount of Wikipedia time I alot myself, I am starting to make revisions to the epistomological historical version of the article. Can I get some votes of confidence that this is a worthwhile endeavor (that it may eventually be worthy to replace the main article with)?

  • Approve - (of course) --albamuth 04:13, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Approve. Needs a lot of work still, but the structure makes more sense. Sarge Baldy 04:14, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see the point. Why not just edit this article? RJII 13:29, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because trying to restructure an article entirely is hard to do simply by editing the page in its current state. Also it would likely turn out terribly messy, since some information has to be readapted to fit the modified structure. Sarge Baldy 22:40, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • RJ, since you are one of the most active (if not THE most active) editor of this article, I am very interested if you would take a look at the alternative way of presenting the article, and if it is a direction that would be fruitful. --albamuth 09:22, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I just took a look. I don't have any problem with it. An historical format looks good to me. But, I hope you don't want to eventually delete the schools of anarchism. I think it's important to describe these. RJII 15:58, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's not so much as deleting the "Schools" of anarchism than putting them in the appropriate category: for example A/C would still be included, but as as one of the (many) modern anarchist strategies, rather than as an opposing ideological branch.--albamuth 08:08, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • So you're going to try to make it look like all the schools of anarchism agree with each other? There is no unanimity in anarchism. There is indeed opposition between the schools, and its important to discuss each one in depth. The most significant chasm is between individualism and collectivism. RJII 14:46, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Actually, there's much more unamity within anarchism than the article in its current form makes out. We have our squabbles, but the different trends within anarchism usually get along & work together okay. I'm an anarcho-communist, but I usually get along with syndicalists, mutualists, primitivists & other anarchists. Stateless capitalists often like to over-exagerate the infighting within anarchism to make it look like the anarchism vs. stateless capitalism debate is just another case of anarchist infighting. It isn't. Look at this talk page - there isn't some giant fight between syndicalists & platformists spewing all over it, it's a debate between stateless capitalism (a non-anarchist philosophy masquerading as anarchism) vs. all branches of anarchism. That's because stateless capitalism & anarchism are two fundamentally different philosophies, while anarcho-communism anarcho-syndicalism etc. are different versions of the same philosophy.
  • Approve Much better way of going about things -max rspct 16:16, 6 October 2005 (UTC) 16:13, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Approve 68.89.240.80 22:19, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Approve Looks much cleaner than the present page. Given impossibility of agreeing 'what is anarchism' in the abstract, i think a historical approach to development of ideas is definitely the best option. Thanks for working on this. However I'm not sure disputes are purely semantic - the new article won't be so clean if people start inserting large chunks of anarcho-capitalist fringe history throughout.

Bengalski 19:42, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The non-utility of "Schools" of anarchism

(continuing discussion from above) Anarchists are united in their heterogeneity, if anything. I believe that the latter 20th century meme of multiculturalism has affected anarchists' acceptance of varying radical strategies within their ranks. For example, the new Crimethink book does not shit on any one anarchist strategy but simply presents many projects and ideas in many different directions.

As I stated on Talk:Template/Anarchism, "schools" implies an institution that promotes a certain ideology, whereas there are none -- anarchism is not "taught" in any way, except via people reading books or zines or the writings of thousands of different voices. Anarchist strategies is a better way to categorize the different labels of "anarcho-communism" and "anarcho-syndicalism" or "anarcho-syndicalism". --albamuth 19:24, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just call it "Anarchist schools of thought" then, if you're concerned people will think we're talking about educational institutions. RJII 22:37, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think even "Schools of thought" is a misnomer. Example: Because there is no officiating body that declares what anarcho-communism is or isn' t, the nuances vary between every individual that calls themself an "anarcho-communist." The gist of what I am saying is that you cannot even group motivational ideals in a way that bears coherence to the term "anarcho-communism." The only coherent way of describing the collection of writings and ideas that we call "anarcho-communism" is by similar practices/social behavior, or recommendations of a certain sort of those (in this case, forming small, collective communities, called communes). The reasons for individuals to practice or preach anarcho-communism might vary considerably (refugees from capitalist society, spiritual belief, desperation, ideological zealotry, scientific ratonalization, etc.) but the key defining and codifying signifers are simply that of praxis, not theory. --albamuth 09:00, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about that. There are significant things that all anarcho-communists have in common, all individualist anarchists, etc. Essential things. These schools of thought are not so nebulous that there is no reason for a distinction, if that's what you're trying to say. RJII 15:25, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not time for replacement with Anarchism/historical?

I thought maybe we would save ourselves from losing good edits by simply putting the historical version in. So what if there's little notes and missing sections? It's a lot better than the current article, which can be used piecewise via merging. --albamuth 17:01, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is an encyclopedia and it should always be presentable as one at any given time. RJII 18:06, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with RJ on this one. I don't think it has to be in any special shape before you make the change, but I do think it has to be more-or-less complete. The historical article looks very much like what it is, a work in progress. Sarge Baldy 01:23, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That's perfectly agreeable. Let's work on it, then. --albamuth 05:10, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you just move pieces over when they're ready? It's kind of drastic to replace to whole thing at once with another version. RJII 20:54, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This article has needed drastic reworking for a long time. See above about the need to scrap the current mess and start over. --Bk0 23:12, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you can just replace it piece by piece, because the structures aren't really compatible with one another and it'll just turn into an inconsistent mess. Better to just replace the whole thing when it's at a reasonable state, and then build it from there. Sarge Baldy 23:18, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All your edits will be wiped out

Just a note to everyone that any edits they make to this article are apparently going to be wiped out if the few people working the Anarchism/historical article have their way. They plan on wiping out this article and moving that article over here. I'm not so sure that's a good idea. I've looked at this article as a work in progress that's been in a gradual state of improvement. To just discard it and replace it with an article 2 or 3 people have worked on doesn't make much sense. It also seems inconsiderate of those who are editing this article. RJII 05:59, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, let's replace the page now to minimize the number of lost edits made by casual visitors. --Bk0 17:30, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
All your edit are belong to us! *Dan T.* 17:45, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The best approach I think is to open both articles side by side, compare similar sub-sections, then merge the bits from anarchism into anarchism/historical sub-section by sub-section, until the historical version is sufficiently caught up to the main article. Unfortunately, though I have been the main advocate of this strategy, I have been really really busy lately (working 50 hrs/week (I'm a carpenter), 15 hours of night classes a week, homework, people visting, etc.) so I really hope if people are into this restructuring work as I am, you ppl can pick up my slack! --albamuth 07:11, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

direct democracy

in the article you say: "Direct democracy (majority rule) is considered another form of authority and thus "authoritarian."" but that's a mistake. you can see it's a mistake in this link that is from the ANARCHIST FAQ. what do you say? 85.250.187.194 14:09, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like what you say is right for collectivist anarchists. I know individualist anarchists don't like democracy. RJII 14:57, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
even if it's right only for collectivists, than it's still a mistake to put it in one of the first paragraphs, as if it's something that all anarchists agree with. 85.250.187.194 15:51, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I think the more specific you get in trying to generalize what an anarchist is, the more you realize that anarchists as a whole have very little in common. RJII 16:20, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Generalize defintion of anarchism? yes thats what u are trying to do RJII ..watering down the definition ... including all kinds of unsubstantiated crackpot fads into it. However i wouldn't have put direct democracy at top of article. A point should be made (che etc) that democracy can be more than just voting (whether it benefits the bourgeouisie or not) - Aside from 19th century excusions to the right, Anarchists are the only ones who have consistently argued AND put ito practice alternative communities which preclude hierarchy and class system. There are big parallels between anarchist experimentation in 30's Spain and 60's shakeups. Yes i am in favour of the historical version! - max rspct 14:42, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think it's a mistake as well. Anarchists tend to believe that anarchism is democracy and that what we call "democratic systems" do not represent people equally. My own complaint is that democratic systems tend to reduce people's ideas/values/struggles to a simple numerical system, a "yes/no" sort of ideal that completely eliminates all critical thought. I don't know if this is a common critique amongst anarchists or not though. Sarge Baldy 15:01, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Most anarchists believe in direct democracy mixed with limitations on how much society can intertfere in individual's lives.-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 01:18, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2001 Argentine uprising

Although it is mentioned in brief on the Anarchism and society page, there is currently no article that deals with the widespread social experimentation with [small 'a'] anarchism (popular assemblies, occupied factories, strikes, autonomy, direct action, cooperativism, etc...) in Argentina following the 2001 economic crash.

The article covering the events is currently titled December 2001 riots (Argentina) and it looks like it might have been written by the World Bank :P

Que se vayan todos doesn't even get a shoutout.

So if anyone has any spare time, this is a really important section that is missing. Nihila 13:57, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

working on history of anarchism section

I think the approach of this page now is excellent, but it really needs some work to get it up to standard - and with a bit more urgency now it's become the main page.

I put a note on the anarchism/historical discussion page a few days back with a kind of proposal for moving forward on this. As no one answered yet I thought I'd just start doing it that way - if people aren't happy with my approach, we can just revert it all anyway I suppose.

Below is what I wrote before. As you might see though I've changed the order slightly as I've been doing it in practice.

I really like the feel and the look of this new page, but at the same time it seems to be getting pretty muddled. Have been sitting looking at it for a while trying to think of ways to help straighten it out, and thinking maybe we need to - not dumb down but inject a shot of simplicity. I can see people don't want to introduce a timeline of famous characters, but perhaps it'd help to be more linear in terms of the development of ideas. I.e., follow a stricter chronology in terms of sub-head topics and within each one.
Eg. at the moment we jump from godwin and proudhon to the florence congress then back to the ego and its own. And within private property section have the (20th century) platform then next para starts 'later in the 19th century'.
As a suggestion - what about:
1) first agree on the discussion page an ordered list of subheaded topics
2) within each subhead use a strictly chronological approach.
As my clumsy stab at an ordered list of subheads:
godwin and proudhon - birth of modern anarchism.
private property - starting with proudhon's 'what is property'
individualism
(you know i'm not sure about including russian nihilism at all as a section - it is very country-specific, and not exclusively anarchist history by any means - eg. could argue as well that SR party was true successor of nihilist movement)
the international - development of anarchism as libertarian tendency within working class movement
propaganda of the deed / insurrectionary anarchism (don't these two belong together?)
pacifist anarchism - debates around violence (would also mention debates over 1st world war here) - tolstoy
syndicalism
feminism
russian revolution - the platform
anti-fascism - spanish civil war
I think looking at my schema I would tend to work more around historical events and movements, and the way ideas fed off actions, more than as it currently is. I don't think this is a bad thing in a historical account - to situate anarchism within working class revolutionary history rather than as if ideas are are born in the air.


Bengalski 14:34, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay so I've done quite a lot to it now. If people don't like what I've done, revert by all means, I won't be offended. If I don't hear any objections to my approach I'll be back and do more. I think I've probably made the syndicalism section too long. Also I took out nihilism - I don't really think it belongs here, or maybe a paragraph as background to russian anarchism. But it's below if someone wants to paste it back in.

Bengalski 18:09, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's enough now. Some of the sections I've edited have become pretty long - if people are happy with general idea of what I've done, maybe someone could trim it down a bit. Particularly syndicalism and communism sections look a bit extended.

Bengalski 23:24, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Great edits! --albamuth 06:06, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nihilists - 1860's

Main article: Nihilist movement

Nihilism was not a political movement. It was a youth culture. Nevertheless, it led to the politization and radicalization of the Russian youth. Many revolutionaries like Nicholas Tchaikovsky, Sophia Perovskaya, Sergei Kravchinski, Vera Zasulich and Sergey Nechayev were adept of Nihilist values.

Nihilist political philosophy rejected all religious and political authority, social traditions, and traditional morality as standing in opposition to freedom, the ultimate ideal. In this sense, it can be seen as an extreme form of anarchism, but devoid of a revolutionary programme or political strategy.

Nihilism greatly resembled anarchism, though there are three main differences:

  1. Nihilism did not see the State as absolutely bad. Reforms that would lead to fundamental changes in society were considered to be possible. This is not the case with anarchism.
  2. Nihilism was more along the lines of a cultural rejection of all systems of authority and all social conventions. Anarchism is more along the lines of a political strategy which puts more emphasis on promoting and furthering a definite constructive revolutionary programme, although anarchism definitely places importance on opposing systems of authority as well.
  3. As a political movement, nihilism was primarily a Russian phenomenon.

Nihilists made an impression to young radicals in Russia, such as Alexander Berkman. As he writes in his biography, Life of and Anarchist (ISBN 1583226621), Berkman was fascinated by the revolutionary zeal of the nihilists. In 1892 Berkman attempted the assassination of Henry Clay Frick, inspired by Johann Most's endorsement of propaganda of the deed.

Socialist POV cartel back?

Just as I was starting to think that the NPOV article was quite good and amazingly stable, the socialists have come back. They've totally rewritten the article (quite badly), and eliminated all non-socialistPC material (where's Edmond Burke and Vindication of Natural Society?; what's this shit about "social hierarchy"?, and so on.)

Edmund Burke's essay was a satire, not a genuine advocacy of anarchism. Edmund Burke himself said this explicitly and it seems fairly backed by the fact that it went completely against everything else he ever advocated in his life. Or maybe we should edit the canabalism page to indicate that Jonathan Swift made a serious proposal that we sell impoverished children to rich people in the form of foodstuffs? Revkat 19:38, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
See my comment in the Burke section. Vindication was the first thing Burke wrote, when he was a youngster and before he went "conservative." Of course he denied it after he went statist.
He wrote "A Philosophical Enquiry into the Origin of Our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful" only one year later. As anyone who has read both can see (I would be happy to provide urls to both if you haven't), Vindication was written in a style very different than everything else he ever wrote, and the Enquiry was actually compatible with his later writings. Vindication was stylisticly nearly identical to the writings of Bolingbroke, the target of the parody. Now, hey, if you want to deny the words of Burke himself and guess that he was actually lying, and that he went through a huge transformation in character and style in the space of only a year that lasted for the rest of his life, and ignore the views of the vast majority of historians who have written on the matter, and reject all evidence of style and consistency that runs contrary to your theory, and base everything only on the idle speculation of Rothbard (which you seem to have inherited), then go right ahead. But fantasies of possible hidden motives are not a basis for an encyclopedia, and we have as alternatives far more concrete and certainly more consistent writings in both Godwin and Proudhon, both of who have actual ties to the anarchist tradition that followed from them. Revkat 02:08, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Revkat: "Vindication was written in a style very different than everything else he ever wrote."

Correct. Burke was imitating the style of a famous writer, as many young writers do. Haven't you ever tried to imitate, e.g. Mark Twain?

Revkat: "Enquiry was actually compatible with his later writings."

Yes, but Enquiry is also compatible with Vindication. (In ideas, not style.) Enquiry is quite compatable with both anarchism and conservatism, since it has nothing to do with politics. Enquiry is about asthetics. (Did you really read it?)

There is nothing in Vindication that strikes me as parody. Read it yourself and judge. Hogeye 21:55, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have, and the overflowing style of Bolingbroke seems an obvious parody, not only to myself but to the majority of historians, and to Burke himself who often criticised that style as overblown and meaningless. Again, you seem to be offering nothing but speculation to make your case, which makes me wonder why we should prefer whispers about Burke's real motives behind his back to the clear and unambiguous writings of both Proudhon and Godwin? If we are going to go onto wild speculations about people's real intentions, why not speculate that Rothbard only tried to revise historian consensus as concerns Burke in order to create the apperance of a conservative link to anarchism that doesn't actually exist? But neither of these unsupported fantasies, regarding Rothbard or Burke, is appropriate for an encyclopedia, which should rely first and foremost on source material. If Burke says it was a satire (and he did), and there is controversy over whether it was or not by a small number of individuals who may even have a vested interest in a particular interpretation, then my first impulse is to take Burke at face value until there is evidence to suggest that I shouldn't. Once you can supply such evidence, as opposed to further conspiracy theories, I'd be happy to accept the claim. Revkat 22:20, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing ambiguous about "Vindication." It is clearly anarchist. You seem to be falling for the genetic fallacy - the essay comes from someone who became statist, so the essay (despite everything it says) is tainted. But you admit that you are not considering the content and ideas, only the style.
Yes, Burke claimed it was a satire ... many, many years later when he had a established position in the ruling elite. Obviously, this is an older version of Bill Clinton's "I smoked dope when I was young, but I didn't inhale." Hogeye 23:20, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say it was tainted, I said it was a satire. You want to base a claim to the first anarchist essay off of a satire that you have speculated was not a satire. I would prefer that an encyclopedic article such as this one be based in fact, not speculation, and it so happens that both of the other two historical figures in question are undeniably anarchist in their writings. I'm not sure how I can make this any more clear to you. Revkat 02:20, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The "majoriy" of historians do not believe Burke's style in Vindication deviates from his later works. Godwin cited Burke as a predecessor. Warren and Tucker praised it and Tucker reprinted it. It was clearly significant to individualist anarchism... which is real anarchism, right? See my posts on Vindication in the previous archive that you did read. MrVoluntarist 18:07, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how many times I have to say I read them before you will believe me. Am I supposed to be so bowled over by your claims that I can't help but agree? I'm sorry, but all I see are a few claims that in themselves seem to mean nothing at all, but perhaps I'm missing something. I think Telemachus summed it up pretty well, "When you add it up: Godwin had already formed his own opinions; a friend (name, please?) of Warren liked it; Tucker wrote the equivalent of a positive "book review" for it."
Except that I'm not even sure I would go that far yet. Telemachus requested a source from you for one of the claims (that from what I can tell was never provided), I would prefer a source for all three to see for myself if your interpretations hold. Revkat 09:22, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You think Telemachus summed it up pretty well? What a joke! Did you read what he wrote? His entire tone did not allow any debate on the topic. No matter how much evidence you gave him, he would shrug it off. If you told him Tolstoy supported non-violence and gave dozens of quotes from his books, he would say "Oh, okay, so he wrote a little about it here and there and maybe told some Hindu it was a good idea." All Telemachus did was present his person opinion and analysis of the evidence, which counts for nothing on Wikipedia. The fact is, some historians have deemed it serious, and that its style matches his later works. And even if ALL that happened was that Tucker wrote a positive "book review" (???) of it (he reprinted it, but what's a reprinting between friends?), that would STILL make it relevant to the history of anarchism as the first essay advocating anarchism that other anarchists recognized as such an essay. The source for all three should be in Rothbard's essay that was probably linked in one of the versions of the article you wiped out or in the archives. But since you're familiar with Liberty (given that you do regard individualist anarchists as genuine anarchists despite their support of markets) it should be easy to find. I'll get to your comments below later. MrVoluntarist 14:17, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It is a little strange that you dismiss Telemachus as doing nothing more than presenting his personal opinion and analysis of some evidence, when you still haven't offered any source for your evidence and spent most of your time expressing your personal opinion. I'm sure I could dig through the issues of liberty to document your claims, but the least you could do is tell me the issue to look in, especially given the fact that it is your evidence in question and to my knowledge not all of liberty is available online (so documenting your claim would require some footwork for me). As for Rothbard's essay as previously linked from this page, feel free to check it out yourself:
William Godwin, the late eighteenth-century English founder of communist anarchism, hailed the Vindication as a precursor of his own viewpoint. On the other hand, an English disciple of Josiah Warren’s individualist anarchism reprinted the Vindication in 1858, with appropriate marginal comment, and it was highly praised and reprinted by Benjamin R. Tucker in Liberty in 1885. On balance, it would be fair, though inconclusive, to place the Vindication in the individualist camp, since there is no sign of enmity to private property as such in this work.
I don't see a single source for any of these claims, do you? Maybe they were all removed when the article was put online, or maybe good ole Murray kept them in his head. At least we now know exactly where you got it all from, since you cribed his three pieces of evidence directly and, like Rothbard, failed to mention who this anonymous disciple of Josiah Warren was. Anyway, of the three the strongest is also the weakest, if Godwin claimed it was a precursor that is an actual link of a sort, but a link that also distances the essay from anarchism, because a precursor (as I'm sure you already know) is something that comes before. Its one thing to say that Godwin (a man who never used the term and came before those who did) is an anarchist precursor, its another claim a link of the precursor's precursor. That provides the kind of intimate relationship between Burke and anarchism that would be shared by the likes of Aristotle, Christ, and emperor Norton. The second claim is just silly in its relevance, unless proper documentation shows it to be more than is indicated. The third would count for something in theory, but that all depends on exactly what Tucker said (he translated and said a lot of nice things about tons of things he disagreed with, I can cite this if you would like), which means that we need a source not only to know that it is a fact, but also to know what the fact is.
And BTW - I didn't "wipe out" anything. The new version of the article was mostly completed by the time I showed up, and the Burke claim had (rightly) been removed before that. All I'm doing is standing up for the legitimate action of another editor, this isn't a personal thing between us. Revkat 17:54, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Versions

I have to say that the version that some are trying to replacing the previous version with is quite bad. I'd like to stick with the old version. Also it's best to modify an article incrementally than to attempt a coup like this. Replacing a whole article isn't kosher. I see there was a little vote of "support" thingy among 4 or 5 people, but I don't think that's good enough. I would have voted against it if I was aware of the "vote" and it looks like some others feel the same way. I'm just registering my opinion here to make it known that there is a lack of consensus. PlayersPlace 19:16, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there were 8 people for it and 1 against, and it would appear that this page has been entirely reverted by many people in the past, so the current version you are reverting to is itself the product of such an effort. Revkat 19:40, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps there's a natural instability in the article. I.e. People satisfied with the article tend to look at it less and less frequently, especially if it appears stable. People who don't like the article start accumulating, and eventually pull off a coup. This is repeated indefinitely, except when both factions are well-represented causing an edit war. - Hogeye
I didn't vote on it. I wasn't aware of such a vote. So I'm registering my vote now. PlayersPlace 19:45, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Me, too. - Hogeye
Are you two disagreeing with the poll? Please show which poll(I though it was the one above) and show why there was no consenses. Thank you.Voice of All Talk|@|Esperanza 20:28, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not disagreeing with the poll..whatever that means. But the poll was taken in the past and only represented those that voted. This is the present and if there was a consensus then, there's not one anymore. PlayersPlace 00:03, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hogeye

Hogeye has a known history of bad faith edits and vandalism to this article (see previous talk archives). Hogeye has been previously banned for the use of sockpuppets and various other bad behavior. Interesting how now that this user is back to reverting the recent progress made on this article, suddenly PlayersPlace (check the user contributions) and various anon ips show up doing the same.

New contributors should be aware that this user has not shown any interest in a high quality, NPOV anarchism article, but instead engages in POV edit wars and vandalism. --Bk0 (Talk) 19:49, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tsk, tsk. Ad hom. Readers are welcome to judge my seriousness by looking at User:Hogeye/Anarchism, or my edits on other articles. - Hogeye 20:12, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have taken up Hogeye's offer to evaluate his edits of articles. From all appearances, he went so far as to violate his ban from wikipedia by using multiple anonymous services and totally ignored the requests of more than one administrator to cease his activity, even deleting multiple warnings from his talk page. There is no way to know if he is Playersplace, but the sudden appearance of each of them seems rather suspicious given his past behaviour.
However, all of this is neither here nor there. What is important is that at least two people (RJ and Hogeye) seem to have objections to the new page. I would like to hear what their specific objections are (saying it is POV is meaningless, as both pages have POV problems) so that we can know exactly what needs to be done to both versions to account for the disagreements. Revkat 22:52, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Sarge: "This article has been fairly calm."

Right - the article was quite stable until some asshole(s) deleted the whole thing and replaced it with the "historical" article. Hey, why don't you "historical" folks keep your POV shit in a separate article like you were doing?

Wikipedia:No personal attacks --Bk0 (Talk) 22:38, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Revkat: "I would like to hear what their specific objections are."

1) 1st sentence. Anarchists are against rule/authority. They are not (necessarily) against "social hierarchy" so long as it is voluntary. Certainly, being against "social hierarchy" is not part of the definition of anarchism.

2) 2nd sentence. Anarchists are not (necessarily) against private ownership. (Both modern anarcho-capitalists, and old-timey individualist anarchists strongly support private property.) Anarchists are not necessarily against profit and rent.

3) 3rd sentence. Anarchists are not (necessarily) for a society where one must get the permission of anyone "affected" to act. Anarchists are for freedom, not slavery to the masses or random others. Many belive that it is permissable to do whatever one wills so long as it doesn't violate the rights of others (so long as it is non-aggressive.)

Those are objections to just the first three sentences. Obviously, as soon as the real anarchists were satisfied with the article and left, the socialists came back and are now trying to recapture the article. Hogeye 21:45, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PS: BK0, please don't censor my posts. If you are truly hypersensitive to "profanity", then use a strikethrough, so less uptight folks can still read it.

Removing personal attacks is an accepted recourse on Wikipedia. --Bk0 (Talk) 22:38, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It would appear as though user Hogeye is unwilling to act in a civil manner during these discussions, this makes it more difficult to remain objective in seeking a solution.
Anyway, these objections all seem focused on the emphasis of one sub-movement to the detriment of the status of the page as it applies to all other anarchists. Individualist anarchists do, in fact, object to the kind of private property that is normally refered to by those terms today, the kind supported by anarcho-capitalists and capitalists in general, and their objection is already covered in that section. I think there is probably good reason along these lines for a disambiguation, and I've noticed that articles like libertarianism have simply declared at the begining that such and such article concerns the most popular meaning of libertarianism while controversial or contradictory sub-movements can be found elsewhere (libertarian socialism in that case, which is a bit odd given that many of the original libertarians were socialists). Anyway, since libertarianism has been erected as a featured article, I see no reason not to follow suit here in order to reach the same kind of status for this article. In fact, it would appear that some of the people involved in the objections to the historical version of this article have been active in the libertarianism article themselves and done nothing to object to its current strategy of single-sentence disambiguation. So it would seem consistent for them to support the application of the same solution to fix this problem. We make a one sentence disambiguation at the top of this article explaining where the anarcho-capitalist conception of anarchism can be found, and leave the rest to detail the far more widespread use of the term as anti-authoritarian (and thus anti-capitalist), both today and through history.
The current alternative being sought by Hogeye and RJ seems to be to undo a great deal of work that has progressed on the article since the old version, to hold up a clear large majority in favor of changing it, and to make the entire article center on the prefered definition of anarchism that is shared only by one of its many claimants. That, despite Hogeyes claims otherwise, certainly doesn't seem unbiased.Revkat 22:11, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Also note Hogeye has threatened to "call in the troops from anti-state.com again" (a right wing libertarian/anarcho-capitalist site), apparently to help him conduct his revert war. See the edit summary for his most recent (as of this writing) reversion. --Bk0 (Talk) 22:36, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Revkat: "these objections all seem focused on the emphasis of one sub-movement to the detriment of the status of the page as it applies to all other anarchists."

They are focused on the definition of anarchism. A POV definition with defines away legitimate schools of anarchism is counter to Wiki philosophy.

Revkat: "Individualist anarchists do, in fact, object to the kind of private property that is normally refered to by those terms today ..."

False. IAs support virtually all forms of private property as the meaning is understood today. The only exception to their support of private property is unused land.

BTW, in the past I have suggested a neutral disambiguation page (see history and talk) but most folks hated the idea.

Revkat: "The current alternative being sought by Hogeye and RJ seems to be to undo a great deal of work..."

The NPOV article, I daresay, has involved even more work ... but that's really irrelevant of course. What we want is an accurate, unbiased article, isn't it? Hogeye 22:45, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have completely ignored my suggestion. According to the standard you are suggesting, the libertarianism page currently "defines away" libertarian socialism. Glancing through the history of the libertarianism article I see that you were one of its editors, so certainly you must be familiar with the way it is currently set up. Why not set this page up in a similar way?
And no, individualist anarchists do not support virtually all forms of private property. Stirner did not support it at all, Tucker did not support vast accumulations of wealth that interfered with the free market, none of them actively supported private property entitlement used to enforce interest, and only one that I know of supported entitlement to rent enforcement. Their conception of property followed from Proudhon's and he clearly forked the modern concept of property into two distinct concepts, possession based on labor and occupation, and entitlement based on coercive force. For you to take a set of nuanced and diverse positions of the individualists and blanket them with the judgement that they "support virtually all forms of private property as the meaning is understood today" is an inaccurate oversimplification that borders on outright misrepresentation. Revkat 02:16, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really consider Stirner to be an individualist anarchist (though perhaps he's a forerunner.) Please document your claim that Stirner "did not support it (private property) at all." The Wiki article says otherwise, i.e. "'Power' is of central importance for Stirner, and can best be described as a form of mental creativity, represented as the key to psychological and social possibility of radical change. In Stirner's sense power, also referred to as the acquisition of 'property', has a broad meaning, ranging from the smile of the child, that acquires its mothers' love, over the sensual and material pleasures and meanings of taking what one desires, to the wholesale attribution of meaning, value and existence in language and life. Power in this sense is synonymous with the dynamics of utter autonomy, and the ability of change, of existence, of life itself." He sounds pro-private-property to me!
Maybe thats because you don't understand his position. I think you are confusing different senses of the word "property". Stirner was not refering to private property when he expressed the entailments of egoistic property, this article may help clear up the confusion for you,
This notion of ‘egoistic property’ is not to be confused with more familiar juridical concepts of ownership (such as private property or collective ownership). These more familiar forms of property rest on notions of right, and involve claims to exclusivity or constraints on use, which Stirner rejects.
Let me illustrate what Stirner was trying to say with a few quotes. All of the following passages are from Ego and his Own, and show that whatever Stirner supported, it was not property (private or communal) in any normative conception of the term.
Private property lives by grace of the law. Only in the law has it its warrant—for possession is not yet property, it becomes “mine” only by assent of the law; it is not a fact, not un fait as Proudhon thinks, but a fiction, a thought. This is legal property, legitimate property, guarantied property. It is mine not through me but through the—law...
Thus the independent establishment of the State founds my lack of independence; its condition as a "natural growth," its organism, demands that my nature do not grow freely, but be cut to fit it. That it may be able to unfold in natural growth, it applies to me the shears of "civilization"; it gives me an education and culture adapted to it, not to me, and teaches me e. g. to respect the laws, to refrain from injury to State property (i.e. private property), to reverence divine and earthly highness, etc.; in short, it teaches me to be -- unpunishable, "sacrificing" my ownness to "sacredness" (everything possible is sacred; e. g. property, others' life, etc.).
Stirner argued against property in favor of the war of all against all,
Let me then withdraw the might that I have conceded to others out of ignorance regarding the strength of my own might! Let me say to myself, what my might reaches to is my property; and let me claim as property everything that I feel myself strong enough to attain, and let me extend my actual property as far as I entitle, i.e.—empower, myself to take.
Here egoism, selfishness, must decide; not the principle of love, not love-motives like mercy, gentleness, good-nature, or even justice and equity (for justitia too is a phenomenon of—love, a product of love): love knows only sacrifices and demands “self-sacrifice.”
Now, you can call that private property if you want, but you could just as easily call it no property or all property (as Stirner did at times). It is not a system of justice in distribution of property rights as any propertarian seeks, but a war against property and any of the other "ghosts" that exist only in our minds and haunt us, leading some to communism and others to capitalism. Revkat 23:27, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Tucker was definitely a supporter of private property (with the one exception cited re unused land.) Your statement, "Tucker did not support vast accumulations of wealth that interfered with the free market," is true. But that does not imply that he was against private property. He was against government privilege/monopoly which often let to vast accumulations of wealth. He opposed a process - statist aggression - not private property. Similarly, he opposed the conduct of charging rent/interest, not private property per se. Hogeye 18:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Tucker was only "a supporter of private property with one exception," if we talk about a form of labor totally divorced from the entitlement that modern day capitalists (and anarcho-capitalists) support. For Tucker, the entire basis of property rested in labor,
Anarchism considers the greatest amount of liberty compatible with equality of liberty the fundamental law of social expediency, and that nearly all Anarchists consider labor to be the only basis of the right of ownership in harmony with that law" (liberty and property)
Let me emphasize "LABOR IS THE ONLY BASIS" for property according to Tucker. As such, he was not a supporter of normative private property with "one exception". Rather, he supported a kind of property with a completely different foundation, and his rejection of unused land entitlement was merely one entailment of this, not an exception to the rule. It was joined by his rejection of rent beyond cost, wage beyond labor, and accumulations of property that obstructed the free flow of labor, all of them entailments of this radically different basis for property. He followed Proudhon in distinguishing between that property which was the root of tyranny (based on coercion), and that which was capable of ensuring freedom (based on labor and occupancy). The private property supported by capitalists and theorized by anarcho-capitalists includes the very kinds of property that Tucker believed included illegitimate coercion, and again you are trying to pretend that a complex and nuanced distinction can be shoved into the form of a overly simplistic sound-bite. Now, if you want to change the text to "reject private property entitlement" go right ahead, because all the anarchists in this article once it is brought into consistency with the libertarianism article do in fact reject private property entitlement, but removing that part about property altogether because of the individualists, when they also rejected the kind of private property we are talking about, is just an attempt to cover up the extent to which individualists are distinct from capitalists. This game of switching your meaning halfway through a conversation but still using the same terms to refer to it is nothing more than rhetoric that is getting in your way, and that is one of the reasons Proudhon so insisted on distinguishing property from "possession", for fear that people who make the exact mistake you are making right now. As Robert Neuwirth writes,
there's a difference between property and possession. Property turns land into a commodity: people own land not to use it, or because they need it for survival, but simply as an investment. Possession guarantees personal use and control rather than profit. For Proudhon, property, not money, is the root of all evil... Revkat 23:27, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Protected

This page has been temporarily locked from editing for 3RR/edit war problems. Please resolve any disputes here, on the talk page. Thank you.Voice of All Talk|@|Esperanza 20:52, 30 October 2005 (UTC) [reply]

Hm? This article has been fairly calm. I would strongly agree with Bk0's suspicion that "PlayersPlace" is a Hogeye sockpuppet, based on this user's record and the very limited history of this new "user". There was a clear vote of support for the historical version, and even if the poll does not suggest immediately replacement, there hasn't been any opposition outside of Hogeye (and "PlayersPlace"), and things have been progressing on the article. Sarge Baldy 21:34, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'll keep it locked for today, and unlock tommorow, if sockpuppets want to revert again, then they will likely get 3RR punishment or get blocked for Disruption.Voice of All Talk|@|Esperanza 21:45, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
So you accuse me of being a sockpuppet and threaten to block me knowing good and well that you have absolutely no evidence to back that up. Some administrator you are. Wikipedia is a joke if youre allowed to get away with that. PlayersPlace 00:18, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ensuring consistency

I have edited the intro of this article to point to anarcho-capitalism and removed the section on anarcho-capitalism. This is an attempt to mirror the status of the libertarianism article in regards to the lesser known libertarian socialism, please take a moment to look at each article and compare. It is my belief that given the featured status of the libertarianism article, its relative stability compared to this article, and the clear similarity of the subject matter, this is a road toward a legitimate compromise. I would ask that the two major catalysts of the ongiong edit war of this article (RJ and Hogeye), both of whom have also edited the libertarianism article, please ensure that you are consistent in any standard you apply to this article. Hopefully this will help us reach the point of stability that the civil editors of libertarianism have been able to do in the relative absence of constant antagonism. Revkat 16:52, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with this as long as you document why specifically you feel that most people do not use "anarchism" to mean just "opposition to the state". Please justify the source you use to make this claim. And good luck. With "libertarianism", you can look through the history of English periodicals and you find that "libertarian" unambiguously refers the the capitalist sense (unless qualfied, like "civil libertarian" or "left-libertarian" - and by the way, the last one can actually refer to capitalist libertarians who emphasize personal liberties, or to geo-libertarians). MrVoluntarist 18:00, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Of the two things you ask for one is easy and the other is basically impossible given the data we have. But just as it is not possible to make a real gauge of the extent to which anarchism means only opposition to the state, there has not been any substantial evidence indicating that libertarianism is commonly used to mean only libertarian capitalism. So any efforts we make in that direction are going to be fruitless wastes of time. Still, in case you think there is no evidence on that point, I will explore it below. But first lets check out your own claim. Why do you feel that the history of English periodicals indicates that the use of "libertarianism" unambiguosly refers to capitalist libertarianism? While you have required a "justification of source" from me, you haven't even provided a source to justify in your case. But don't worry, I can provide as much counter evidence to your claim that in the "history of English periodicals" "libertarian unambiguously refers [sic] the capitalist sense" as you wish to look at. So lets get to some sources,
  • There is "Revolutionary Catechism" written in 1951[1] in which Bakunin (whom I hope we both know was a socialist) describes the political equality he seeks as "libertarian". The article commentary also describes Bakunin as a libertarian.
  • According to this article, The title "libertarian" has been used, since the 1800s, by anarchists: people who reject government, capitalism and religion on the ground that each introduce hierarchy/authoritarianism/coercion into society." [2]
  • There is this article[3], a biography of Guy Aldred, who considered himself a libertarian and a socialist. You will notice that the article uses the words seperately to describe Aldred, as he did himself.
  • Here is a blog by an individual who details the history of the term libertarian as originally belonging to anarchists in general, rather than to capitalists, and also indicating the relatively small anarcho-capitalist portion of anarchism [4]
I hope that is sufficient evidence, if not I'd have a hard time imagining what would be.
I believe the reason that you make the mistake of thinking that socialist libertarianism is qualified because libertarianism implies capitalism stems from the simple fact that most libertarian socialists are more aware of their political opponents than are libertarian capitalists. This is not because they are better educated. Simply put, capitalism is an ideology that is ubiquitous in our current culture, so anyone who has heard the term libertarian has almost certainly heard it in the context of libertarian capitalism at least once, usually with an objectivist or minarchist or anarcho-capitalist (though they probably don't actually know that). Libertarian socialists, while considering themselves (and being) full libertarians in the unqualified use of the term, are more rare, and thus find the need to qualify themselves in order to distinguish themselves from capitalists. This is not because libertarianism means or implies capitalism, it is because capitalist libertarians are more common, and socialists who are libertarians are thus required to be more precise when refering to themselves than capitalists are.
The same argument could be applied to anarcho-capitalism, which is a much smaller tradition than anti-capitalist anarchism, and thus the reasons for having libertarian socialism merit little more than a by-line in libertarianism apply to anarcho-capitalism in this article. Obviously anarcho-capitalism should be mentioned, but a quick referance at the very top of the article should suffice. Unless, of course, some kind of double standard is being applied by the editors of the libertarianism article (who happen to be some of the same ones causing a fuss here).
As for your second requirement. There is simply no way to document in any form how "most people" use a term short of extensive poling or a rigorous academic survey (probably requiring echelon), and neither has been performed for either word. As such, this requirement hasn't strictly been met for the libertarianism article either. Thus, we are relying on the "general sense" of wiki editors, which is bound to fail and contradict at times. However, I think that a look at most dictionaries can indicate that anarchism is not generally taken to mean only opposition to the state. Lets start with the online merriam-websters: "1 : an advocate of the doctrine of free will 2 a : a person who upholds the principles of absolute and unrestricted liberty especially of thought and action b capitalized : a member of a political party advocating libertarian principles"
Clearly it isn't the first, and the capitalized version is not what the current article refers to. Thus, it is 2a, which is entirely consistent with libertarian socialism, gives no indication of capitalism, and is not qualified with anything extraneous such as "left" or "civil" to worry about. So libertarian socialism qualifies.
As for anarchism, lets use the same dictionary. "1 : 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"
Notice how it does not say "the state", but rather "all forms of governmental authority"? There is a reason for this, because there are forms of governmental authority that go beyond the state, as the word government will tell you in the same dictionary. In fact, governmental authority stretches to a wide spectrum of human action, and this alone is probably one of the reasons that anarchism is generally taken to encompass more than sound-bite sized rejection of authority. Of course, if you would like a survey of historical anarchists to provide evidence that they all believed anarchism went beyond "the state", I could provide that as well.
I would speculate that an informal survey of most mainstream news sources would reveal the same thing, that anarchism is not generally used by journalists to refer solely to "anti-statism". Anyway, I hope all of this satisfies your objection. If not, I'm afraid I might have to propose rather more stringent requirements on the status of libertarian socialism than are currently being applied to the libertarianism, and a complete overhaul to most of the claim made throughout the article, for the sake of intellectual integrity concerning the standard many of those same libertarian capitalists are applying here. Revkat 19:01, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the archives, you'll see that I've already proved and documented that Proudhon, Kropotkin, and even Emma Goldman defined "anarchism" in a way that would include anarcho-capitalism. Hogeye 18:31, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't prove anything. Only your ignorance in this matter. You have always cited out of context these authors. How anarcho-communists like Kropotkin or Emma could include capitalism in anarchist theory and practice? --XaViER 19:21, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't been able to find the proofs you refer to. All I was able to find were a series of descriptions that were clearly cherry picked out of many others to give a particular impression, followed by a heavy dose of ideological interpretation. If you would like me to supply similar descriptions by each of these individuals concerning anarchism just as easily be interpreted to rule out capitalism, please just say the word. However, I would expect you to immediately drop this line of argument once they are supplied, for to continue to wiggle about in various interpretive struggles would only demonstrate my point that no proofs have yet been offered, and that you are making claims beyond your ability to back them. Revkat 23:50, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Should we dig up the old chart of "invalid arguments" from the archives? This sounds like a broken record (you know, the old analog kind, made of vinyl). --albamuth 06:03, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anarchism&oldid=27325379"