Talk:Anarchism: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 02:05, 10 February 2005

Talk archives

Survey : Scope and Purpose

As suggested by the Wikipedia guides for conflict resolution, this is a survey. Please answer these three questions and only post once -- do not respond to others in this thread. Once a signficant amount of people have responded (let's say 10) we should discuss synthesis, compromise, or whatnot. Please post less than 500 words (post something simple). I will enter my opinion after at least two others post. --albamuth 09:23, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What are the distinguishing characteristics of anarchist philosophies?

* Since the split from nihisit movement, it was always a fight against all forms of discrimination. Definitions of "fight" and "discrimination" vary significantly, but always include working towards a non-hierarchical society. Beta_M ^talk, |^contrib (Ë-Mail)

* A movement against hierarchy in all its forms, most importantly the state, Capitalism, sexism, reacism, heterosexism, etc...--Che y Marijuana 00:36, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

* Distinguishing characteristics of anarchist philosophies are that they are anti-state, anti-capitalist, for equality, decentralization, autonomy of the individual. Individualism should not be confused with an opposition to organization, nearly all anarchist philosophies are for organization. Opposition to hierarchy/authority is universal and that includes all institution, ideologies, organizations, and pracices that are coercive, forced, oppressive, or is otherwise hierarchal. To protect the rights of the individual, anarchism has always been for voluntary cooperation. --Fatal 04:24, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

* Anarchism, which was once referred to as "libertarian socialism", originates in a critique of the State and Capitalism. The philosophies expoused by anarchist writers have varied in degree but have always reflected those twin critiques, whether the writers saw them as inextricably linked or merely related via fundamental principles; abuses of power, unfair distribution of wealth, exploitation of the common person, alienation, classcism, division of races, and so forth. --albamuth 20:13, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

* Anarchism has two distinct varieties. The first is includes syndicalism, extreme liberalism, and communism, along with all the varieties contained within communism (especially revolutionary communism), from state communism to primitivism. This form is a type of idealism. The second type contains those who pursue real anarchy. The first group includes most people who choose to call themselves anarchists, while the second, likely vastly more numerous, includes much of the prison populations of most nations, and an enormous % of criminals and practitioners of warlordism generally. Alignment (role-playing games) is an interesting way to discuss the moral distinctions amongst the Chaotic Alignments. Within this paradigm, most of the first sort of anarchist would be Chaotic Good, whilst the second would consist mainly of Chaotic Neutral or Chaotic Evil persons. Sam Spade (talk · contribs) 21:51, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

* Anarchism is the opposition to any individual, group, or organization governing or ruling over any individual. I think it's as simple as that. If any person is prevented from voluntarily exercising his will in regard to all that is his (meaning that coercive influence is being directed upon him by another) then anarchy lacks existence. What is "his" (a person's rightful property) is one area where debate comes in. I think everyone would agree a person's body is "his." Determing what else is the rightful property of a person is an issue of dispute among anarchists --most particularly between "traditional anarchists" and anarcho-capitalists (or "free-market anarchists"). Of course another area of dispute is which particular actions are "voluntary" and which are not. But I don't think any of these disputes should matter in regard to defining anarchism (which should only take a sentence or two.) RJII 16:28, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

* "Anarchism" is a word used to describe a number of related philosophies which critique hierarchy, coercion, and domination in all forms. They also advocate mutual aid, voluntary association, decentralized organizing, etc. [Getting any more specific wouldn't be a broad description of anarchist philosophies, but even in that short form anarcho-capitalism and nationalist anarchism don't qualify]

* Anarchism, first and foremost, is not to be confused with anarchy (when used in the sense of chaos and disorder). Thus any and all referance to anarchy as a state of disorder or chaos is inappropriate for this page save for a single sentence disabugating the two terms and linking to the anarchy article. Beyond that, anarchism refers to a broad ideology first concieved as a self-description by those who sought to end all forms of institutional human dominance, both political and economic. This theory does not seek to create perfect humans who live in total harmony, but rather to ever strive toward the goal of elminating human coercion wherever it is found. In this, it is distinct from any philosophy that seeks to compromise in accepting certain forms of human domination as "inevitable" or "justifiable." Such ideologies are not "new and improved" forms of anarchism, but rather rejection thereof. Thus, while it is a form of libertarianism, it is distinguished from all other political movements which seek to retain coercive political structure, including the property entitlement of capitalism, the panarchic advocacy in nationalism, and the pseudo-representative states of liberalism. Kev 00:31, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

* It's impossible to completely separate anarchy and anarchism, as they clearly share a common root, and anarchy, in some sense of the word, is the state of affairs that anarchists seek to achieve. But it's ironic that one of the meanings of "anarchy" in the dictionary (American Heritage Dictionary, 3rd edition) is "Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose." If this were true of the anarchist movement, then there would be no basis for the loudly-asserted insistence that some people, groups, and philosophies were "not really anarchist" because they violated some alleged principle of anarchism. So, clearly, the words "anarchy" and "anarchism" have a number of meanings, some of them contradictory. Anarchism has as its first definition in the dictionary, "The theory or doctrine that all forms of government are oppressive and undesirable and should be abolished." This definition clearly includes anarcho-capitalists, as it says nothing about what opinions anarchists should or must have on the subject of capitalism vs. socialism, just that whatever view they may have, they don't favor having it forcibly imposed by a government. Thus, voluntary socialism and voluntary capitalism are equally compatible with an anarchist society under this definition. It also, incidentally, says nothing about racism (something else that has been brought up here as incompatible with anarchism); it's perfectly possible for somebody to think that other races are inferior, but still favor the abolition of all government. They wouldn't likely have much luck in convincing the races they oppose to march voluntarily into anarchist concentration camps, though. "Nationalist anarchism" seems dubious, however, as "national" implies the existence of a "nation", which is usually considered synonymous with a government. Another dictionary definition of anarchism is "Rejection of all forms of coercive control and authority", which is more like what many of the participants here are using as their definition, as it's broader than just being anti-government. This is the definition that some claim excludes anarcho-capitalism. But this depends on a belief that capitalism is inherently coercive, which is, of course, a point on which anarcho-capitalists (as well as minarchist libertarians) disagree. Dtobias 13:27, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Opposition to all forms of hiearchy, for example the state, capitalism, nacism racism fascism, simply All forms of rule, wheter done by laws or economic pressure/power. Foant

What purpose should this article serve?

* To show to the reader what "Anarchist Movement" is. As it is not a homogenous movement, it is important to give different examples, with understanding that the reader might wish to read up more on the particular idea. But that would not be the purpose of the article. Beta_M ^talk, |^contrib (Ë-Mail)

* To show the Anarchist movement, link to its history, and summarize some of iots main ideas. Though it isn't a homogenous movement, it does share certain characteristics that are not negociable.--Che y Marijuana 00:36, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

* The purpose of this article should be to clearly explain to a user who knows nothing about anarchism what it is, its history, etc. It should also outline things that are anarchist as well as things confused with anarchism that are false. It should be as unbiased as possible, decisions for edits based only on anarchist philosophy, ideology and facts. To clarify, it is not a POV to cite anarchist definition and ideology as a clear indication that something is not anarchist when it is a true explanation. --Fatal 04:27, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

* The article should explain the concept of anarchism as distinct from other ideologies. Therefore it needs to establish necessary stipulations for what ideological schools, social movements, historical events, literature, and cultural memes qualify as the article's own definition of anarchism. The purpose of the article is to describe a clear idea with examples to the reader without confusing or conflicting information. --albamuth 20:20, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

* The article must, overcoming the demographics of its editors, succeed in presenting the reader a NPOV overview of the expert POV's regarding what the term "anarchism" is today, and what the history of the idea has been. Original research must be countered at every turn. Gaining featured article status and achieving the intellectual honesty and rigor necessary to satisfy both reasonable adherents and critics must be fundamental goals. Things should be explained in such a manner as to comprehensively inform someone with no knowledge of the concept whatsoever. Only thus can we provide the very highest standard of quality to our fearless readers. Sam Spade (talk · contribs) 22:05, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

* This article should describe the mainstream, no-qualifiers form of Anarchism, while also taking the time to briefly introduce readers to not only its subsets, but also hybrid political philosophies such as "anarcho"-capitalism, which are of interest if for no other reason than to illustrate that the word "anarchism" itself seems to be taking on more positive cannotations (else other groups wouldn't be so eager to adopt the word), indicating at least some success in the movement itself. Still, the main focus of the page needs to be Anarchism without qualifiers, and its purpose should be to educate readers about the unalloyed to give readers a more solid basis of comparison when they inevitably decide to delve deeper into the subject. --Corvun 09:11, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

*It should serve to give a succinct definition of anarchism that encapsulates all forms of anarchism; how diverse the different forms of anarchism are is going to determine how broad (or even vague) the definition needs to be. Then it should go on to describe the matters of dispute in regard to what constitutes "voluntary," "property," etc, and list and describe each of the various forms. The most important part, in my opinion, is the intro. If it's good, it should naturally guide everything else in the article. RJII 16:38, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

*This article should inform the reader of the meaning and history behind the word anarchism and its various political ideologies, including various sub-movements, notable figures and events, and some detail of the basic philosophy behind the ideology itself that unites the extremely diverse movements within. It should also serve as a link-page to all the various forms of anarchism, and to those claiming to be a part of the tradition but whose claims are controversial or generally rejected by anarchists with more substantive links to the tradition. However, proper emphasis is to ignore non-notable claimants (including purely internet based phenomena, secret societies for which there is no evidence, and single-person "movements"), and give minimal space to controversial or minor claimants in the form of a brief description detailing their status in relation to the movement as a whole and perhaps some explaination of why their ideology is not generally considered a part of traditional or modern anarchism (this would include various disagreements over the definitions of terms and rejection/ignorance/subversion of core tenets to anarchism). However, links to such notable but controversial claimants are essential to the overall informative nature of the article and should not be removed under any condition. Kev 00:43, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

* It should give any reader sufficient information on what anarchism is, its ideas and history.

* To give information about anarchism, in all of its meanings and usages, not a slanted subset "anointed" by some group that acts like they own the word in a proprietary way (ironic given that those people claim to oppose private property). Dtobias 00:47, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What criteria should be used for inclusion in this article?

* The submovement, must be linked to other parts of the larger movement, even if it not linked to all (syndicalism and primitivism don't really link for example, but there is a link between syndicalism and anarcho-communism and primitivism and ecoanarchism). When the particular trend of anarchism existed (or began) should make no difference, neither should the number of "followers" (term is used loosely). Beta_M ^talk, |^contrib (Ë-Mail)

* The faction must be linked intrinsically, even if on a shaky relationship, to the entire movement. There are disagreements between different factions in Anarchism, but generally they are still considered disagreements between Anarchists. The same cannot be said about "Anarcho"-Capitalism or National-"Anarchism". Which are trends that consider themselves Anarchists, but are universally rejected within the movement. It is also important to look at where these trends come from and what kind of support they have, a "movement" that consists of one site and a dozen members is simply not noteworthy.--Che y Marijuana 00:36, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

* If the criteria to be included is in question as to whether it is anarchist or not, it should be known that it must be non-hierarchal and meet the other basic requirements already outlined in the article. If something is to be decided as to whether it is relevant or part of the larger movement, population does actually matter. For example, there are an extremely small number of people (possibly only the guy that made one small website on it) that believe anarchism should be melded with monarchism. If we pretend for a moment that this actually was non-hierarchal, then it would still not be relevant to include in the article because the number of followers is so rediculously small. For the sake of space, since this is wikipedia, all that should be included in the article are things, people, and movements which had something significantly to do with anarchism in the past or does in the present. --Fatal 04:35, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

* The bounds of the article should start out as historical, not ideological. Anarchism consists of a history that started somewhere around Proudhon and Bakunin, and included diverse movements and individual activists and writers, associated in various ways, cooperating and competing in various ways, but all claiming parts of the same shared history and all calling themselves anarchists. The various movements and ideologies included in this history (up to present times) should be represented in proportion to their historical weight---whether that is measured in terms simply of number, of historical impact, of success in promulgating their ideas, whatever. This doesn't answer all questions, but give us the framework that should be argued within---there is no need to decide what is The Correct Anarchist Line. There is only need to figure out how 'popular' or how high an impact various ideologies or movements have had. If the answer is 'a tiny one', then they should get only a tiny mention. --Nil 07:53, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

* This is an encyclopedia. To best attempt an "objective" stance, there needs to be a clear guideline or model for inclusion. The criteria must be universal (can apply for all cases), independantly testable(anyone can research and apply them--no secret knowledge), and have fecundity (the criteria can apply now and in the future, plus leave room for more questions/distinctions). This is no different than whan makes for a good scientific theory. String Theory and quantum gravity are completely different, competing theories but to the average reader, many nuances must be explained. To make the difference between an anarchist ideological/historical event and other social movements clear to the average reader, the article should provide explicit criteria. --albamuth 20:32, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

* The only criteria for inclusion is quality, (think featured article) verifiability, Citability, and the 32k size concern. The definition of anarchism is not the single organic movement beginning with Proudhon and Bakunin (which should be discussed), nor is it syndicalism alone, nor any one thing. Rather anarchism is a natural concept based on anarchy (the temporary absence of governmental authority), rather than any one of the movements, incidents, uprisings or states (like say Somalia) that represent it. Sam Spade (talk · contribs) 22:26, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

* Anything that's closely relevant to the concept of anarchism. I would't worry about it too much. If something strays too far off topic, someone will delete it. Or if it's not mentioned or elaborated on enough, someone will put it in. All these arguments will be rehashed over and over. Anything we write will be erased many times over through the course of time anyway. I don't think Wikipedia is designed to allow for finality but incessant "warfare." RJII 16:48, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

* Anything notable should be mentioned. Nationalist anarchism, for example, is non-notable, with no historical or political significance other than disrupting this article. Anarcho-capitalism is more notable. But, we should make it clear that these contrived submovements do not come out of the same historical trajectory that produced the others and are not linked movements. I mean, if you go to an anarchist bookshop you could probably find syndicalist and primitivist stuff (depending on the scope of their inventory) but anarcho-capitalism is an independent, unrelated movement that happens to have a related prefix and is generally not even taken seriously by any other anarchist "submovement"(as for nationalist anarchism, few have ever even heard of it as is seen by the confused reaction by regular editors of this article). Such subcategories should not be treated as equal in importance, nor should they be contrasted throughout the article as if they have equal merit or that such debates occur often (anarchists generally ignore or brush off anarcho-capitalists, anarcho-capitalists do the same to anarchists. Or wait. "Left" anarchists.) To present these subcategories in any other way is to distort the landscape of the anarchist movement and ignore trends in the history of anarchist thought. I support a seperate section for any of these questionable schools of thought, where their ideas are surveyed and compared to the rest of the article, so that their views do not distort the rest of the article and create misunderstandings about their role in the greater anarchist movement. [Sorry, that was a jumble of only partially coherent thought, I have a headache and I'm tired :P] --Tothebarricades.tk 20:33, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

* As above, anything notable (to be specific, that which is beyond the internet, beyond single-person advocacy, beyond secret societies with no evidence) should be mentioned in some form, but proper emphasis placed on controversial and minor movements (i.e. their mention should be brief and include links to their own articles if such exist). Anarchism, as a political ideology, is distinct from anarchy, mere anti-state ideology, mere isolationism, or mere anti-capitalism. As such, inclusion on this page should be based on loose adherence to the most basic of anarchist values, including total abolition of the state, and a never-ending push to eliminate human domination in whatever forms it arises including: prisons, judiciary, politicians, human bondage in contractual or physical form, etc. Ideologies which advocate such institutions as compatible with human freedom are subverting the very definitions of the words used by anarchists to promote their ideology. Thus, the determination of what is and is not part of anarchism is not formulaic, it is subjective and organic in accordance with the values of those following in the tradition of anarchism. As such, there is no simple rule to follow, and judgements based on inclusion and extent of coverage in this article should include its significance (in numbers of subscribers and real-world events), its degree of adherence to past anarchist values, its continuing rejection of institutional status-quo (regardless of what the status-quo happens to be), its acceptance by other anarchist movements involved in the tradition, its compatibility with the underlying theory, its coherence with the basic meaning(s) of the word itself. Kev 00:58, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

* Anything notable, yes... and don't let one slanted group define in a monopolistic way what's "notable". Dtobias 00:49, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Responses to Survey Answers

I moved these responses to respondants of the survey here. Sorry! I want the survey to be nicely formatted. --albamuth 18:07, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

(1)Beta has given a very narrow and factional definition. It excludes important anarchist traditions such as anarcho-capitalism and primitivism. It also excludes smaller, newer movements such as national-anarchism. Both etymologically and historically, the defining feature of 'anarchism' (unqualified) has been opposition to 'the state'. See Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin, etc.

Anarchism is not etymologically defined as opposition to the state, but absence of rulers. ALL of the anarchists you cited took that to mean absence of capitalist coercion along with state domination, and all of them took it to mean absence of the mini-states that your site specifically advocates. Kev 18:28, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This is in response to people saying that the core of Anarchism is the fight against Capitalism. I will agree with that, but there were many movements that didn't. For example many anarchists in USSR have welcomed privatisation in the same way some anarks in the Western Europe argue for some level of nationalisation (for example of utilities) as the short term goal. It all depends on where you stand and from which direction you approach the oppressive regime. Beta_M ^talk, |^contrib (Ë-Mail)

(2)Agreed, in principle, but there is so much disagreement about what the 'anarchist movement' is (probably because it is very different things to different people) that the 'examples' will probably be under continued dispute. If the object is to attain agreement you probably need to adopt a minimalist approach and just give a few dictionary definitions, skipping the examples.

Dictionary definitions alone will not work. People often use highly selective dictionary definitions, and several of the most common definitions contradict one another. Kev 18:28, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

(3)Enormous scope for disagreement here because the concept of 'linked' is (a) vague, and (b) highly politically charged. If this criterion is adopted there will be a variety of edit wars between those who wish to filter out movements that they consider 'not linked' and the advocates of movements that consider themselves to be 'linked'. Some of the disputed movements, such as the anarcho-capitalists, are pretty big (and old). Again, a minimalist approach might be the fairest and most sustainable solution.

The kind of 'minimalist' approach that you are advocating will allow anyone with an internet connection and an imagination to pretend that they have a "new and improved" offshoot of anarchism to lobby for. Anarcho-monarchism? No problem, just throw up a webpage like anon here and the next thing you know you are a legitimate movement being "censored" for saying perfectly acceptable things like, "we believe in the right of everyone to be ruled by a sovereign." Whether or not the criteria should open the door for people like the capitalists is a seperate issue, one that you are only commenting on because it turns out that anarcho-capitalism is a whole heck of a lot closer to nationalist anarchism than and of the traditional movements are. It is very obvious it should not leave things open for people who explicitly say in multiple articles, "we are not anarchists," as your site does. Kev 18:28, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what deluded planet you're coming from, but please point out the organizations that consider themselves National-"Anarchist" or "Anarcho"-Capitalists, and those "big" influential numbers they have or have had at critical points in history. Not only are these movements not accepted by Anarchism, and therefore not Anarchist, but they are also insignificant and simply not noteworthy on the main Anarchism page.--Che y Marijuana 00:41, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

Here are my answers to the survey posted above. 1) The main distinguishing characteristic of anarchist philosophy is: opposition of rulers, hierarchy, and oppression of any kind. This includes, capitalism (which is naturally hierarchical), racism, sexism, ageism, etc. 2) This article should give a generalized overview of anarchism that is easily accessable to everyone. Meaning, it should be more simpilar than the Anarchist FAQ. 3) The criteria for inclusion into this article is simple: if said inclusion is anti-hierarchy, anti-capitalism, anti-oppression, and anti-authority, then it should be considered to be included. --Jazz Remington 02:05, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think it's POV to say that anarchism is anti-capitalism since there is such a thing as anarcho-capitalism (free-market anarchism). I think to be honest you would have to say, rather, that "most anarchists" are anti-capitalism, that is, most anarchists are socialist anarchists or whatever. Advocates of governmentless pure capitalism would not agree that their is an authoritarian "heirarchy" or any kind of coercion in such a system. I think when you start making judgements as to whether anarcho-capitalism is "hierarchical," as I understand how you mean it, you start putting "POV" in the article. I think the only way you could get away with it and be truly neutral is to have an article exclusively devoted to "traditional anarchism" or something like that. Besides, the anti-capitalism anarchists insisting on a monopoly of the word "anarchism" is a little un-anarchistic isn't it? RJII 04:37, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Saying that "most anarchists" are against capitalism implies that it is possible to be an anarchist and be for capitalism. In other words, it gives away the capitalist position at the outset, rather than keeping the language neutral. Great care has been taken in many of these articles to avoid such language.

Describing the anarchist POV is not the same as violating NPOV wikipedia policy. In fact, describing anarchist POV is one of the purposes of this article. Finally, explaining that anarchism has always been, both historically and philosophically, anti-capitalist, is not creating a "monopoly" on the word anarchism. It is supporting meaning for the word anarchism. If we remove the meaning anarchism has always had since the first individuals began to self-describe as such in order to placate the desires of every possible group claiming the title, then the word will lose all meaning in the process. Kev 08:37, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

RJ, you've already stated that you thought anarchism was just "not governing" anyone else, which by that I assume you mean official government. By this, you have said that anarchism is exactly the same as anti-statism, which it is not. However, if you expand the defintion of "state" and rightfully argue that the term state can also cover other hierarchal institutions like the workplace and capitalism, then anti-statism does mean anarchism. However, in general, anti-statism is used to refer to JUST government in its strict literal official sense. It is this definition which I believe you're under the assumption that anarchism is. Anarchism is much more than that, anarchism is against all hierarchy, all irrational authority, everywhere, in every area of society. I'm not trying to insult you at all, but from this I gather you have a limited understanding of anarchism, and your POV might lead one to believe that anti-capitalism isn't a priority for anarchists, but it is. --Fatal 23:01, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That's not my understanding of anarchism. When I said that anarchism was the "lack of anyone governing anyone else" that's what I meant. I wasn't referring to "official government" but any form of someone ruling over someone else. Anarcho-capitalists think that capitalism, in its pure form, is just that ..the lack of anyone governing or ruling over anyone. They don't think that employers, for example, or ruling or governing anyone, and that's precisely the reason that they favor capitalism or free trade. Both traditional anarchists and anarcho-capitalists are against the same thing. It's just that they disagree on what constitutes governing, coercive hierarchy, or whatever you want to call it. Free-market anarchism (anarcho-capitalism) clearly falls under the title "anarchism." At a previous time in history all anarchists apparently were against capitalism, but that's no longer the case. Some of you guys are trying to hold on to the past, but this is a new day. Not all anarchists are against capitalism. By the way, "anti-statism" isn't the same as "anti-state." Capitalists who are in favor of the existence of government are also anti-statism, as statism means centralized control over an economy by a government rather than being against government itself. I suggest you use "anti-state" to avoid confusion. RJII 23:59, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Using your definition of statism, anti-statist capitalists are for anti-statism and that's it. Anarchism has never been and is not purely anti-statism, it's much more than that. We are not trying to "hold on to the past", we're not dinosaur leninists for christ's sake. The hierarchy of boss over workplace, capitalist over company, and such is one of the oldest struggles. It is simply foolish to think that capitalists are not building a class system over the lower class and exerting power over their labor. When a construction worker is employed to build a luxury apartment complex that he could never afford to live in, that's arbitrarily serving the upper class and what does he get in return? A wage, a meager response for his labor when his labor is something he could be enjoying. And the monetary system! For that under capitalism can only be hierarchal and only deny things to those who don't have it. I could go on forever. Capitalism has wayyyy to many counts of hierarchy against it to ever be anything close to non-hierarchal.

Well, anarcho-capitalists disagree, and that's my point. If they thought there was anything un-anarchistic, or coercively hierarchical, or any "governing" going on then they wouldn't be pro-capitalism (or free-market). Whether it is a not is a matter for debate but not a matter of deciding peremptorily in the very definition of "anarchism." Anarcho-capitalists think that the world that "traditional anarchists" want is not a truly anarchistic or based in voluntary human interaction. And, I know they object to your ideas as being inconsistent with "true anarchism" as well. But there is common ground in that both advocate what they believe to be the ideal of human freedom and the lack of external "authority" over the individual. So, in the most basic sense "traditional anarchists" and free-market anarchists (anarcho-capitalists) are both anarchists. RJII 12:29, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, they can disagree all they want, but the reality is, the lack of any recognition as a form of Anarchism from any Anarchists makes their claim dubious enough not to be taken seriously. Which to me means, if they are to be included on this page, it will be in the "what Anarchism is not" section, with a link to its own page. And yet again, its lack of any major movements, its lack of mass membership, historical battles, etc... just makes its mention here unjustified.--Che y Marijuana 20:21, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

If we were all simply trying to edit this to our own points of view, I'd put communism and socialism in the "what Anarchism is not" section, as I see such hyper-statist systems as completely antithetical to any rational conception of anarchism. However, we're supposed to be trying for a NPOV here. Dtobias 12:07, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This strange bit of logic would end with the unavoidable conclusion that the very people who originally called themselves anarchists, those who took part in forming the meaning of the word as it is used today as a self-description, were not anarchists. Further, that the very people those anarchists opposed most vociferously are in fact anarchists. In other words, it would be to strip all meaning from the word by reversing it. Actually, I suppose that would be easy to do if one existed in a vacuum, carefully removed from history in a nice bubble of neo-classical liberal rhetoric designed to ensure that the average anarcho-capitalist has no clue what they are talking about but insist on voicing their opinion as often as possible. Ah, Rothbard was such a genius. Kev 18:34, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Problem with Anarchism

I think the problem lies in what people believe anarchism and the definition of anarchism is. An ararchist may claim he is practicing anarchism, but not necessarily in the true sense of the actual definition. I think the inclusion of the different view points of what people believe is anarchism should be included, however the basic definition should not be changed. -- AllyUnion (talk) 10:39, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Lingusitics is the cause of many a problem, because people redefine words for themselves or use words in different senses or use words to gain attention when it fact they are not associating at all with the defintion of that word. People in the media use "anarchy" to get attention, brainless pop punks falsely claim to be anarchists just because they like using a stylized version of the circumscribed A. What we have here in this talk page are fascists and power mongers that have mislabeled themselves to put accross a more "positive" image that is false. --Fatal 23:07, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Protection

What good is done by keeping this page protected? Two people are prevented from making a clearly bad edit that portrays fascist nationalism as anarchism? This is what page history and rollback are for.

There are several changes that I would like to make, but these "national-anarchists" are getting what they want, our attention. Guan aco 03:12, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

One person, actually... But there seem to be other issues in the air. Kev 05:10, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I think until we figure out if we want to include "Anarcho"-Capitalism, this page remaining protected is best for all. I know the things I would like to change about this article (making it crystal clear that "Anarcho"-Capitalism is not a form of Anarchism, period) need discussing, and those who would like to take this article in the other direction (including Neo-Nazis under the definition of Anarchism) also need to be subjected to this discussion. So yeah, for the good of all sides, this article should remain protected till we can decide whether Anarchism is compatible with Capitalism, or its lesser forms, Nazism included.--Che y Marijuana 05:55, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

People aren't going to hesitate to put "anarcho-capitalism" in as a form of anarchism regardless of what is "decided." So does what is "decided" really matter? I doubt it. Might as well keep it protected eternally. To expect finality and unanimity on Wikipedia is ludicrous. Just battle it out eternally without resolution is my recommendation. RJII 06:08, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sure, but unanimity is not what we're working towards. If this process fails (we should at least try), then the article will be unprotected anyway and there will be simply anarchy. (haha) --albamuth 06:16, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think everyone knows that the article will never be "finalized". It wouldn't be wikipedia if that were the case. But social procedures tend to generate a legitimacy that will help better represent everyone's view rather than those of one or two eager editors. It is the process, rather than any particular goal, which is being tested. Kev 06:30, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't nazism promote racial hatred or programs? Anarchism, from what I've understood, is against racism, and nazism is practically nothing but racism. As for "Anarcho"-Capitalism," capitalism naturally rests of private property and hierarchy, which is two things that anarchism is against. So I guess, in my sense anyway, nazism and capitalism are against what anarchism promotes. --Jazz Remington 06:00, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The best way to express this is to post answers to the survey. --albamuth 06:03, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what survey? --Jazz Remington 20:46, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This one. --albamuth 22:47, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This is my proposed program for unprotection:

:: We get 10 responses to each of the survey questions.
:: People start drawing conclusions to to the survey.
:: Discussion.
:: Guidelines for the article are drafted.
:: Discussion / Revision / Approval by majority
:: Unprotection of page
:: Neccessary changes made and guidelines posted as "sticky" in the talk pages.

That's roughly what I'd like to see happen. I know it sounds rather involved, but since this topic is so damned controversial, it should be done in an orderly fashion. --albamuth 06:03, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Insight

"it's ironic that one of the meanings of "anarchy" in the dictionary (American Heritage Dictionary, 3rd edition) is "Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose." If this were true of the anarchist movement, then there would be no basis for the loudly-asserted insistence that some people, groups, and philosophies were "not really anarchist" because they violated some alleged principle of anarchism."

Hear hear. Its more than ironic, it is true, and insightful. There is no such basis for complaint, and besides, exclusionism is hierarchical. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 15:55, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You are a troll Sam. How many times have you been reminded of the distinction between anarchy and anarchism, how many times have you ignored this and pressed on with the same claim that there is no difference between the meanings of the two words? Kev 16:20, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that "anarchy" is commonly used in a way that is markedly different than its actual etymological meaning. Dictionaries don't decide how words are used, they record usage. When an improper use of a term becomes common enough, it is recorded in a dictionary. A good example is the ironic use of "fulsome", which has absolutely no linguistic basis, getting its own definition in the dictionary alongside its more proper meaning.

One finds similar biases in language everywhere. If you look up "anarchy" in Roget's Thesaurus, you get synonyms like "chaos" or "disorder". I was quite surprised when I expected to find synonyms like "freedom", "liberty", and the like, but couldn't find anything of the sort. Right here on Wikipedia, one can see how the word "villain" was originally derived from a word meaning "poor" or "impoverished". This boils down to the fact that the use accepted by the majority often results in a definition heavily tainted by a MPOV (Majority Point Of View), rather than a definition based in actual etymology (which is NPOV).

In this case, the NPOV meaning of the word "anarchy" is that which corresponds to its etymological construction. An- meaning "no" and -archy, referring to social structure (as in hierarchy, matriarchy, etc.). In a world ruled by people hopelessly devoted to kings and presidents, who cry for more cops on the streets and more powerful militaries -- in such a word, the idea of having "no social structure" is a frightening thing, equated with disorder and chaos. When, in fact, it is the position of Anarchists that it is possible for people to act in an orderly and civilized manner without having a social structure imposed on us; that "no social order" does not lead to chaos and disorder.

Essentially, then, Anarchists define "anarchy", and hence Anarchism, by its literal, NPOV meaning, whilst the dictionary records its most commonly used (yet incorrect) form, complete with subjective POV cannotations and all. --Corvun 22:58, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If a word is used in a certain way "commonly" then it's automatically the correct usage regardless of how it was used before. The correct use of a term isn't a constant thing. "Original meaning" and "proper usage" aren't necessarily the same thing to anyone but the most extreme pedant who is going to find it difficult to communicate with modern civilization. RJII 23:14, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If you disregard etymology and determine a word's "correct" use by how it is commonly used, then all bets are off. "Irregardless" becomes a standard word. Slang terms are taught in English classes along with "the", "and", or "but". Technical definitions are thrown out the window. Next thing you know, you're telling your volkswagon to stair taller monkey cup.

The correct use of a word is determined by etymology and etymology alone, or at the least must be etymologically justifiable (as in the case of "ain't" as a contraction for "am not"). All else is just slang. Not that I have a problem with slang -- I use it frequently -- but slang definitions are not the same as the real thing. You cannot etymologically justify using the word "anarchy" to mean "chaos". That simply isn't accurate.

And as far as communicating with modern civilization: "modern civilization" is a contradiction. There is nothing civilized about the modern world, as is evidenced by these deplorable misuses of the English language. --Corvun 23:37, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I would tend to think that regardless of where one comes down on what the "correct" use of a term is, it would still be somewhat silly to base political theories on something as simplistic as a dictionary definition. In fact, doing so would require the complete rehauling of almost every political topic on wikipedia. Kev 01:24, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That is an extremely good point! I wish I'd thought of it. --Corvun 02:02, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

@@ Line 101: / Line 101: @@
 I'm not sure what deluded planet you're coming from, but please point out the organizations that consider themselves National-"Anarchist" or "Anarcho"-Capitalists, and those "big" influential numbers they have or have had at critical points in history. Not only are these movements not accepted by Anarchism, and therefore not Anarchist, but they are also insignificant and simply not noteworthy on the main Anarchism page.--[[User:Che y Marijuana|Che y Marijuana]] 00:41, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
+Here are my answers to the survey posted above. 1) The main distinguishing characteristic of anarchist philosophy is: opposition of rulers, hierarchy, and oppression of any kind. This includes, capitalism (which is naturally hierarchical), racism, sexism, ageism, etc. 2) This article should give a generalized overview of anarchism that is easily accessable to everyone. Meaning, it should be more simpilar than the Anarchist FAQ. 3) The criteria for inclusion into this article is simple: if said inclusion is anti-hierarchy, anti-capitalism, anti-oppression, and anti-authority, then it should be considered to be included. --[[User:Jremington|Jazz Remington]] 02:05, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 ----