Talk:Anarchism/Archive 31

Archive 25

←

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

→

Archive 35

Discussion

Historically, anarchists have always opposed capitalism

(Reposted) There was once a traveling salesman who claimed that a table, by definition, had to be made of wood. He argued that, in the past, all tablemakers were woodworkers and had defined tables that way. As hard as I tried, I could not convince him that tables might be made of aluminum or plastic, and that a proper definition of "table" would be something like a piece of furniture with a flat top designed to hold other objects. He was just too hung up on the "movement" of past table-makers to form a normal genus and difference definition. It was weird, but I consoled myself that at least he was not a Wiki editor. Hogeye 03:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

(Reposted) Historically, anarchists have always opposed capitalism. Not only were the anarchist movements of the 19th and 20th century considered to be anti-capitalist movements, but several more or less neutral observers view or viewed anarchism as being essentially anti-capitalist. Here are a few examples:

• George Orwell, Homage to Catalonia (to Orwell, anarchism is anti-capitalism)
• MS Encarta Encylcopedia (North American version): "Another school of anarchism, relying on organized action and even deeds of terror to achieve its purposes, grew out of the socialist movement and appeared toward the end of the 19th century." The other school of anarchism is Proudhon's mutualism.
• Carl Levy, historian, in the MS Encarta Encyclopedia (UK): "Anarchism arose out of the ideological ferment of the French Revolution and in reaction to both the European bureaucratic nation state and the advent of large-scale industrial capitalism." "Proudhonian mutualism argued that workers’ associations would replace the capitalist economy..."
• OED: "1892 Daily News 27 Apr. 5/8 Anarchy means the placing in common of all this world's riches to allow each to consume according to his needs. Anarchy is a great family where each will be protected by all and will take whatever he requires."
• Office québécois de la langue française (Quebec Office of the French Language) -- it's good to get a perspective that isn't exclusively Anglo-American: "La doctrine anarchiste est le résultat d'une fusion entre les thèses libérales et les idées socialistes : « Au libéralisme, elle emprunte sa critique économique de l'État, son exaltation de la libre initiative, sa conception d'un ordre économique spontané. Au socialisme, elle emprunte sa critique de la propriété et sa théorie de l'exploitation des travailleurs »." ("The anarchist doctrine is the result of a fusion between liberal theses and socialist ideas: 'From liberalism, it borrows its economic critique of the State, its exaltation of free intitiative, its conception of a spontaneous economic order. From socialism, it borrows its critique of property and its worker exploitation theory.'") Also, it is clearly a "Doctrine sociale et politique" (political and social doctrine).

Anarchist critiques of capitalism have always been critiques of capitalist domination, i.e. the necessity in capitalism of the absolute dominion of the private property owner. I speak of private property as it is commonly understood (including the right to rent, profit, land ownership, ownership without use, etc.) and not as RJII and others would define it. --AaronS 18:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I define private property as individualist anarchists define it: "the principle of individual property... says that each man has an absolute dominion, as against all other men, over the products and acquisitions of his own labor." -Lysander Spooner. That means one can do what he wishes with the product of his labor --keep it from others or sell it --for whatever price he wishes. Benjamin Tucker, though he though profit was contrary to the labor theory of value, defended the right to profit: "In defending the right to take usury, we do not defend the right of usury" (Liberty I,3) As I explained before, the labor/value individualists believed that in laissez-faire that profit would not be possible --that everything would naturally revert to labor/value. RJII 21:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

You're severely overgeneralizing if you think all individualist anarchists work in the American tradition. I have my doubts that most individualist anarchists outside the United States today work in the footsteps of Spooner/Tucker, and nor do a number of those in that country. There are quite a number of Mutualists, and Stirnerites, and post-anarchist individualists which see individualism quite a lot differently, with these continuing to oppose all forms of hierarchy, domination, and authority, and seeing these ideas as unnecessary and unwanted in society. "Individualist anarchism" is hardly a unified school of thought. Sarge Baldy 21:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not overgeneralizing at all. I'm simply only talking about the American form. If you want to talk about individualist outside the US we can do that as well. How about France's Emile Armand in France? He was a market anarchist that didn't adhere to the labor theory of value --in other words he believed in trading at whatever price one wants. Or how about the British Henry Muellen? Or, Beckerath? Neither of them held a labor theory of value either, so they saw nothing wrong with profit. I'd love to put those in the article. They're even closer to anarcho-capitalism, if not actually anarcho-capitalism. RJII 22:02, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree, that's a great direction to get into. Of course, I disagree with a number of your interpretations. After all, Armand said "Thus the individualist can affirm with certainty that authoritarianism will in no case continue in the future society. To imagine a 'world to come' where there would still be a trace of domination, coercion and duty is nonsense." He also says that "It is against this bourgeois property, recognized by the State, and jealously guarded by it, that all revolutionaries rise up, all those who propagate liberating ideas, and whose ambition it is to improve the living condition of the mass. It is this, that socialists, communists, and anti-Statists of every shade attack and wish to destroy." Doesn't sound like much of an advocate of PDAs to me. Sarge Baldy 22:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if Armand advocated private defense. I can't imagine why he wouldn't. How else are you going to defend your property from thieves? By the way, he's talking about land there --unused land protect by the state. He's not talking about ordinary private property --the product of labor. RJII 22:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Is that a joke? He says, "Whoever owns more than he needs for his own consumption, or more than he can develop by himself -- such a man, either directly, by developing his properties, or organizing industrial concerns, or indirectly, by entrusting his capital to industry or the State, is an exploiter of others work." Sounds to me like if he's worried about "thieves", it's those holding more property than they need to survive. Sarge Baldy 23:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

"more than he can develop himself" --he's talking about land. Murray Rothbard says much the same thing: "If there is more land than can be used by a limited labor supply, then the unused land must simply remain unowned until a first user arrives on the scene. Any attempt to claim a new resource that someone does not use would have to be considered invasive of the property right of whoever the first user will turn out to be." RJII 23:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

If you restrict property rights -- i.e. ownership of land, profit, rent, ownership without use -- then you propose a system that is fundamentally different from what most people would argue is capitalism. --AaronS 00:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

No kidding. That's why one is called mutualism, and the other is called capitalism. Mutualists adhere to a labor theory of value, hence they think profit is unnatural. But, that's not a restriction on private property. Labor/value individualists and subjective value individualists (anarcho-capitalists) have the same definition of private property, and both support it just as strongly. Most of the labor/value individualists oppose titles to unused land; private property is not defined any differently --what's different is what is allowable as private property (but, alas, there are exceptions --some of the labor/value individualists support private ownership of land itself). RJII 02:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Since the definitions of capitalism and socialism differ considerable among writers, it behooves us to look at the specific differences between (what we now call) socialism, mutualism, and capitalism from the anarchist perspective. This chart lays it out:

Comparison of Property Systems

Anarchist Schools	Anarcho-Socialist	Individualist (labor/value)	Anarcho-Capitalist
Is land legitimate private property?	No	Yes, if it's occupied; No, if it's unoccupied.	Yes
Are man-made capital goods legitimate private property?	No	Yes	Yes
Is it immoral to collect profit from capital and interest?	Yes. It's criminal and should be expropriated.	Sort of. It's a vice, but shouldn't be prevented.	No. It's permissable, and generally a virtue.

Hogeye 17:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Note Proudhon's mutualism would then fall into the left column. Also, this may be what ancaps now call socialism, but I think you have a lot of work to do to show that your definition is accepted by anyone else.Bengalski 19:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

That's highly debatable. From what I've read, Proudhon's possession property would satisfy all three mutualist positions. But due to Proudhon's quirky terminology (particularly using "property" to mean only sticky property and refusing to acknowledge that possession as he defined it was a form of property), it is understandable that some might misinterpret his position. Basically, Proudhon says that land is the collective property of all, but individuals can and should have disposition over it qua possessions. Thus superficially using Proudhon's terminology he's collectivist; but in modern parlance he's clearly for private property. Hogeye 21:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

There's no such thing as Anarcho-Socialism. That's a neologism. --AaronS 22:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC) I'd also like to note that your personal interpretations of Proudhon's writings do not matter insofar as writing this article is concerned, Hogeye. --AaronS 22:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Original research

I feel, and have felt for quite some time, now, that many of the claims that RJII and Hogeye have been making, as well as the sources that they have been pointing to, have involved some form of original research (see WP:NOR). It seems like some of their claims are akin to, Well, I understand that this is what is popularly believed, but I can show you through careful study and quotation that what is popularly believed is wrong and what I believe is right. As I have done before, I commend RJII for his passion for the subject and the effort that he has put into this article and related articles. As soon as I have more time, I will post some examples of statements that I feel are original research, but I wanted to give a heads-up and was wondering if anybody else felt the same way. --AaronS 18:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I feel that you aren't very knowledgeable about individualist anarchism. RJII 21:16, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I am certainly not as knowledgeable as you are. But I do have some understanding of it, and especially popular understandings of it. Considering that you have made some claims that you admit go against the grain of these popular understandings, and since those claims are sometimes backed up by your own original research, I fear that we might not be adhering to Wikipedia policy. I'll post more later. --AaronS 21:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Original research? I'm directly quoting sources. And, what "popular understanding" are you talking about? As far as I know, I'm not saying anything that anyone moderately familiar with individualst anarchism doesn't already know. RJII 23:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

The fact that you are directly quoting sources can be a problem. If you are going to primary texts to build an argument to back up a claim that you have made, then you risk violating the no original research policy. This does not mean that you necessarily are violating it, just that you risk doing so. That's why, all along, I've been calling for third-party sources, i.e. academic or scholarly publications. When you do original research, we're forced to trust that you're giving the texts a proper reading and are interpreting them in a sound way; we don't have the time to read all of Tucker's works at the moment, for instance (not that I wouldn't want to, I just can't right now). As much as I assume good faith on your part, people do make mistakes. That's why I would be much happier with sources that are written by neutral and unbiased third-parties and not directly by the authors in question. For example, the sources for both the anarcho-capitalism article and the American individualist anarchism article are mostly direct, primary sources. That means that the articles (and this one) read more like a research paper than an encyclopaedia article. --AaronS 00:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC) Just to clarify: I'm not saying that primary sources are bad. I'm just saying that, for a subject such as this, many more secondary sources are needed. From the Wikipedia policy on original research:

• "In some cases, where an article (1) makes descriptive claims the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge, and (2) makes no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims, a Wikipedia article may be based entirely on primary sources (examples would include apple pie or current events), but these are exceptions." (emphasis mine)
• "In most cases, Wikipedia articles include material on the basis of verifiability, not truth. That is, we report what other reliable secondary sources have published, whether or not we regard the material as accurate." (emphasis mine)
• It can (not must) be original research if an article: defines new terms, redefines preexisting terms, introduces neologisms, or, among other things, "it introduces a synthesis of established facts in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing the synthesis to a reputable source."
• You might consider yourself to be expert on individualism (I don't think that's too generous, considering your knowledge of the subject); however, "someone is an expert not only because of their personal and direct knowledge of a topic, but because of their knowledge of published sources on a topic"
• "Unstable neologisms, and ideas stemming from one individual who is not an authority, or from a small group of such individuals, should either go to 'votes for deletion' (because they 'fail the test of confirmability', not because they are necessarily false), or should be copyedited out."

Now, what counds as a reputable source? I've copied the entire policy here: Reputable publications include peer-reviewed journals, books published by a known academic publishing house or university press, and divisions of a general publisher which have a good reputation for scholarly publications.

For non-academic subjects, it is impossible to pin down a clear definition of "reputable". In general, most of us have a good intuition about the meaning of the word. A magazine or press release self-published by a very extreme political or religious group would often not be regarded as "reputable". For example, Wikipedia would not rely only on an article in the Socialist Workers' Party magazine, The Militant, to publish a statement claiming that President Bush is gay. However, if that same claim was in The New York Times, then Wikipedia could refer to the article (and to the sources quoted in the article). The political magazine could, however, be used as a source of information about the party itself.

Ask yourself some questions when you are evaluating a publication. Is it openly partisan? Does it have a large or very small readership? Is it a vanity publisher? Is it run principally by a single person, or does it have a large, permanent staff? Does it seem to have any system of peer review, or do you get the feeling that it shoots from the hip? If you heard that the publication you are about to use as a source was considering publishing a very negative article about you, would you (a) be terrified because you suspect they are irresponsible and do not fact-check; or (b) feel somewhat reassured because the publication employs several layers of editing staff, fact-checkers, lawyers, an editor-in-chief, and a publisher, and will usually correct its mistakes? If it is (a), do not use it as a source. If it is (b), it is what Wikipedia calls "reputable".

When dispute arises regarding whether a publication is reputable, you can attempt to get more editors involved and work toward a consensus. There is no clear definition, but don't ignore your intuition.

Let's all keep this in mind. Thanks! --AaronS 00:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

A good example of an unacceptable source is An Anarchist FAQ Webpage. It presents an extremely sectarian and biased view of anararchism. Much better is the academic Anarchist Theory FAQ which uses the broad definition of anarchism and has an even-handed point of view. Hogeye 19:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

If you think that Caplan's FAQ is any less biased than the Anarchist FAQ, then you're sorely mistaken. Both are terrible sources if you're looking for neutral sources. Both are great sources if you're looking for how different sides see themselves and each other. --AaronS 22:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

A/C and libraries

Just as another consideration, the Library of Congress [1] does not qualify any of Murray Rothbard's works under "anarchism". (This categorization does, of course, exist: see Conquest of Bread by Peter Kropotkin or Post-Scarcity Anarchism by Murray Bookchin). However, as I have not actually read these works by Rothbard, I don't know if they were where he most strongly formulated the notion of anarcho-capitalism (perhaps he did so in peer-reviewed journals left unpublished). For that matter, no academic libraries I checked classify his works this way. This is suggestive that neither academia nor the federal government consider his works as representing anarchism. Sarge Baldy 23:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Does the LOC have a text on Anarchism? In the case of Soviet Union, the whole article is based on LOC text to overcome POV disputes such as these. The LOC is usually a fairly neutral sources. - FrancisTyers 23:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

A text? I'm not sure how you mean. Although I see now that the LoC stores anarchist texts under HX 1-970.7 "Socialism, Communism, Utopias, Anarchism" [2]. Note that this is the same schema followed by many (most? all?) academic libraries in the nation (including Oregon State and the University of Washington). Sarge Baldy 23:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

General suggestion 12

Why the dichotomy between individualist and collectivist? Where do you draw the line? - FrancisTyers 23:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

There are some clear lines. For example, collectivists think that land is owned by everyone in common. Individualists definitely don't. Collectivists oppose private property. Individidualists support it. "One of the tests of any reform movement with regard to personal liberty is this: Will the movement prohibit or abolish private property? If it does, it is an enemy of liberty. For one of the most important criteria of freedom is the right to private property in the products of ones labor. State Socialists, Communists, Syndicalists and Communist-Anarchists deny private property." -Clarence Swartz. Collectivists tend to speak in terms of the group, community, or classes. Individualists deny that the community is an actual organism. For example, Tucker says: "That there is an entity known as the community which is the rightful owner of all land anarchists deny. I...maintain that the community is a non-entity, that it has no existence, and is simply a combination of individuals having no prerogative beyond those of the individuals themselves." (Liberty VI, October 17, 1888) I'm talking about the most popular form of individualist anarchism here --the American tradition. But, Stirner also says that society is a "spook" and that "the individuals are its reality" (The Ego and Its Own) Also, he believe is private property but is much more radical than the Americans --he says something can become property just by taking it ("mixing of labor" doesn't even enter the picture) --there are no moral restraints: "Whoever knows how to take, to defend, the thing, to him belongs property." Individualists also embrace competition, while collectivists talk more about cooperation. RJII 23:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Note again that these are broad generalizations. By individualist, RJ means American individualist anarchism. Some collectivists argue rather than the land being owned by everyone, it is owned by no one (many green anarchists would not consider humans having any more right to the land than animals, plants, or even rocks). There are also a number of anarchists who fall between individualism and collectivism (I lean in this direction), which although less prevalent, is an attitude strongly represented in postanarchism. Sarge Baldy 23:58, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

There are certainly borderline cases, but it does not follow that the line (the distinction) is meaningless. In some important ways, mutualism is on the line between socialism and capitalism. See the Comparison of Property Systems chart above. Hogeye 17:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

That chart means nothing insofar as writing this article is concerned. It doesn't appear to come from any reliable source, and, as far as I can tell, it was made by a Wikipedian. So, it doesn't really help the discussion.

Disputes

1. I think that the intro (and/or definition) should include a reference to the fact that most anarchists consider opposition to capitalism (and in fact all authority in general) to be an integral part of anarchist philosophy(ies). The Ungovernable Force 04:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
2. I think that Anarcho-Capitalism should not have its own subsection, but could be mentioned in the Individualist Anarchism section. The Ungovernable Force 04:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
3. No claim about the percentages of self-described anarchists (in the philosophical sense) should be presented unless hard numbers can be given to back them up. MrVoluntarist 05:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
4. Anarchism is rarely defined in terms of opposition to capitalism. See Definitions of anarchism on Wikiquote. RJII 05:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
5. I think the intro should make it clear that any philosophy which holds the state to be an unnecessary evil is a form of anarchism, regardless of economic preference. Anarcho-capitalism should definitely have a section, equal in scope to e.g. anarcho-syndicalism. Hogeye 06:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
6. Not only should anarcho-capitalism have a section, it should include a picture of a noted anarcho-capitalist or the anarcho-capitalist flag (unless you want to remove the picture of everyone else out). RJII 06:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
7. Anarcho-Capitalism is very little more than an obscure philosophy with little influence on any significant mass movements or ideas, unlike anti-capitalist anarchism which has held a visible position as a political movement The Ungovernable Force 06:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
8. Get rid of the italicized POV note in the beginning. --AaronS 18:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
9. here are clear differences between the grandiose claims made about anarchism as an abstract concept and the reality of anarchism as a social movement. I.e. if anarchism is about teh rejection of all forms of authority and oppression, then clearly such racists and msygonists as Proudhon and Bakunin have to be removed. However like other social political and religious movements, anarchism suffers from similar defects as all the others - so perhaps a more balanced NPOV way of writing that touches on Proudhon's sexism - which was relevant at the time rather than the constant removal of any references to this - which ends up with the same school of historical falsification that the bolsheviks have used to hide such phenomena as Kronstadt. Harrypotter 22:46, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

That's judging Proudhon's character and personality, not his writings. Wikipedia does not do that. --AaronS 01:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually it is in his writings. For example, in Cesarisme et Christianisme Proudhon states: "The Jew is by temperament an anti-producer, neither a farmer nor an industrial nor even a true merchant. He is an intermediary, always fraudulent and parasitic, who operates, in trade as in philosophy, by means of falsification, counterfeiting, horse-dealing. He knows but the rise and fall of prices, the risk of transport, the incertitude of crops, the hazard of demand and supply. His policy in economics has always been entirely negative, entirely usurious; it is the evil principle, Satan, Ahriman, incarnated in the race of Sem." RJII 02:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, as an aside, I haven't seen Proudhon call for the abolition of government. I've only seen him call for its minimization: "By the word [anarchy] I wanted to indicate the extreme limit of political progress. Anarchy is... a form of government or constitution in which public and private consciousness, formed through the development of science and law, is alone sufficient to maintain order and guarantee all liberties... The institutions of the police, preventative and repressive methods officialdom, taxation etc., are reduced to a minimum." RJII 02:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Correct. Anarchism began as an attack on capitalism, and not as a philosophy advocating the abolition of government. This (important) direction was added soon afterwards by other anarchists. Sarge Baldy 04:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

So if we're following Hogeye's definition approach - 'anarchism is any philosophy which advocates abolition of the state' - then we'd better remove Proudhon altogether?Bengalski 13:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

But Proudhon does advocate the abolition of the state; that is his end, his ultimate goal, "the extreme limit of political progress." What you correctly observe is that he didn't think it would or could happen immediately or instantaneously. - Hogeye

Shall we stick in Marx and Engels then for when the state 'withers away'?Bengalski 21:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

No; Marx and Engels saw the state as a legitimate means, so were not (fundamentally, "in principle", pure) anti-statist. In the usual interpretation, Marx favored a "dictatorship of the proletariat" as a transition plan. - Hogeye

What's the distinction exactly? Proudhon also had transition plans with states - including asking the French government to set up an interest-free bank.Bengalski 21:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

There is a distinction between wanting to rule a state that promotes your program (Marx) and partipating in politics to reduce the damage a state might cause. Furthermore, for Marx the dictatorship of the proles was a programmatic objective; for Proudhon electoral politics was a abberation and (after trying it he admitted) a grave mistake. Hogeye 22:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

What does that quote have to do with capitalism? RJII 04:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Nothing. Proudhon defined anarchy as "the absence of a master, of a sovereign", meaning both capitalist bosses and government (particularly the monarchy). However, he saw this as a direction to move towards rather than some ends capable of reaching (he was no utopian). Anarchism (at least how he used it) was an attack on capitalism and government, which he saw as systems inherently harming the autonomy of the individual. In The Federal Principle (p.9) he describes "anarchy (or self-government)" as the "government of each by each". However, he did not consider such an idea fully feasible, even as he saw it as ideal. His criticism of capitalism seemed to have been more optimistic, and (as far as I'm aware) he considered mutualism as a workable alternative. Which isn't to say he was necessarily more critical of capitalism than of government, but he did have less new to offer in his critique of the latter. Sarge Baldy 05:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

LOL. He's not referring to an employer when he says a "sovereign." Who in their right mind would call an employer a sovereign? RJII 15:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Where the hell did I say that? I was referring to the term "master". Sarge Baldy 17:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

"Master" would seem to refer to the master/slave relationship; not the voluntary exchange of labor for money. The leap from "master" to "employer" is patently absurd, unless you assume some exploitation theory. - Hogeye

You're going to have to find some secondary source that says he's talking about an employer when he says "master." I don't see that at all in that quote. RJII 20:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

It is unspecific in general. Master could easily refer to an employer as far as I'm concerned. The Ungovernable Force 04:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

The point of my original comment was to state that it is not our job to interpret Proudhon and decide whether or not he was an anarchist. I argue that 100% of reputable sources will say that Proudhon is an anarchist. That's all that matters. It's also not our job to define anarchism. Anarchism is already defined for us: it is both a rejection of the State and a rejection of all authority, control, and dominion. The lead into the article does not simply have to be a definition; it has to briefly explain historical and contemporary views, as well. Historically, anarchism has opposed capitalism for many reasons, but here are two important ones: (1) due to socialist critiques of capitalist exploitation, and (2) due to purely anarchist (read: anti-authoritarian) critiques of capitalist dominion. Since the 1950s, a group of economists have been claiming that their political theory, anarcho-capitalism, is a form of anarchism; this claim, however, is and has been disputed by most non-anarcho-capitalists. This must be discussed, as well.

The content of the article must be sourced, and the sources must be reputable. Due to the volatile nature of this dispute, I think that it is best that we prefer secondary sources to primary sources -- the reason being that interpretation of primary sources can be easily disputed, whereas with secondary sources, we're just repeating what neutral and well-respected scholars have published on the subject. This is more in line with Wikipedia policy, and would make a better encyclopaedia article. I'm going to start a temporary proposal, soon. I'll post a wikilink to it when I begin.

Well you're wrong when you say anarchism has historically opposed capitalism. There have been capitalist anarchists for hundreds of years. And, I refuse to follow your suggestion of only noting secondary sources. Primary sources are the most informative. Secondary sources are just as easily misinterpreted. Obviously you just want to censor all information that doesn't accord with your POV. RJII 15:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I do not appreciate your implication of dishonesty, and encourage you to assume good faith. There are also inaccuracies in your response to my suggestion: I never said that we should only note secondary sources, I said that we should prefer secondary sources, and I gave good reasons. What are your reasons for disagreeing? All I am doing is following Wikipedia policy. Do you have a particular reason for suggesting that we stray from it? --AaronS 22:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Based on the policies you posted Aaron, I think this is a good proposal. And RJII, of course anarchism has opposed capitalism historically. Show me a secondary source from a non-anarcho-capitalist (or someone similiar) that says capitalist anarchists were around anytime before the twentieth century. The Ungovernable Force 04:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

So if anyone is a capitalist you're going to dimiss them? Do you realize how absurd that is? Is it even possible to find a historian that has absolutely no personal political views? The proper standard for a source is not the person's personal philosophy but his credentials --if someone has a Phd in history or political science, for example, then what he says is a legitimate source regardless of whether he's a socialist or capitalist. RJII 15:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that you've misunderstood what has been discussed, RJII. TUF calls for "a secondary source from a non-anarcho-capitalist (or someone similiar)." Nobody said anything about dismissing anybody who is a capitalist. Most scholars and historians are capitalists, after all. So, you are essentially calling a straw man "absurd." I should also note that Wikipedia policy says nothing about someone's credentials. What matters most is publication and reputation. --AaronS 20:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC) Note:"Do they have an agenda or conflict of interest, strong views, or other bias which may color their report? Remember that conflicts of interest are not always explicitly exposed and bias is not always self-evident" from Wikipedia:Reliable sources -max rspct leave a message 16:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Sources

Ok, here I am looking for: 1. Sources that state most anarchists consider opposition to capitalism (and in fact all authority in general) to be an integral part of anarchist philosophy, 2. Sources that state any philosophy which holds the state to be an unnecessary evil is a form of anarchism, regardless of economic preference, 3. Sources that state Anarcho-Capitalism is very little more than an obscure philosophy with little influence on any significant mass movements or ideas, unlike anti-capitalist anarchism which has held a visible position as a political movement

Please attempt to find sources from reasonably impartial sources. Encyclopaedias, dictionaries of political philosophy, textbooks etc. Feel free to provide sources of varying ages. A range would be good. - FrancisTyers 15:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

1) Sources saying anarchism is opposed to capitalism

Encyclopedias (freely available on the net)

• 1910 EB: (note: article written by anarchist P. Kropotkin) [3]

"As to their economical conceptions, the anarchists, in common with all socialists, of whom they constitute the left wing, maintain that the now prevailing system of private ownership in land, and our capitalist production for the sake of profits, represent a monopoly which runs against both the principles of justice and the dictates of utility"

Comment: This fails to qualify as saying anarchism is opposed to capitalism. The quote above does not address the definition of anarchism at all; it reports what some (unspecified) anarchists think. Hogeye 22:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

• The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001-05.

[4]

“Since the Industrial Revolution, anarchists have also opposed the concentration of economic power in business corporations.”

Comment: This fails to qualify as saying anarchism is opposed to capitalism. The quote above does not address the definition of anarchism at all; it reports what some (unspecified) anarchists think. Hogeye 22:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

• MS Encarta US Edition (note: I wonder who wrote this, it reads like a text from first half of 20th century)

[5]

“Since that time socialism and anarchism have diverged sharply, although both are basically anticapitalist.”

• New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia (note: article very hostile to anarchism)

[6]

“It aims at a society in which all the members are federated in free groups or corporations according to the professions, arts, trades, business, etc., which happen to suit the fancy of each, so that not only will all be co-proprietors of everything — land, mines, machines, instruments of labour, means of production, exchange, etc. — but every one will thus be able to follow his own individual bent.”

• Dictionary of the History of Ideas: [7]

Like anarchism, liberalism stemmed from the concern for freedom, and the wish to keep the activities of the state and the functions of government to a minimum. Anarchism, however, holds that liberal postulates are realizable only on the basis of the abolition of economic monopoly and the coercive institutions of political power because, while equality is quite possible without liberty, there can be no liberty without social and economic equality; “liberty without socialism is privilege, injustice; and socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality” (Bakunin).

Comment: As we saw in Wikiquote, Bakunin was one of a small minority of theorists who defined anarchism as socialist. Most other theorists - even the socialist ones - did not define anarchism so narrowly. Hogeye 22:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Right ...anarchism arose out of the taking liberalism (individualism in person and property) to the extreme. Anarchism was initially radical liberalism. Then, Marxist and collectivist influences came in and anarcho-communism and syndicalism became popular. But, liberal anarchism never went away. It continued on outside of mainstream anarchism, and continues today (both with labor/value individualist anarchism and anarcho-capitalism). And, anarcho-capitalism is the most popular form of liberal anarchism today. RJII 19:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

No one is denying the influence of liberalism on anarchism - and indeed on socialism in general. Liberalism as a political movement came first, and was a direct influence on all socialisms. That anarchism's particular emphasis on freedom came from, and as an extension of, liberalism you'll find is agreed by communist anarchists too - off the top of my head I'd point you to Rocker's 'Anarchism and Anarcho-syndicalism' which is big on this. What is highly questionable is your theory that there was something separate called 'liberal anarchism' which lives on in ancapism.Bengalski 20:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Call it whatever you want. "Liberal anarchism" isn't a term --it's just a shorter way of saying "Anarchism based on the liberal principles of individual autonomy and private property." This includes that labor-value individualists and the subjective-value individualists (voluntaryists/anarcho-capitalists). RJII 20:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedias (subscription only)

• Anarchism: "cluster of doctrines and attitudes centred on the belief that government is both harmful and unnecessary." -Encyclopedia Britannica

Anyone have access to any?

Reputable historians and commentators (not anarchists)

• Bertrand Russell in “Proposed Roads to Freedom”. [[8]]

“SOCIALISM, like everything else that is vital, is rather a tendency than a strictly definable body of doctrine. … What all forms have in common is democracy and the abolition, virtual or complete, of the present capitalistic system. The distinction between Socialists, Anarchists and Syndicalists turns largely upon the kind of democracy which they desire.”

Reputable theorists who everyone recognises to be anarchists

Libraries

• The US Library of Congress, and all academic universities following it's coding scheme. HX represents "Socialism; Communism; Anarchism" [9]. Anarcho-capitalist theory is not categorized here.
• UC Berkeley's Digital Library: "Anarchism is the political philosophy of those who believe that a society based on shared ownership and voluntary agreements among individuals and groups is possible and that without each person's consent and involvement in the social order all established forms of government essentially rest upon the threat of force." (my emphasis)

2) Sources saying anarchism is anti-statism regardless of economic position

Onelook

Wikisource definitions: [10]

Suggestion: I think we should put all relevant definitions and citations directly on this page. Then we have all the evidence gathered here, and can discuss particular sources individually. I have moved general discussion below.Bengalski 10:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

3) Sources saying anarcho-capitalism is not notable in anarchism

The burden of proof should be on notability. I can't list any sources that say that my pet dog isn't notable... that doesn't mean he his. Just my thoughts on it though. --FluteyFlakes88 03:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

One way you could test for notability is by putting the anarcho-capitalism article up for a deletion vote on the basis that it's not notable. RJII 03:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

It's a notable philosophy (therefore it should not be deleted), but it is not a notable anarchist philosophy/part of the anarchist movement. The Ungovernable Force 04:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

A better way would be to have someone who believes that anarcho-capitalism is notable find a reliable source indicating as much. --AaronS 04:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Discussion of general issues around sources

Impartiality

I think 'impartiality' here needs discussion. Particularly on point three - I don't think anyone is interested in anarcho-capitalism except ancaps, perhaps their right-libertarian allies, and anarchists fuming against them.

And on the other points, most of the recognised histories and texts on anarchism I know of are written by anarchists. I think we need to include here as impartial to our dispute any anarchist thinkers and historians who are recognised as anarchists by all parties.Bengalski 18:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

changing terminology

One thing you have to keep in mind is that anarcho-capitalists also oppose capitalism, depending on how one defines capitalism. Saying anarchists have historically opposed capitalism doesn't say much when, for example, it's defined as the old-school labor/value individalists defined it --government-backed privilege and monopoly status for capital. RJII 18:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

These claims that terminology has changed over time, so invalidating historical sources, need to be backed up with some evidence.Bengalski 10:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

The 1909 Century Dictionary: capitalism:

1) The state of having capital or property; possession of capital. 2) The concentration or massing of capital in the hands of a few; also, the power or influence of large or combined capital.

Contemporary Merriam-Webster Third International Unabridged Dictionary: capitalism:

"an economic system characterized by private or corporation ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision rather than by state control, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly in a free market."

You won't find capitalism being defined as an economic system in old dictionaries. It's only later in the 20th century when it began to mean what was previously called laissez-faire. The problem is you still have people clinging to obsolete definitions and it screws up communication. RJII 15:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

value of 'definitions'

I think we have to very careful here how we use dictionary definitions. 1)I am not saying they are not relevant at all, but it is a big leap from 'we should consider how dictionaries define the term anarchism' to 'we can deduce everything about what is essential to anarchism, or who is an anarchist, from dictionary definitions'. 2)We have to remember context - if a point about anarchism has rarely, and only recently, been disputed then it is not surprising it isn't explicitly dealt with in a brief definition.Bengalski 19:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

systematic bias

Wikipedia, and the net in general, suffers from a systematic bias (concentration of rich white anglophone geek editors) [[11]]. This is by no means unrelated to the unnaturally high presence of anarcho-capitalists. The article needs to reflect what anarchism means in the world as a whole, not just the english language internet. In particular, we have to make an effort to bring in sources from other languages, countries and continents.Bengalski 10:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

wikiquote page

Wikisource definitions: Very few define anarchism in regard to any given economic system. Various anarchists have various ideas for economic systems in anarchy and opposition to various systems, but few define anarchism itself in regard to an economic system. RJII 19:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I think we have to very careful here how we use dictionary definitions. 1)I am not saying they are not relevant at all, but it is a big leap from 'we should consider how dictionaries define the term anarchism' to 'we can deduce everything about what is essential to anarchism, or who is an anarchist, from dictionary definitions'. 2)We have to remember context - if a point about anarchism has rarely, and only recently, been disputed then it is not surprising it isn't explicitly dealt with in a brief definition.Bengalski 19:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

That's not just dictionary definitions. The Wikisource defintions include definitions from anarchists themselves. Few define anarchism itself in terms of an economic system. RJII 19:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikisource has no anarchism article. Do you mean Wikiquote? That definitions of anarchism article seems to be dominated by you and Hogeye. You do not count as a reputable source, good as your theories and interpretations may be, unless you are a well-respected published author and are using your own well-respected and published work as a source. --AaronS 22:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

What the hell are you talking about? Those are directly quoted definitions of anarchism. And, no I have had no part in "dominating" that article. You are really going off the deep end. RJII 02:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, looking at the history there is a good deal of reverts of anti-capitalist definitions and quotes. I didn't pay attention to who was involved, so I am not accusing anyone of "dominating", nor am I even saying that the people taking the anti-cap defs out were wrong (I wasn't paying much attention), but there has obviously been a debate there about this as well. The Ungovernable Force 04:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from ad hominem attacks. It does nothing to help the discussion. A brief glance at the page history shows that 60% of the edits came from you and Hogeye on the first page, 52% on the second, and you as the creator of the article. There was a revert war between Hogeye and another user. Hogeye removed all definitions that went beyond mere anti-statism (one example is here) and any mention of economics (like here, for another example). When I first encountered the article, without even reading this history, the one-sidedness compelled me to make many additions and changes. As it turns out, those changes are the same ones that past users have attempted to make (here is an example of Hogeye attempting to remove a definition which defines anarchism in relation to socialism). You alone do not get to decide when an author is defining anarchism and when an author isn't. You alone do not get to decide that one half of a definition is superior to another in the very same definition. And this Tucker quote, which was erased by user 66.32.94.155, should sum up my sentiments regarding this discussion rather well: "The makers of dictionaries are dependent upon specialists for their definitions. A specialist's definition may be true or it may be erroneous. But its truth cannot be increased or its error diminished by its acceptance by the lexicographer. Each definition must stand on its own merits." [Instead of a Book, p. 369] Tucker wrote in the context of those seeking to deny anarchism its place within socialism, on the grounds that many dictionary definitions of socialism define it in reference to state ownerhsip - a definition that anarchists, including Tucker, have contested: "the Anarchistic Socialists are not to be stripped of one half of their title by the mere dictum of the last lexicographer." [p. 365]--AaronS 02:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Then you refrain from ad hominem attacks. I'm not "dominating" that article. And that quote from Tucker should definitely be deleted. It's not a definition of anarchism. RJII 02:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't really see that as an ad hominem attack, since I only observed that you and Hogeye made the majority of edits in that article, and that Hogeye engaged in a revert war, and that you created the article. If you take offense to my word usage, then I do apologize for being insensitive. The quote from Tucker is not a definition: you are correct. It is Benjamin Tucker writing on the subject of definitions of anarchism. Considering that the article is about definitions of anarchism, and it is a collection of quotes, I think that it is entirely appropriate. But this is not the place for that discussion, and I would rather not speak further of it, except to say that Wikiquote is not a reputable source for this article. --AaronS 03:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean "Wikiquote is not a reputable source"? What are you saying? Wikiquote is not the source. The definitions ON Wikiquote are the sources. And, they're reputable. Those are direct-quoted explicit definitions of anarchism from anarchists, as well as from mainstream reference sources. RJII 03:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Correction: those are the definitions that you allowed to be included. I'm still waiting on good secondary sources from you. You haven't addressed my concerns about no original research, yet. I would greatly appreciate it if you did. --AaronS 03:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC) Addendum: for reference, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources --AaronS 03:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't give me that crap. It's not a matter of me "allowing" anything. I've had with you. I'm now covinced that you're not operating in good faith and will dismiss any source that disagrees with your POV. RJII 03:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

You haven't addressed his concerns though, and they are legitemite. You need to present more than a few quotes by anarchists, because any of us can find a million contradictory quotes from anarchists (and "anarcho"-capitalists) proving our points, but when it comes down to it, there need to be less biased sources to define what is and is not anarchism (considering this huge level of controversy). And you seem to be the one operating in bad faith, far more than aaron anyways, who has not made any attacks on you (other than the word "dominating", which he apologized for). You are now attacking him and questioning his good faith. I think he has done a good job of remaining polite. He is not just dismissing any sources, he is dismissing first person sources, which makes some sense. Even some of the things I've posted wouldn't really be reputable and I knew it, but I needed to balance out your first-person quotes with some others. Now that the first-person/second-person argument has become important, I think we should stop using anarchist philosophers' own ideas of what anarchism is (or at least decrease the level significantly) and focus on academic description of the philosophy and movement (and more than a few sentence dictionary defintion of course, which does not show much at all). And last point, the sources in wikiquote obviously represent one side of the debate, and is quite POV itself. If this page ever gets cleaned up, I think we should then focus on npov'ing the quote page by balancing out the conflicting definitions. The Ungovernable Force 04:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

RJII, I am trying my best not to respond to your ad hominem attacks in like manner, and ask you, again, to please refrain from them. Instead of accusing me of proffering "crap" and acting in bad faith, please answer my call for sources. I don't know how my call for reliable sources could be seen as an act of bad faith. Certainly it is not bad faith to ask someone to substantiate their claims. As a Wikipedia editor, I'm mere adhering to the guidelines in Wikipedia:Reliable sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability and the no original research policy. Instead of accusing me of being duplicitous and of having sinister motives, I think that you should come up with some reliable sources that agree with you. An article such as this that is surrounded by such great controversy requires a solid foundation of excellent secondary sources: books published by well-respected university presses, articles in well-respected and unbiased journals, neutral historians (no historian is neutral, but some are indifferent to anarchism), etc. If your claims are verifiable, then I am sure that you will not have much difficulty, and we can work more on this article instead of discussing each other's personalities. --AaronS 05:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

The Ungovernable Force, thanks for your comments. None of us are angels, and we all make mistakes. The point is both to apologize and to forgive and forget. If I have acted in bad faith in the past, I apologize for it. I am trying my best not to do so now. I appreciate it when people criticize my actions, but only if it is in a constructive manner. Now, regarding your comments on sources: it's not that primary sources are bad or unreliable, etc. -- not at all! :) I don't think that I ever suggested such a thing. Primary sources are great for verifiable facts, and can indeed be useful in political articles. People's beliefs, however, are not verifiable facts -- especially the beliefs of dead people, since they can't respond. We need to stick to reliable secondary sources because, (1) I wouldn't want anybody to just assume that my interpretation of Proudhon or Tucker is all well and good and (2) reliable secondary sources have been recognized as being reliable by the academic community -- the stuff of encyclopaediae! :) --AaronS 05:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I think what you just said about sources is what I was trying to say, you just said it better than I could. I know they're not unreliable, but anyone can say anything, and they won't necessarily fit in with academic standards of what is and is not a particular philosophy (let's take anarchism for instance). And yes, you're right, they can't talk back, which makes it even more important that we use more than just first person quotes. And you're right, no one is perfect, not you, not not RJII, not Hogeye, not me. Not even Emma Goldman (well, maybe Emma). I do think RJII went too far though with his last post, and I hope he can apologize like you have. The Ungovernable Force 05:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Bull. Primary sources are more reliable than secondary sources. RJII 15:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

First, again, please, follow the guidelines of wikiquette. It's not very civil to refer to other people's opinions as "bull," especially when they've only treated you with civility and respect. It increases tension and works against dispute resolution. That's the last thing we want.

Second, I ask you to look at the various Wikipedia policies and guidelines that I've listed: WP:NOR, Wikipedia:Reliable sources, etc. They contradict what you assert. --AaronS 21:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Some possible policy

Please refrain from commenting below for the meanwhile. - FrancisTyers 15:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

We should give appropriate weight, according to WP:NPOV, to each subset of the anarchist movement. We should also not shy away from explaining where it came from.

Some possible compromises

Feel free to suggest possible compromises below. Please keep discussion out of this section. - FrancisTyers 15:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

1. Have anarcho-capitalism in the infobox, under "schools" but under a subheading disputed.
2. Better: in the infobox under "schools," every school should have a disputed label. Every school has been disavowed by some anarchist theorist at some time or another. E.g. "True anarchism will be capitalism, and true capitalism will be anarchism." - Murray Rothbard
3. Rephrase the lead as follows: Anarchism refers to various political philosophies and related social movements that advocate the elimination of authoritarian institutions and relationships, particularly the state, and in the majority of historical anarchist movements and thinkers, capitalism.
4. Even better, rephrase the italicized note to read: Note: Some people mistakenly believe the term "anarchism" refers only to anti-capitalist movements; however, most dictionaries define anarchism to mean fundamental opposition to the State regardless of economic system.[12] The majority of self-labeled anarchists, however, are anti-capitalist.
5. Have a disambiguation note at the beginning of the article pointing out that this article refers to anarchism as a historical and political movement and not the dictionary definition. Then point the user at Wiktionary or something for a list of definitions. After all, Wikipedia is not a dictionary ;)
6. Better yet, use the Neutral Disambiguation Page.

General suggestions and comments

Feel free to add suggestions and comments about the article in its current form. Please keep discussion to the discussion area. I've numbered the list to it makes it easy to refer to. - FrancisTyers 15:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

1. This needs to be changed, you're putting words into his mouth. Who said that Herbert advocated anarcho-capitalism? Auberon Herbert advocated anarcho-capitalism in the 19th century, calling it "voluntaryism."
2. For so much dispute about anarcho-capitalism, I don't see much criticism in that section. Many anarchists, social and individualist, deny that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism, arguing that authoritarian institutions are integral to and are inevitable in any capitalist system thus negating its claims of aspiration to statelessness. This needs to be cited, "many anarchists" smells of weasel words. You could quote Noam Chomsky perhaps (I just did a quick google search: The idea of "free contract" between the potentate and his starving subject is a sick joke, perhaps worth some moments in an academic seminar exploring the consequences of (in my view, absurd) ideas, but nowhere else. [13]).
3. In the modern day anarchist movement, many anarchists, male or female, consider themselves feminists, and anarcha-feminist ideas are growing. Needs to be cited.
4. Luigi Fabbri <-- this guys quote needs to be cited
5. Surprised there isn't more on Nestor Makhno
6. "Liberal anarchism" smells like a neologism [14]
7. I'm surprised that there isn't a section on Mutualism or more on the ideas of Proudhon, especially considering credit unions.
8. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, the note should be removed from the lead, possibly made into a footnote. This would be relevant only if the author of the note could prove that most anarchists define their ideas using a dictionary. The lead should make crystal clear, if it can be proven that the majority of published anarchist thinkers define anarchism as being more than a mere dictionary definition.
9. Anarcho-capitalism should definately be included as it has influenced the contemporary anarchist movement, I mean, we're sitting here having this dispute aren't we ;) It should be given an appropriate amount of space for its historical impact on the anarchist movement.
10. I don't see any problem with a photograph, who did you have in mind? Rothbard?
11. In the introduction, which reads, "Anarchism refers to various political philosophies and related social movements that advocate the elimination of authoritarian institutions and relationships, particularly the state," the words "and related social movements" should be deleted since "anarchism" refers to a philosophy, political theory, or belief, not a movement.
12. One possible statement you could make in the intro is: "Though anarchism includes individualist forms, most associate the term with collectivist forms such as anarcho-communism and anarcho-syndicalism." RJII 17:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
13. This discussion shouldn't be about whether or not anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism. It should be about whether or not anarcho-capitalism deserves the prominent role in the article that it has received in the past, and whether or not popular and historical understandings, definitions, and interpretations of anarchism need to be watered down in order to accommodate anarcho-capitalism as a "school" of anarchist thought. --AaronS 04:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
14. I also think national anarchism should be included as a school of anarchist thought. I created the black anarchism article and noted that school of the thought in this article awhile back, and fortunately it stayed after much resistance. Nobody who calls themselves anarchists should be forcibly ostracized. It's the anarchist thing to do isn't it? RJII 17:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

No, these people are not anarchists they are fascists. As I think you well know.Bengalski 20:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

You can't have fascism without a state. Fascism is the sacrifice of the individual for the state. It's collectivism enforced. "a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition" -Merriam-Webster "For if the nineteenth century was a century of individualism it may be expected that this [the 20th century] will be the century of collectivism and hence the century of the State." -Mussolini ""If classical liberalism spells individualism, Fascism spells government." -Mussolini RJII 20:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

That's only based on your broad definition of anarchism. Since you claim that anarchism is mere anti-statism, then all different "schools" of anarchist thought are possible -- anarcho-rapism, anarcho-racism, anarcho-slavism, etc. -- that no respectable scholar would ever actually call anarchist. This is the reason why I have been asking for sources. If you can find me a reliable source that says that national anarchism is a school of anarchist thought, then, by all means, we should definitely include it. I'm still waiting on anarcho-capitalism, though. --AaronS 20:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I already gave you one for anarcho-capitalism --Carl Levy. RJII 20:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Claims needing sources

RJII, according to the encyclopaedia article you are citing, which is apparently written by Carl Levy, the schools of anarchist thought are: (A) Mutalism, (B) Anarcho-Communism, and (C) Anarcho-Individualism. Levy only states that anarcho-capitalism exists as a "reborn" modification of the less-radical individualism found in the United States. It is also unclear as to whether or not he equates anarcho-capitalism with libertarianism: this tradition has been reborn and modified in the United States as anarcho-capitalism or libertarianism. [15] This shows that anarcho-capitalism exists in the United States and was has roots in American individualism; it does not substantiate the various claims made in the article

• that anarcho-capitalism currently exists as 1 of 3 schools of anarchism, opposed to syndicalism and communism, as suggested in Hogeye's "Chart of influences";
• that anarcho-capitalism is a school of anarchist thought, as suggested by Hogeye's edits in the anarchism template;
• that individualist anarchism is also known as "liberal anarchism", as suggested by the heading of the subsection, or that they are in any way equivalent;
• that anarcho-capitalism is the most salient and prevalent example of anarchism today, as is suggested by its highly conspicuous placement under the contemporary anarchism section as the first example of contemporary anarchism;
• that anarcho-capitalism warrants more space and attention than all other examples of contemporary anarchism;
  • No personal offense meant here, but this seems a little childish to me. What does it matter whose section is bigger? Whatever it takes to explain something is how many words it should take. For example, I could write a more effective single pargraph than what may take an entire page for someone else to state. Bigger is not necessarily better. I couldn't care less whose section is bigger. RJII 21:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't know how you hope to not insult anybody by calling them childish, but I appreciate the effort. I only care, because it is listed as being important in WP:NPOV, which calls it an "important qualification." Read:
      • "We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by only a small minority of people deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views."
      • "To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. If we are to represent the dispute fairly, we should present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties."--AaronS 21:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
• that anarcho-capitalism existed as early as the 18th and 19th century (the Levy article actually contradicts this);
• that the voluntaryism advocated by Auberon Herbert in the 19th century was actually anarcho-capitalism;
• etc. --AaronS 20:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course he's equating anarcho-capitalism with libertarianism. Anarcho-capitalism is pure libertarianism. And, he saying that anarcho-capitalism is a form of individualist anarchism --what I've always been saying. RJII 20:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

If anarchism is the same thing as anti-statism, then it should be possible to merge the two articles together. However, if you attempted that I'm sure you'd find consensus suggests otherwise. Sarge Baldy 20:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Anarchism, as far as I understand it from various sources, is the opposition to aggression (or coercion) in favor of voluntary relations. Opposition to the State is merely a side effect of that more foundational position. RJII 20:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

RJII, could you please provide sources for the above assertions? --AaronS 21:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

According to the same dictionaries that you cite to claim that anarchism is nothing more than anti-statism, anarchism is not opposition to aggression, but authority and control. --AaronS 21:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Summary of Disputes

Out of the nine raw disputes, some are either non-controversial, minor, or redundant. There are, as I see it, only three significant disputes:

1. How to define anarchism; I.e. using either A) the Etymological/dictionary definition or B) whatever's been considered anarchism in the past (major movements).
2. Whether the definition should be clarified at the beginning of the article for new readers. (The notorious italicized section.)
3. The saliency/desirability of the anarcho-capitalist school. Opinions range from barely a mention, and then only with a 'disputed' note to it should have basically the same salience as anarcho-syndicalism.

Hogeye 04:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the key issue is the third of these. I don't see the 'definition' issue as nearly so crucial. Hogeye focuses on this because he is relying on an argument of the form:

we have a fixed definition of anarchism as 'anti-statist philosophy'; anarcho-capitalism is an anti-statist philosophy; therefore anarcho-capitalism is anarchism (and so should be included in the article).

This is a bogus argument in my view. On a number of grounds: anarchism is much more than just a 'philosophy'; even if it were just a philosophical school, categorising philosophical schools deductively from a brief definition is not generally legitimate in philosophy or history of ideas - this isn't a maths problem; even if it were the right thing to do, we shouldn't be starting from etymology (which is often irrelevant) or from dictionary definitions (dictionaries and encyclopedias are two different things.

There is another related issue: as well as including ancapism in the article, we have the problem of the ancap editors' programme of revisionism of the ideas of earlier thinkers (particularly Proudhon, Stirner and the American individulists) in an attempt to write a pedigree for ancapism.Bengalski 18:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

That's a good formulation of my argument: All anti-statist philosophies are anarchism (by definition.) Anarcho-capitalism is an anti-statist philosophy. Therefore anarcho-capitalism is anarchism.

The criticisms don't see to hold up. Yes, "anarchism is more than a philosophy" since there are anti-statist movements and anti-statist events, but of course this does not relate to, let alone refute, premise one. The claim that "categorising philosophical schools deductively from a brief definition is not generally legitimate in philosophy" is simply wrong. Ever hear of Aristotle, the great categorizer? We categorize e.g. theories of knowledge into subjective, objective, and intrinsic schools; we categorize theories of justice into end-state and entitlement theories; and so on. The claim that we shouldn't start with a good definition of our topic is unencyclopedic. Whatever has traditionally been considered anarchism just doesn't hack it as a definition. - Hogeye

I'm not arguing against deductive methods in philosophy per se, but their use in this particular context - categorising members of a 'philosophical school' which cannot be explicitly defined by adherence to any particular central text or tenet. (NB: This is for purpose of argument - as you know I don't think anarchism is in fact a philosophical school.)

In terms of how to write encyclopedia philosophy I think we could learn a thing or two from the online Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy [[16]]. Eg. here's the beginning of the article on existentialism:

"Like "rationalism" and "empiricism," "existentialism" is a term that belongs to intellectual history. Its definition is thus to some extent one of historical convenience. The term was explicitly adopted as a self-description by Jean-Paul Sartre, and through the wide dissemination of the postwar literary and philosophical output of Sartre and his associates — notably Simone de Beauvoir, Maurice Merleau-Ponty, and Albert Camus — existentialism became identified with a cultural movement that flourished in Europe in the 1940s and 1950s. Among the major philosophers identified as existentialists (many of whom — for instance Camus and Heidegger — repudiated the label) were Karl Jaspers, Martin Heidegger, and Martin Buber in Germany, Jean Wahl and Gabriel Marcel in France, the Spaniards José Ortega y Gasset and Miguel de Unamuno, and the Russians Nicholai Berdyaev and Lev Shestov. The nineteenth century philosophers, Soren Kierkegaard and Friedrich Nietzsche, came to be seen as precursors of the movement."

You wouldn’t start an article on existentialism by saying something like: ‘existentialism argues that there is no essence, only existence’, then look at Heidegger and debate whether his philosophy fits with your definition given his own very particular terminology. Or if you did that it would be a piece of original research aiming perhaps to create a new understanding of existentialism, not an encyclopedia article seeking to sum up existing views.

I am not saying we can’t give a brief definition of anarchism – I’m saying that it can’t perform the role of a definition in a mathematical argument. Someone asks you – tell me in a sentence, what is anarchism? Give an answer, by all means. But if they then ask – from that definition, can I conclude that X is an anarchist? You should say – well, actually it’s a bit more complicated than that.Bengalski 21:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Bengalski, it seems to me that the categorization of anarchism is controversial. So, shouldn't we adopt an NPOV on categorization, just as we have a NPOV on the actual topic? It is POV to say that anarcho-capitalism is anarchism, and it is POV to say anarcho-capitalism is not anarchism. To be NPOV, we simply need to present both viewpoints: Notable people have said that anarcho-capitalism is anarchism, and notable people have said it is not. The article simply needs to present those viewpoints, and describe what anarcho-capitalism is. It need not actually take a stand on whether or not anarcho-capitalism is anarchism. In my opinion, it is just as futile to debate on the talk page how we should categorize anarchism as it is to debate which type of anarchism is the true anarchism. -- Blah99 03:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

If you're right, and there is a balance of reliable sources on both sides, then maybe that's the best approach. I think though that the evidence being gathered above will tell against anarcho-capitalism: if only very few notable sources see it as anarchism then it would be POV to present both viewpoints equally. The point I was making here is that a dictionary style definition which doesn't mention capitalism doesn't count as a source in favour of anarcho-capitalism.Bengalski 09:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. The article needs to reflect the "Undue weight" clause of the NPOV policy. It would be highly POV to treat them as "equal", under the circumstances. As the 29 pages of talk archives about A/C suggest, it's place within the field of anarchism is one of some discord, to put things very mildly. Likewise, the A/C definition of anarchism as "anti-statism" is a dated one few academic scholars would agree was ever concise. That we even have an article on anti-statism is a testament to their difference. Certainly no one here objects to A/C's presence in that article; that is because we see the term anarchism as having a fundamentally different meaning. Sarge Baldy 15:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Let me just point out that anarch-capitalism isn't merely opposition to the State, but opposition to coercion (unless used in defense). The opposition to aggression is the foundation that opposition to the State is based upon. RJII 15:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't see anyone claiming the labor/value individualists were capitalists. I certainly don't claim such a thing. They were mutualists --a system where private property in the produce of labor can be traded without profit using private money. RJII 19:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

And I'd never accuse you of such a thing.Bengalski 20:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

So you're talking about "pedigree" then. Well, here's political historian Carl Levy from his MS Encarta Encyclopedia article asserting pedigree then: "The American Benjamin Tucker (1854-1939) believed that maximum individual liberty would be assured where the free market was not hindered or controlled by the State and monopolies. The affairs of society would be governed by myriad voluntary societies and cooperatives, by, as he aptly put it, “un-terrified” Jeffersonian democrats, who believed in the least government possible. Since World War II this tradition has been reborn and modified in the United States as anarcho-capitalism or libertarianism." (Now I'm just waiting for someone to do some background research on him and find out that he's a "capitalist" and attempt to dismiss him based on that). RJII 20:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but isn't that article 4 or 5 pages long, and that is the only mention of anarcho-capitalism? Seems like that isn't very notable. The Ungovernable Force 05:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

If it was noted, then it's notable. Just because he mentions it in one sentence doesn't mean Wikipedia can't explain what it is. And, we should explain what it is. RJII 15:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Please try to refrain from belittling those who disagree with you. "Anarcho-capitalism or libertarianism" could mean that anarcho-capitalism is synonymous with American libertarianism. Regardless, TUF's point is a good one. Nobody has ever claimed that anarcho-capitalism should not be explained. Editors have only suggested that it receives undue and disproportionate attention in the article, and that some of the assertions made about it are unsubstantiated. --AaronS 20:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

So, you've given in. RJII 20:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean? We were not arguing about removing it completely. It's clearly worthy of mention, as perhaps the primary conflict in anarchist thought. The notion of anarchism as pure anti-statism could and should have its own section, but I'd like to see the article as a whole focusing on its most common scholarly meaning as an umbrella term representing philosophies in opposition to power and domination, and institutions favoring these variables. Sarge Baldy 20:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalism is also against "power and domination." RJII 21:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure about that? Domination is generally defined as "power over others" (as Gordon Marshall did), and power (which is broader than coercion) includes such variables as influence via wealth, social class, social status, and authority. Sarge Baldy 21:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Sarge Baldy is correct. It only takes a cursory glance at the discussion and history to see that most of us, if not all of us, have not asked that any mention of anarcho-capitalism be removed from the article. Quite to the contrary. --AaronS 21:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Then you've given in. My demand has always been that anarcho-capitalism is explained. And, that a definition of anarchism not be contrived to try to ostracize individualist anarchism. My main interest is labor-value individualism --I have a tangential interest in anarcho-capitalism because it's a form of individualist anarchism. RJII 21:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

If it makes you feel good to believe that I've "given in" and that you've "won," then so be it, especially if it means moving on with this article. Since I have never suggested that anarcho-capitalism should not be discussed, at least not for quite some time, if at all, I'm not sure exactly what I'm giving in to. Now, if you could, please address my call for sources. --AaronS 21:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I've given you all the sources to you need. RJII 21:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Handing over

I'm handing over this mediation to User:NicholasTurnbull who will I hope do a better job of it than I have done. My apologies to everyone, but I just can't keep up. - FrancisTyers 02:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I certainly have learned a lot. --AaronS 06:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Random question

Can we edit the talk archives? Just wondering. The Ungovernable Force 05:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Sure you can. You may not get a reply though. RJII 20:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Several ongoing discussions got cut off with the last archive. UF, I recommend reposting the relevant discussion on the latest talk page when this happens. - Hogeye