Talk:Anarchism/Archive 30

Can you prove that most anarchists oppose capitalism

 * Can you prove that most anarchists oppose capitalism? How can you be sure that most anarchists are not anarcho-capitalists? If you can find a reputable source then, sure, but say that the SOURCE says that most oppose capitalism. And, you would have to provide a definition of capitalism as well since it seems everyone has their own definition. RJII 04:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually no that wouldn't be necessary, if it is, please point me to a Wikipedia policy that states that. If a reliable source says that "most anarchists oppose capitalism" they don't need to provide a definition. That can be cited in the article. If you think that the definition that the source is using is incorrect or vague you might want to make a footnote or something to point this out. - FrancisTyers 04:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not talking about policy. I'm talking about what it would take to have a quality article. But, yes a footnote defining it would be good. RJII 04:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * A source that says "most anarchists are anti-capitalist" but doesn't define capitalist or capitalism shouldn't carry weight. The meaning of the terms is extremely important.  Anarchism arose when "capitalism" meant "concentration of wealth".  Today few use it that way.  When claiming anarchists are mostly anti-capitalist, that source's definition should be spelled out for that claim. MrVoluntarist 06:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that this is contrary to Wikipedia policy. Articles in Wikipedia should refer to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have been published by a reputable or credible publisher. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. (from WP:V). Wikipedia is not the place for writing critiques of sources. - FrancisTyers 06:42, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

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: 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)
 * 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): "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).

This is from Carl Landauer's European Socialism: A History of Ideas and Movements (1959):


 * To be sure, there is a difference between individualistic anarchism and collectivistic or communistic anarchism; Bakunin called himself a communist anarchist. But the communist anarchists also do not acknowledge any right of society to force the individual. They differ from the anarchistic individualists in their belief that men, if freed from coercion, will enter into voluntary associations of a communistic type, while the other wing believes that the free person will prefer a high degree of isolation. The communist anarchists repudiate the right of private property which is maintained through the power of the state. The individualist anarchists are inclined to maintain private property as a necessary condition of individual independence, without fully answering the question of how property could be maintained without courts and police.
 * That guy is not very knowledgeable. Individualists advocate private police and private courts. RJII 21:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Landauer was a socialist. Note that he's distinguishing two schools of anarchism, only one of which is part of the socialist tradition. MrVoluntarist 20:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Well I think Landauer, whoever he is (a Marxist?), is wrong from the first sentence: I can't think of anywhere Bakunin called himself a communist, he was often quite hostile to the term. (Though see[] for a deeper look at Bakunin's attitude to communism.) Anyway these terms - communism, collectivism, individualism - are getting thrown around in all kinds of confusing ways here. For example I note the Carl Levy article RJII keeps citing from Microsoft encyclopaedia which mentions ancapism also claims that 'collectivism' was Bakunin's word for 'mutualism' - whereas RJII identifies mutualism with individualism. But all of this is a bit beside the point: we are discussing capitalism here. All anarchists, individualists or otherwise, that I know of, and including those in the 'American tradition', have opposed profit and capitalism.Bengalski 20:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Did you know that "capitalism" was used differently in the late 19th century than it is today? Really!  MrVoluntarist 21:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Not according to the Oxford English Dictionary:

The condition of possessing capital; the position of a capitalist; a system which favours the existence of capitalists.

1854 THACKERAY Newcomes II. 75 The sense of capitalism sobered and dignified Paul de Florac. 1877 A. DOUAI Better Times (1884) 10 This institution of private capitalism is of a comparatively recent origin. 1884 Pall Mall G. 11 Sept. 6/1 A loophole for capitalism to creep in upon the primitive Christian communism.


 * - FrancisTyers 21:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Did you check out all the definitions on Wikiquote: ? Also, did you check the Capitalism article, which doesn't center around any of those definitions?   MrVoluntarist 21:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * If you disagree with the OED perhaps you'd like to write to them to express your disagreement. It is possible that they are wrong, but they have been fairly accurate in the past. Feel free to propose another source which has such a high standing. Wikipedia is not a definitive source. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. If you have a source that disputes the OED, please state it here. - FrancisTyers 23:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Since I don't have the OED in front of me don't have a link to it, I can't quite respond to the relevance. It looks like they're referring to the first use of it.  And yes, I have sources that disagree with the OED, see the capitalism article I just referenced . MrVoluntarist 00:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I copy/pasted everything they had on capitalism. I'm not interested in reading the Wikipedia article, its likely to be highly POV, please point me at some original sources please. - FrancisTyers 00:26, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I sent you to the capitalism article because it references a different source. Thanks for assuming the worst.  Let me save you the effort of clicking a link. Merriam-Webster Third International Unabridged Dictionary : " 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."  See also Capitalism in Wikiquote [].  And surprise, that article claims the OED says capitalism is "an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state."  which confirms my suspicion that you quoted the wrong part of the OED. MrVoluntarist 00:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid you are wrong about the OED. I have fixed the wikiquote article. I know why you sent me to the capitalism article, and I asked you for the original source, which you have, thankfully, given me. Merriam-Webster is it. Ok. Well, according to them, that is capitalism. Can you give the breakdown of the etymology, thanks. This is rather at a tangent to what we should be discussing, but if you wish to continue, so be it. I'm not particularly interested in proving any points I just want to get this dispute settled. In order to do that it should not be necessary to discuss other Wikipedia articles. This article is woefully undercited as it is. - FrancisTyers 00:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Is the OED online so I can confirm this, or should I just take your word that it contradicts every other modern sourced and cited definition in Wikiquote ?


 * Sure, thats how I'm accessing it. You can get to it here. It is subscription only, so you might have to front some capital - sorry, couldn't resist ;) - to use it. If you don't have the capital to front I can take a screenshot or something and email it to you. - FrancisTyers 00:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * That would be nice, but first, is it your position that the OED trumps every other definition sourced and cited in Wikiquote? And in case you think this is too tangential, my point is that the definition of "capitalism" has changed over the past hundred years, so we have to exercise caution in quoting people back then saying they "oppose capitalism" because it might be out of context and conflicting with present definitions. MrVoluntarist 00:59, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * LOL! not at all, I don't think that the OED is the be-all-and-end-all. I don't think it is necessary to exercise caution if we treat the term in the proper historical context. I think to be honest it would be better to outline /what/ they are against e.g. If they are against rent then say they are against rent, if they are against profit say they are against profit, if they are against private ownership of the means of production say this. As opposed to just saying they are against some ephemeral capitalism. If you email me using the Send email function in Wikipedia I will speed that screenshot to you asap. - FrancisTyers 01:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your effort, but I don't think there's a need at this point. Your position is exactly what I've been asking for the whole time :-)  Basically, the article should describe the specific things historical anarchists opposed instead of the rather vague and shifting "capitalism". MrVoluntarist 01:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * That's the definition in the 1989 edition of the OED. I haven't seen the latest edition, so I don't know if it's been updated or not. The other dictionaries that Oxford issues doesn't have that definition. I would think that the new edition has the systemic definition. If it doesn't, that would be pretty pathetic. RJII 17:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately we don't have this problem just with the term 'capitalism'. For example I spent some time (you can see the last three archives) explaining and referencing Proudhon's opposition to private property - of natural resources, capital, consumption goods, everything. The response is - Proudhon was using an outdated meaning of 'property'. No doubt it'll be the same for rent, profit, or any other term we look at.

In their edits to this page the ancaps are engaged in revisionism. The issue is not just the inclusion of a section on anarcho-capitalism, or a 'definition' of anarchism. I think the greater problem is that the same editors try to misrepresent earlier anarchists in order to make them into antecedents of anarcho-capitalism, so giving their theory more credibility. (Proudhon, Stirner and the American individualists are the worst cases of this - this is part of an answer to the question below why not more on Proudhon and mutualism - because Proudhon has been the site of an edit war rather than constructive work.)

A central plank of this revisionist project is the claim that these anarchist theorists - when they called themselves socialists, attacked capitalism and private property - used these terms with different meanings to those we have today. Maybe in some cases this is so. But I think the onus has to be on them each time to prove these claims.Bengalski 13:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it is quite clear that the majority of anarchist thinkers, historically (I don't know about today) have been anti-"the employment of one man by another so that the employer can make a profit from the employees labour". Proudhon (if I remember correctly) wanted the factories controlled and owned and controlled collectively and democratically by the workers, not by some "owner" who was making a profit from their labour. "The proprietor, producing neither by his own labor nor by his implement, and receiving products in exchange for nothing, is either a parasite or a thief." Can you have capitalism without the capitalist proprietor?


 * I'd like to point out that all this yacking is very interesting, but we aren't helping to resolve the dispute. See below, I'm still waiting for sources. - FrancisTyers 17:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Anarchism has always been defined as

 * Anarchism has always been defined as an opposition to all forms of authority, capitalism, and "the state". The idea that anarchism is simply non-state is absurd. The inclusion of historically irrelevent anarchist non-schools is a POV assault on this page. And we indeed can play the numbers game. Historically the membership of anarcho-syndicalist (still share common definition) unions, whose political affiliation was electorally determined by membership have reached into millions; circa-1900 CGT (France) 1.2mil, circa-1936 CNT (spain), 1.5-3.1mil. These two alone dwarf in size the following of 'agorism' or any of that nonsense. More contemporally, CGT (spain) 3.0mil alone destroys user:MrVoluntarist non-argument. I'm more than willing to dig in and research concrete numbers, but the general scope should be obvious. As claimed in "what wikipedia is not", this is not a place to soapbox for small, irrelevent groups or positions. --FluteyFlakes88 05:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The claim "Anarchism has always been defined as an opposition to all forms of authority, capitalism, and "the state"" is false. Both etymologically and according to virtually all dictionaries, anarchism is defined as opposition to the state and (generally) authority. See the discussion on definitions. Hogeye 03:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Anarchos=No Rulers. Not "No Government". No Rulers, that inlcudes bosses. The Ungovernable Force 06:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * If you'd like to go back in time and edit the 1936 Wikipedia, I'll fully support such a claim. The CGT/CNT today total 60-80 thousand... assuming everyone's joined for the ideology and not for the benefits. (That was discussed in the archives you did read.   ) MrVoluntarist 05:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * This article should take into account the history of anarchism. Wikipedia is not about making assumptions. Wikipedia is about stating facts and citing sources. Oh, and please try to keep discussion out of the disputes section :) Thanks - FrancisTyers 06:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Good point, I'll put comments where they're tangentially relevant instead of directly relevant. Belay that, I see what you're doing.  See my talk page.  Keep up the good work. MrVoluntarist 06:02, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

older anarchists saw government as more threatening than capitalism

 * That's because most of these older anarchists saw government as more powerful (and by extension, more threatening), and there was no concept of "anarcho-capitalism" with which they felt they had to distinguish themselves. In their works, they very often elsewhere note an intrinsic opposition to capitalism and sometimes describe it as a form of socialism. The vast majority of the followers and thinkers following these same anarchists make it clear that anarchism is opposed to all structures of power. This shouldn't be a surprise to you, considering all the users here flatly arguing this to you. Anarcho-capitalists and some individualists might define anarchism as simple anti-statism, but it's very clear that most people here do not, nor is it hard to surmise that a number of people offering definitions on that page would have, in retrospect. The definition (as that page also evidences) has been honed by later theorists, and not at the expense of earlier ideas. Sarge Baldy 06:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The article should take into account all historical considerations. - FrancisTyers 06:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not true that "There was no concept of anarcho-capitalism." There was voluntaryism, which was the same thing as anarcho-capitalism. Auberon Herbert was a Voluntaryist. Benjamin Tucker said of Herbert: "Auberon Herbert is dead. He was a true anarchist in everything but name. How much better (and how much rarer) to be an anarchist in everything but name than to be an anarchist in name only!" Anarcho-capitalism has been around as long, or longer, than labor-value individualist anarchism. It just wasn't named that until the definition of capitalism started changing to mean what it means today --laissez-faire. Tucker even argued that anarcho-capitalism (voluntaryism) would collapse into labor-value individualism: "Mr. Herbert proved beyond question that the government of man by man is utterly without justification, but is quite ignorant of the fact that interest, rent, and profits will find no place in the perfect economic order. Mr. Ruskin’s error is by far the more serious of the two, because the realization of Mr. Herbert’s ideas would inevitably result in [a profit-free society]" So even though Herbert supports stateless capitalism, Tucker still believes him to be an anarchist. RJII 06:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The earlier anarchists, like their followers, were opposed to systems of power, but saw this power as mostly contained within the state, which had their focus. Capitalism in those days was hardly what it has become, and even if voluntarism was noticed, it might not have been seen with hostility, because by and large they were making the same fight. Today the anarchists following them see capitalism as much more powerful, even more powerful than government, which in many ways is looked to more as a tool of capitalism than an autonomous power. Not surprisingly, this leaves a very large gap between these anarchists and anarcho-capitalists, who simply want to terminate this final weak structure and possibly give capitalism still further power. Sarge Baldy 06:48, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * "Give capitalism still further power?" Capitalism has no power. How are you defining capitalism? RJII 17:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Quick note it might not have been seen with hostility, Wikipedia is not concerned with might. Unless you can attribute this to someone it doesn't belong in the article. Wikipedia is about writing encyclopaedic articles, not about pondering on philosophical questions (well, at least not on talk pages!) :) - FrancisTyers 06:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Then the article should certainly take the historical impact of voluntaryism into account. I have consulted the full Oxford English Dictionary to which I have a subscription. It states that the first usage of anarcho-capitalism was in 1969 Libertarian Childs..has made the paradigmatic progressive transition from Randianism to Lefevrian pacifism to revolutionary anarcho-capitalism. I'm not entirely sure what labour-value individualist anarchism is. But for now, lets not discuss that (this isn't a bulletin board!) and lets focus on the dispute :) - FrancisTyers 06:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * By labor-value individualist, I mean the individualist anarchists who adhered to a labor theory of value. RJII 06:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * RJII's emphasis on 'labour theory of value' is much overstated. Whereas Marxits may see this as a defining feature of their politics, economic theory of value has never assumed a central place in anarchism. Dividing individualists into pro- and anti- LTV probably comes from Rothbard, or may be RJII's original research. (Where did Sterner stand on LTV by the way?)Bengalski 21:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * You literally don't know what you're talking about. Anyone who has read the works of the anti-profit individualist anarchists (Tucker, and others) knows that that the labor theory of value is central. They talk about it so much that it's almost nauseating. If they didn't adhere to the labor theory of value, they'd be anarcho-capitalists. RJII 16:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I've never considered it in any way a central tenet of anarchism. In fact, I can't recall any of the anarchists I've read mentioning such a thing. Economics in general seems extremely overplayed here. I see anarchism as being a philosophy opposed to domination, with economics assuming the role of a methodology in approaching this goal, and anarchists in general open to economic ideas in line with these aims. The opposition to capitalism is assembled around it's dominating power structure, not some petty system of value underlying it. The argument we're trying to make here is that A/C diverged from the primary goals of anarchism into supporting the exact thing it was designed to fight. It's actual methodologies are not as important. Sarge Baldy 22:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * That's how I feel Sarge. I've never been too interested in economic values and sciences and all that. Anarchism is about opposition to domination and hierarchy, and as far as I (and virtually all anarchists) can tell, a capitlist system based on private competition for profits creates winners and losers, who have to dominate or submit to someone else. That is why anarchism (which mean "no rulers") is inherently anti-capitalist as far as I understand it. The Ungovernable Force 06:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalism as a Movement
Ok, so I've been asked to provide sources to my claim (#7 I think it was) that anarcho-cap does not have much of a movement. If you want to see my talk page, there is more discussion there about my lack of resources for cites, but this is all I could find for now. It isn't great, but it's a start. The second and third questions/answers are what I'm looking at (the second in particular). I would appreciate it if Aaron or anyone else could add to this, because I know the info is out there. The Ungovernable Force 07:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I really don't see the relevance here; I consider anarcho-capitalism a philosophy, not a movement. Hogeye 17:46, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

It is relevant, in my opinion, because anarchism is both a philosophy and a movement that you are claiming anarcho-capitalism is a part of. If anarcho-capitalism is just a small philosophical offshoot from a small part of the general anarchist movement, does it deserve the great attention that it has recently received in the anarchism article (see WP:NPOV, giving disproportionate amounts of attention to particular aspects of an article can be POV)? --AaronS 18:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The claim "anarchism is both a philosophy and a movement" is false. In virtually all dictionaries and most encyclopedias, and according to most theorists, anarchism is a philosophy. Perusing the definitions from Wikiquote (via Onelook), anarchism is described variously as "a political theory, "theory or doctrine", "ideology", and "political belief", but never a "movement." This whole movement thing is a cheap diversion from the real issue - the definition. We don't leave Jeremy Bentham out of the liberalism article because there's no Benthamite movement; liberalism like anarchism is a philosophy, not a movement. I suppose it's okay to have a section in the anarchism article about movements, but anarchism is not defined as a movement. Hogeye 03:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * exactlyThe Ungovernable Force 19:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * that "exactly" is NOT in response to hogeye, it was originally below Aaron's comment. For future reference, hogeye, you might want to pay more attention to formatting, because it give the impression that I support your claim, which I obviously do not. As a member of the supposedly non-existent anarchist movement, I find this hard to swallow. Maybe I'm just on crack or something, imagining that anarchists helped shut down the WTO in Seattle, or organized workers in the IWW, or died in Spain fighting the fascists, or served countless meals to the hungry under the motto "Food Not Bombs", or hung from the gallows after Haymarket, or were deported for opposing WWI, or have engaged in radical direct action to end animal and environmental abuses (btw, why does the article not mention anything about animal liberation?). Yeah, anarchism is just a philosophy, not a movement. There is no Socialist movement either. Or Communist. Just philosophies. Anarchism is a philosophy and a movement, whereas an/cap is just a philosophy. The question then is, "is this page about anarchism as a theory, or a movement, or both". I think both, but the movement is interlocked with the philosophy, and the fact that A/C is not at all a part of the movement (which you said yourself), shows that it does not deserve nearly as much attention as it has been receiving. The Ungovernable Force 06:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I second the Force. And note this also ties into discussions on 'individualism vs collectivism', 'labour theory of value' etc. above. The ancaps see these as the crucial issues because they are working from a point of view where anarchism is a kind of parlour philosophy - Rothbard was an academic economist after all. In fact I think the vast majority of anarchists in history and today have never identified themselves around theories of property or economic value - but as part of a living, active movement opposed to capitalism. Yes there is going to be a strong element of the theory in an encyclopaedia article, but we can't forget the vast majority of active anarchists who were never theorists but were historical actors. Also note there is a separate page on anarchist economics which needs a lot of work, and we could have one on anarchist philosophy too if merited - but these topics shouldn't take over this page.Bengalski 13:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * You're making the same accusations that were launched against the original labor-value individualist anarchists. As Murrray Boochkin points out, "Anarcho-individualism was largely marginalized by mass socialistic workers' movements, of which most anarchists considered themselves the left wing. In an era of stormy social upheaval, marked by the rise of a mass working-class movement that culminated in the 1930s and the Spanish Revolution, anarchosyndicalists and anarchocommunists, no less than Marxists, considered anarcho-individualism to be petty-bourgeois exotica. They often attacked it quite directly as a middle-class indulgence, rooted far more in liberalism than in anarchism." Some of you collectivists need to realize that not all anarchism are so-called "social movements" where people riot, smash shop windows, and kill people. Anarchism also includes philosophical anarchism. Philosophical anarchism is extremely significant. RJII 16:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: General Suggestion #1
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."''

No citation is necessary for a simple application of definition. It is clear to anyone who reads Herbert that he's (in modern terminology) an anarcho-capitalist. Might I recommend "The Right and Wrong of Compulsion by the State" as a start? Hogeye 17:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Give a source that connects voluntaryism to anarcho-capitalism and says that they are the same. Otherwise, it's original research, and your opinion. --AaronS 18:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * From Hans-Hermann Hoppe, whose works have been published in English, German, Italian, Spanish, French, Korean, and others :
 * Auberon Herbert is a student of Spencer. In The Right and Wrong of Compulsion by the State, Herbert develops the Spencerian idea of equal freedom to its logically consistent anarcho-capitalist end. Herbert is the father of Voluntaryism.
 * Empirical prediction: AaronS will give a reason why "that's not good enough" even though it's exactly what he asked for. MrVoluntarist 20:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, we can say that that "The author Hans-Hermann Hoppe writes...". - FrancisTyers 15:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * By all means there should certainly be a section on voluntaryism of a size suitable to its overall position within the anarchist movement. Where there a lot of voluntarists? Unless you can find a reliable citation that voluntarism is the same as anarcho-capitalism then the connection should not be made as it is original research. From WP:NOR:


 * Original research is a term used on Wikipedia to refer to material added to articles by Wikipedia editors that has not been published already by a reputable source. In this context it means unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, and ideas; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments that, in the words of Wikipedia's founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation".


 * Specifically: 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. - FrancisTyers 20:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Francis> "By all means there should certainly be a section on voluntaryism of a size suitable to its overall position within the anarchist movement."
 * You seem to be taking sides here by assuming anarchism is a movement rather than (as defined by dictionaries) a philosophy, belief, or theory. At any rate, I dispute the claim that anarchism is defined as a movement.  There can be an anarchist movement, but that means a movement based on the philosophy of anarchism.  Assuming that past anarchist movements define anarchism is falling for the old a table is what has historically been considered a table trick. Hogeye 03:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, first of all, my apologies if I appear to have come off supporting one side, this is certainly not my intention. I'm here in the capacity of an impartial mediator. If you think at any point that I am biased in favour of one side or another you can immediately call for my replacement by another member of the cabal, or you can call off this mediation and seek resolution through more formal channels.


 * I don't know the old a table is what has historically been considered a table trick. Maybe I've been fooled by it before! I don't know. I'm personally something of the opinion that a table is what looks like a table, so you can show me a desk and I'll say looks like a table to me, show me a bird, I might not know the exact definition of a bird, but I'll be able to tell you its a bird. Anyway enough of that linguistics stuff, I'm afraid the article currently says Anarchism refers to various political philosophies and related social movements, I'm here to resolve the dispute that got you into this page blocking. If you look at the Wikipedia article on Communism for example, it refers to both the movements and the philosophy. I think you'd probably have to take it up with a higher power than me if you wanted this page just to focus on the philosophical aspects. As a note at the bottom I have given some general suggestions that don't relate to the dispute, but these are just things that niggled me as I was reading through the page :) - FrancisTyers 15:26, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Interested in anything that calls itself anarchism
To all who are interested in anything that calls itself anarchism! You/we will find the link below amusing. --Christofurio 18:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

http://eyeofthestorm.blogs.com/eye_of_the_storm/2006/01/im_off_to_pitts.html

The definition of anarchism doesn't exclude capitalism
I interpret (2) to call for definitions which define anarchism as anti-statism without specifying any particular economic system. (After all, it would be unreasonable to ask for definitions of "dog" which specifically mention that a dog is not a fish!)
 * Every dictionary in Onelook. A typical def is "a political theory favoring the abolition of governments."
 * Every dictionary quoted in Wikiquote.
 * Every encyclopedia definition quoted in Wikiquote.
 * Most theorists quoted in Wikiquote - 15 out of 17: all but Bakunin and Guerin.
 * The theorists who define anarchism as anti-statism without specifying any particular economic system: Benjamin Tucker, Pierre Proudhon, Voltairine de Cleyre, Emma Goldman, Victor Yarros, Henry Appleton, Emile Armand, George Woodcock, Alexander Berkman, Johann Most, William Bailie, Murray Rothbard, Noam Chomsky, Errico Malatesta, and L. Susan Brown. Hogeye 16:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Note: In the past, some have tried to change the subject from 'how does theorist X define anarchism' to 'was X anti-capitalist.' Beware this red herring.


 * Emma Goldman did include economics as part of her definition of Anarchism, have you read "Anarchism: What it Really Stands For"? "Anarchism, then, really stands for the liberation of the human mind from the dominion of religion; the liberation of the human body from the dominion of property; liberation from the shackles and restraint of government. Anarchism stands for a social order based in the free grouping of individuals for the purpose of producing real social wealth; an order that will guarantee to every human being free access to the earth and full enjoyment of the necessities of life, according to individual desires, tastes, and inclinations". And like some have said, they assumed that it was obvious, considering all of their anti-cap positions and well recognized place within the anti-capitalist movement, they never felt the need to define it as opposed to capitalism. The Ungovernable Force 19:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Theorists generally define anarchism, and then expound upon it. One must be able to discern the difference between a definition and an opinion. Goldman defined anarchism as, "the philosophy of a new social order based on liberty unrestricted by man-made law; the theory that all forms of government rest on violence, and are therefore wrong and harmful, as well as unnecessary."
 * Sure, she expanded upon her idea of anarchism considerably, but she did not change her basic definition. The phrase "Anarchism, then, really stands for..." is a dead giveaway that she is expounding. Similarly, Rothbard defines anarchism as absense of state (in terms of coercive legal monopoly), and expounds upon it with opinions like:
 * "'We are anarcho-capitalists. In other words, we believe that capitalism is the fullest expression of anarchism, and anarchism is the fullest expression of capitalism. Not only are they compatible, but you can't really have one without the other. True anarchism will be capitalism, and true capitalism will be anarchism.' - Murray Rothbard"
 * I certainly would not claim that Rothbard defined anarchism as capitalist from such a quote. Hogeye 03:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Hogeye, I'm seeing assertions but I'm not seeing sources. Can you please provide citations for each of these anarchists who define anarchism as anti-statism without specifying a particular economic system. - FrancisTyers 20:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Francis, the citations are on the Wikiquote page. In the current version, all definitions and encyclopedias have citations, and about half of the theorists. 70.178.26.242 02:44, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Those are from the Wikiquote article mentioned in the anarchism article . Here are some of the quotes of those people with sources:
 * Benjamin Tucker: "Anarchism [is] the doctrine that all the affairs of men should be managed by individuals or voluntary associations, and that the State should be abolished."


 * Pierre Proudhon: "Anarchy, -- the absence of a master, of a sovereign."


 * Emma Goldman: "Anarchism: The philosophy of a new social order based on liberty unrestricted by man-made law; the theory that all forms of government rest on violence, and are therefore wrong and harmful, as well as unnecessary." MrVoluntarist 20:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * And of course early anarchists defined it this way. Government was seen as the most dominating system at the time, and was the primary target of their criticism. However, reading their works further will reveal a more dynamic explanation of anarchism, highlighted by modern theorists after the shift to seeing capitalism as holding the concentration of power. This should be fairly evident just looking around this talk page, where it appears only anarcho-capitalists and those adhering to the American tradition of individualism see it as simple anti-statism. Individualist L. Susan Brown defines anarchism in a way almost all others would agree captures its spirit:
 * While the popular understanding of anarchism is of a violent, anti-State movement, anarchism is a much more subtle and nuanced tradition then a simple opposition to government power. Anarchists oppose the idea that power and domination are necessary for society, and instead advocate more co-operative, anti-hierarchical forms of social, political and economic organisation.
 * That isn't to say I'm trying to force this definition on the article. But this is the way most "schools" of anarchism treat it. Sarge Baldy 01:05, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

"mediation"?
I'm wondering how this process is actually going to resolve anything. This same argument has been going on for years, and lack of communication is not the problem. 216.99.217.92 23:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, if informal mediation doesn't work (I hope it will) :) It can always be taken to the formal dispute resolution process. - FrancisTyers 00:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Yep, it's the same old thing. The "formal" process is yet another poll or some such. But at least the frozen version of the article and template is quite good this time! Hogeye 03:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Grrrr :). Voice of  All T 03:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I began this, more than anything else, as a first step towards dispute resolution. I got tired of the state of things and thought that following the policy might be a good idea. I suppose that it exists because it is mostly useful in many cases. --AaronS 18:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Positions of anarchist thinkers

 * For (1), see the several sources that I list above for a start. I don't have much time to do major research at the moment. With regard to (2), you should know that nearly all dictionary definitions define anarchism as an opposition to all forms of authority or control. The anarchist critique of capitalism has always been a critique of capitalist dominion. Opposition to capitalism is covered by opposition to systems of authority (capitalist private property is a system of authority -- the authority of the property owner and owners). Further, Wikiquote is a bad source, because Hogeye has in the past attempted to remove any references to anti-capitalism or pro-socialism. Read the full encyclopaedia articles. Many of the theorists that Hogeye list were or are opposed to capitalism and capitalist private property. Here are a few brief looks at some of the names:
 * Goldman: "The only demand that proeprty recognizes is its own gluttonous appetite for greater wealth, because wealth means power; the power to subdue, to crush, to exploit, the power to enslave, to outrage, to degrade", "'Rugged individualism' has meant all the 'individualism' for the masters . . . in whose name political tyranny and social oppression are defended and held up as virtues while every aspiration and attempt of man to gain freedom . . . is denounced as . . . evil in the name of that same individualism."
 * Tucker: "Liberty insists. . . [on] the abolition of the State and the abolition of usury; on no more government of man by man, and no more exploitation of man by man", "Liberty insists on Socialism. . . - true Socialism, Anarchistic Socialism: the prevalence on earth of Liberty, Equality, and Solidarity")
 * Proudhon: "Property is theft", the law of supply and demand is a "deceitful law . . . suitable only for assuring the victory of the strong over the weak, of those who own property over those who own nothing"
 * Chomsky: "Anarcho-capitalism, in my opinion, is a doctrinal system which, if ever implemented, would lead to forms of tyranny and oppression that have few counterparts in human history. There isn't the slightest possibility that its (in my view, horrendous) ideas would be implemented, because they would quickly destroy any society that made this colossal error. The idea of 'free contract' between the potentate and his starving subject is a sick joke, perhaps worth some moments in an academic seminar exploring the consequences of (in my view, absurd) ideas, but nowhere else"
 * Malatesta: "Anarchy without socialism seems equally as impossible to us [as socialism without anarchy], for in such a case it could not be other than the domination of the strongest, and would therefore set in motion right away the organisation and consolidation of this domination; that is to the constitution of government."
 * Yarros: who's this? A Google search comes up with RJII's article as the first result, along with a myriad of right-wing libertarian sources
 * Appleton: same deal as Yarros. This all seems to be original research -- especially the use of the term 'American individualist anarchist', a very rare term.
 * Berkman was a well-known anticapitalist, and friend of Emma Goldman. He thought that Goldman, in many ways, was too bourgeois for his tastes. To claim that anti-capitalism was not an important part of his anarchist beliefs is highly inaccurate. For (3), I think it is up to the anarcho-capitalists to prove otherwise. --AaronS 18:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Behold, Francis - this is the red herring I told you about. Note that Aaron has evaded the definitional question and tried to switch the subject to whether most past luminaries were socialist or not.  I'll save him the trouble and stipulate that most past luminaries were anti-capitalist.  Now - let's get back to how they (and virtually all dictionaries) defined anarchism.


 * But first a story. 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)


 * I'm beginning to see the problem. You are the only one who has provided a source so far. A lot of talk, not much citation going on :( - FrancisTyers 15:38, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Section (3) is for sources which say 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. You presented none in the (3) section. MrVoluntarist 20:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Reply to MrVoluntarist: I can begin with a simple question. Where is anarcho-capitalism's Spanish Civil War? Paris Commune? May '68? Russian Revolution? And another question: how has anarcho-capitalism influenced the anarchism of most anarchists?


 * Thanks for your input, could you provide specific citations please or I going to find this nearly impossible to follow. If the text at the citation is long, it might be worth giving a short snippet of the quote so that I can find it. - FrancisTyers 20:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Please don't accuse me of evading anything, Hogeye. You continue to imply that I have sinister motives, and I don't think that that helps the discussion at all. Francis, what is the problem that you see? Were you replying to me or to Hogeye? I can give you the bibliographical references of the quotations I provided, if that is what you would like. Goldman's quote comes from her essay entitled "Anarchism," where she tries to define what anarchism is. I don't know why Hogeye believes that this only means that she is an anarchist and anti-capitalist, and that those two positions of hers are somehow unconnected (i.e. the former does not cause the latter). If all of these thinkers claim that anarchism is opposed to the authority of the capitalist property owner, and that anarchism requires socialism, or something to that extent, then I believe that it is indication enough that anti-capitalism was an essential part of their anarchism. --AaronS 18:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Please provide sources in the relevant sections then. Thanks - FrancisTyers 18:26, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Which sections would those be? Having stepped away for some time, this page has become a bit confusing. --AaronS 18:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

"neutral" disambig page
Regarding:

6. Better yet, use the Neutral Disambiguation Page.

This is inherently POV as characterising any movement that is anti-capitalist must be socialist. This is not the case. - FrancisTyers 17:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC)