Talk:Anarchism/Archive 54

Social insertion
Is there anybody here who'd be interested in helping me improve the Social insertion article? A lot of the material isn't available in English, and my Spanish isn't very good. Aelffin (talk) 20:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Way to technical...
A good deal of the explinations in the article get way to technical. They should either have their own page with more detail about each bit, or maybe someone could just remove the list of types, and replace them with words that users don't have to click the link leading to the link to the link to figure out what you mean. Some of this is like it was copied from an Advanced Sociology Text book.

Recently-developed schools of thought Is just one example. 69.207.42.15 (talk) 05:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

"Contradict" tag
This tag was added to the article with the following edit summary: "Contradiction: List of forms of government includes anarchism; this article says anarchism precludes government." I can see how readers might confuse this. However, the definition of anarchism in this article is: "a political philosophy encompassing theories and attitudes which reject compulsory government (the state) and support its elimination." That seems clear to me. Anarchism is a political perspective that rejects state authority. It is, nevertheless, a form of government. I think that the distinction is both subtle and appropriate. I don't see a problem with it. Sunray (talk) 19:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Although, I've not look into it very deeply, I tend to agree with Sunray.
 * There has been more discussion on this and related issues on the Template:Forms of Government [] discussion page. I believe it was that discussion that prompted the editor to tag this, that and perhaps other pages with "Contradict."  Here's the link to that discussion []. Doright (talk) 00:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, that discussion is interesting. I was rather surprised that someone tried to argue that the OED definition should somehow take precedence over Proudhon's. However, even if one were to conclude with the OED editors that anarchism is the absence of government, surely that would not preclude it from a list of forms of government. "No government" would logically be a choice with respect to government. Personally, though, I prefer Proudhon's (and this article's) definition. Sunray (talk) 10:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This kind of thing is going to happen as long as we treat anarchism as though it has a single definition. When a reader comes to this page, they may be looking up a topic they read about in a book, heard from a friend, heard on the news, learned in school, etc, etc, etc... There's no reason to assume that they're coming here to learn about the particular version defined above by Sunray (i.e. a political philosophy encompassing theories and attitudes which reject compulsory government--the state--and support its elimination). The fact is, different reliable sources use the word in different ways, and we should do our best to treat all of them. If we pick one definition above the others, we are violating WP:NPOV. A related issue is the distinction between the different forms of the word (anarchy, anarchism, anarchic, anarchistic and anarchist), which is also not dealt with properly in the article as it stands. Aelffin (talk) 17:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, indeed!. Sunray (talk) 07:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, I always thought we should split the article into Anarchism (philosophy) and Anarchism (movement). The former would treat all the various theories, philosophies, and meanings of the word while the latter would treat the history of the particular anarchist movement that evolved out of 19th century labor struggles. Aelffin (talk) 12:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Since the editor that applied the contradict tag has not responded to the above discussion (and has subsequently edited other sections of this talk page), I'll assume that they will not object to the removal of the tag. Doright (talk) 00:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It would probably save you more trouble to assume good faith. скоморохъ  00:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Frankly, Skomorokh aka скоморохъ, I have not a clue what I’m to infer from the apparent non-sequitur regarding good faith except that you are miffed about something. Doright (talk) 02:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It would be assuming good faith to think that I placed the tag out of a genuine concern rather than to make a point. I am less than miffed, I am in fact, rather piqued. Springtime is here and birds are chirping merrily. скоморохъ  02:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes it would. However, it’s not particularly helpful to follow a tautology with yet another non sequitur.  I did not question your good faith.  Nor did I even remotely imply any question about it whatsoever.  Furthermore, I never suggested you were trying to make a point.  So, I’m really at a loss to explain what you are now carrying on about? Doright (talk) 04:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, please continues this discussion at the talk page the tag and Doright linked to: Template_talk:Forms_of_government. I will now respond to some of the specific points raised here.


 * OED vs. Proudhon: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which is a tertiary source. Wikipedia only permits primary sources such as Proudhon's writings to be used with care, as they are easy to misuse. Any interpretation of primary source material, such as that by Doright on the linked talk page, requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation, which has not been forthcoming. Primary sources may only be used to make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, not to make any analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source. To claim that anarchism is a form of government because of claims you attribute to Proudhon is, unfortunately a case of the latter, and constitutes original research. As you may have gleaned by now, it is absolutely proper practice to rely on a reliable tertiary source such as the OED ahead of a primary one. If you are still confused about this, I invite you to familiarise yourself with the policy on the matter.
 * The claim of WP:OR is a straw-man.  I made no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source.  I merely brought to our attention the text from the article.  I wrote: "I don't think it is quite so obvious that anarchism should be excluded. And, I have not seen anyone redefining it to suit their purposes. Since an appeal has been made to the anarchism article, please note the following text that I have cut and pasted from it." It says that Proudhon saw anarchy as a form of government.  Specifically, I wrote:  The anarchism article says the "founder of modern anarchist theory" ... "saw anarchy as a form of government," and cites Selected Writings, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon as a reliable source. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Forms_of_government&diff=190226573&oldid=177675914  This is purely descriptive; no WP:OR here.  Apparently, the so called father of Anarchism saw anarchy as a form of government.  When Wikipedia users make use of the Template:Forms of government perhaps they will be interested in discovering Proudhon’s point of view.  Cheers, Doright (talk) 20:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * "No government" is a form of government: It's difficult to take this claim seriously; is atheism also a form of religion? Is "no cheese" a form of cheese? No, this statement is analytically false.
 * It is the analysis that the argument reduces to not A is A that is false. For example, are you prepared to argue that Black should be removed from the WP List of colors?  If so, I look forward to your discussion on that talk page.  Cheers, Doright (talk) 20:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * There are many definitions so we can't rule out this interpretation: This shows a lack of understanding of our policies on verifiability and weight; just because there are many different definitions of anarchism, it does not mean that any definition of anarchism is acceptable. Given disagreement between sources (or in this case between sources and editor's points of view), we present the perspectives advanced in the most reliable sources in our content. An editors opinion that anarchism is a form of government is pure original research which carries absolutely no weight in contested cases. The sources clearly define anarchism in opposition to, as opposed to a form of, government.
 * Indeed, Merriam-Webster Online defines Anarchism as, "1 : a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority  to be unnecessary and undesirable . . . ." Please note that the lexicographers do not write a political theory holding all forms of government to be unnecessary and undesirable, as at least one editor seems to emphatically suggest.  That would certainly be more concise, but apparently incorrect.  Instead the lexicographers seem to have constrained the scope of the meaning (making the definition more precise) and limit the focus to authority.  [].  Broadening this particular and WP:Reliable definition of Anarchism to the negation of all forms of government would seem to be WP:OR.  Cheers, Doright (talk) 21:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

If you would like to respond, please do so on the linked discussion page. Thanks, скоморохъ  01:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with the above. Skomorokh knows his stuff when it comes to sourcing and what consitutes original research. Operation Spooner (talk) 02:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You may be right, but it entirely misses the point. Perhaps this will help.  If Anarchism should be removed from the template Forms of government, then it certainly must follow that Black should be removed from the List of colors.  After all, black is even more clearly precisely the lack of all colors, just as some will argue that Anarchism is the lack of all government.  However, just as I don't think that it is helpful to the user of Wikipedia to delete black from the list of colors, I don't think it is helpful to remove Anarchy from the list or template or category Forms of government.  It's probably worth noting that it appears that black has been included on the Wikipedia list of colors since its inception over 4 years ago. Cheers, Doright (talk) 07:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, clearly "no government" is one In the range of choices about government. However, more tellingly, Anarchism is not the absence of government but rather the absence of "state" government. Anarchist groups that I am aware of certainly have governance, rules, leadership, etc. Not capital "G" government, but government, nevertheless. Aelffin's point that "different reliable sources use the word in different ways, and we should do our best to treat all of them..." needs to be addressed, IMO. Sunray (talk) 15:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * And of course, the definition of "government" is also somewhat slushy even in reliable sources. When it gets into anarchist interpretations of government, the definition becomes even more slushy. I have a slight disagreement with Sunray in that anarchism does not--according to most anarchists--mean simply absence of state government, but opposition to *any* form of governance which involves a power relationship between parties. So, anarchism includes self-governance of individuals with equal power but does not include hierarchical governence of individuals without equal power, as in an employer-employee relationship. Aelffin (talk) 15:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Anarchism does not forbid individuals contracting as employer and employee. You seem to be assuming all anarchism is communistic. Neither do employers and employees have unequal power. Employers to not require that employees obey them. Employees are free to disobey and leave the contract. Operation Spooner (talk) 17:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I said "most". Aelffin (talk) 19:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't see that. But, even anarcho-communism is a form of governmenance over the individual. The community is the government over the individual. That's why individualist anarchists don't like anarcho-communism. If you're looking for anarchism that allows absolutely no "power relationship" over the individual, the only one's I can think of are maybe Stirner's form of individualist anarchism, possibly Godwin's where all cooperation is shunned, and Thoreau's where the individual goes off to live alone and is s self-sufficient. Operation Spooner (talk) 23:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Depends on how you define government. Most anarchists--and by that I mean left anarchists--define government in terms of power relationships such that any power relationship is a de facto government. A community with unequal distribution of power necessarily has government of some kind. Power comes in many forms, and each has associated forms of government... Unequal political power (state government), unequal gender power (patriarchy/matriarchy), unequal economic power (aristocracy/exploitation), unequal racial power (racism/slavery), unequal religious power (theocracy), etc. Don't get me wrong, I don't think that most anarchists articulate this very clearly in their own minds--but listen to anarchists speak and nine times out of ten, you can tell this is what they mean. To most anarchists, it's the equal distribution of all forms of power that characterizes an anarchic society (as opposed to state communism which only opposes economic inequality and anarcho-capitalism which only opposes political inequality). So, the difference between your view and mine is that you see a community as a system of rules and social order, which to you is a form of government, whereas I see an anarchic community as a group of cooperating individuals of equal power, and therefore government-free.
 * I think that is how we should look at the definition in this article because as it is, we're using a slur as our definition. Using "anarchism", as we do in this article, to mean "anti-state" is a slur, was originally intended as a slur, and when used that way is almost always intended as a slur still. It is precisely equivalent to defining the word "liberalism" as "anti-american", and that's not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Aelffin (talk) 13:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Recently-developed schools of thought
What constitutes recently developed? Anarcho-capitalism is pretty old, as is anarchism without adjectives. So why are they there? Operation Spooner (talk) 20:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I am largely responsible for the division. The previous version included an arbitrary selection of schools of thought, each of roughly the same length (undue weight)) and at the same hierarchy (difficult for readers to understand relative importance), as well as an "Anarchism today" section that had especifismo, post-anarchism, post-left anarchy etc. When anarchist schools of thought was created, a structure for grouping schools of thought was needed. It is obvious and verifiable that the Green, Feminist and Pacifist schools all took off post-WWII, and even moreso for Post-Left, Insurrectionary, Postanarchism. Per sources, Rothbard coined the term "anarcho-capitalism", and it emerged out of the libertarian movement, a term itself coined by Russell in 1955. So I think there is a very neat and appropriate separation of anarchist schools of thought into pre- and post-WWII developments. I'm open to constructive suggestions for renaming the section or reforming the structure, but I think it is on the whole the best approach we have at present, if sticking to a quasi-historical arrangement.


 * Anarchism without adjectives is not now, nor has it been in the Recently-developed section. Regards, скоморохъ  21:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, that seems like a fine division to me. Maybe what the division is should be reflected in the title of the section. Do you have a source for Russell coining the term? This is the first I've heard that. But, anyway, some historians such as Ralph Raico trace anarcho-capitalism back to the mid 19th century, as does Rothbard himself, regardless of what name it has come under. I guess I can add that in. About anarchism without adjectives, ok, I was mistaken. It looked like it was falling under that section. I wonder why it's down there though instead of up with the rest of the schools. Operation Spooner (talk) 21:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I think I originally titled the section "Contemporary developments" but someone changed it. I'm not especially happy with either name. Primary source on Russell is here. I can appreciate the contested accounts of an-cap, but it seems like it really took off as a distinct, self-identifying and notable school of thought with Rothbard and the second/third waves of the Austrian School. While I appreciate your wanting to make the entry strictly accurate, the schools of thought sections here are just supposed to be brief, non-comprehensive summaries of the most important things to know about that particular school. Please feel free to clarify and develop the anarchist schools of thought ancap section though - that way if a reader is unsatisfied with the glib summary here, they can go into more detail there.


 * Anarchism without adjectives is ghettoized to the bottom as it is neither one of the main strands of classical anarchism - currently Philosophical (we need to figure the status of that out), Mutualism, Individualist and Social - or a recently developed school of thought. I put it at the bottom because it seems like an ahistorical anti-school of thought, and a nice way to end the section when the reader must be incredulous at the diversity of disagreement and identification among the schools. Again, open to ideas. скоморохъ  21:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry, I thought you were saying Russell coined the term "anarcho-capitalism." Operation Spooner (talk) 21:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Mea culpa, sloppy grammar. скоморохъ  21:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Russell didn't coin the term "libertarian" (although, reading the Russell quote in the article on Libertarianism, it's easy to see how one could get that impression). The term actually dates to 1789 and, like liberal, its meaning in popular use has shifted but it still retains the classical meaning when used in scholarly literature. The term had fallen out of use, probably by through association with the notion of Libertine licentiousness. What Russell did was to suggest a revival of the term since, by 1955, the term "libertine" had itself become an archaism. Aelffin (talk) 18:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't say he coined "libertarian", but "libertarian movement" as regards the private propertarian American phenomenon. Interesting info you posted, but not really relevant to improving the Anarchism article. Could be of use in the ongoing Talk:Libertarianism discussion, though. Regards, скоморохъ  18:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Section title
Does anyone have a suggestion for a concise yet accurate title for this section? "Modern schools of thought" has unfortunate connotations, "Contemporary" seems plainly false - 1960's anarchists are hardly contemporaneous with the present day - and "Recently-developed" sounds, well, too recent. Is there any scholarly consensus on how to refer to the period after the "golden age" of anarchism? скоморохъ 21:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe separate the article in centuries? Operation Spooner (talk) 22:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the other sections are fine; we could call this one "20th century developments" but I'm not sure if that's an accurate point of departure; was there much intellectual development in the traditional schools from 1900-1914? We could call it "Developments from the late 20th century onwards", which would be accurate I suppose... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skomorokh (talk • contribs) 22:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I think I might have a decent idea for a name. How about "Anarchism since 1960?" Then we don't have to worry about when they were developed. We just summarize the ideas of the market anarchists in the schools since the 1960's. We can rename "Anarcho-capitalism" to "Market anarchism" or "individualists anarchism" because not all market anarchists since 1960 call themselves anarcho-capitalists. How about Wendy McElroy who just calls hereself an individualist anarchist? Walter Block call himself a free-market anarchist, and so on. It seems strange to confine the section just to people who call themselves anarcho-capitalists and exclude everyone else just based on what they call themselves. There is no place for people who are not "agorists" but are market anarchists. A "social anarchism" section could be there to include the newer ideas, etc. Operation Spooner (talk) 06:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

1999 WTO riot/protest
Why is there no mention of the 1999 WTO riot/protest in Seattle, the bulk of which was organized and driven by anarchists, in this entire article? That's a recent milestone in anarchist organizing history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User: (talk • contribs)


 * I agree, the article is almost entirely totally devoid of recent developments in anarchism. This is an issue I've touched on many times here. Anarchism is in an unprecedented renaissance right now, but reading this article, you'd think the whole movement was stuffed and mounted in a museum. The long list of sources I've provided above have a lot of good info about recent stuff, so have at it and do some writing! I wish I had time to do it myself. Aelffin (talk) 19:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow, I just had Deja vu. We had this same discussion a few months ago and nothing came of it. Let's not do that again. Zazaban (talk) 02:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * True, I'll probably eventually have to do it all myself. Aelffin (talk) 20:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

This article is a summary article - if someone is willing to write about this topic, the best place to do so is at History of anarchism - if there's then enough material of high quality to make a decent paragraph, we can include it here. The current article, WTO Ministerial Conference of 1999 protest activity, does not focus on anarchism per se. Skomorokh 14:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not so sure how trendy anarchism is nowadays, and whether it is any trendier than back when it became quite a successful marketing tool in the pop music world with the sex pistols etc. Clearly there were a wholerange of narachists involved alongside all sorts of other people in Seattle. As regards there being some sort of renaissance of anarchism now, I think there is little evidence of that, even if certain skills have been applied to profiling anarchism as the leading element within the alter-globalisation movement, albeit with only brief success.Harrypotter (talk) 00:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It's fairly easy to establish the resurgence of anarchism in the United States since 1999. There are numerous books that document this and even more articles. Chuck0 (talk) 02:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that there was an increase shortly following 1999, but what I am questioning is whether this has continued to date, or whether it was a temporary blip which peaked 2004-2006?Harrypotter (talk) 09:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, it's hard to be certain, but the feeling among many of us who have been watching anarchism for a while is that there was a huge spike in interest around 1999, which petered off while anarchists started trying to figure out what to do with their newfound influence. If you look at GoogleTrends data (which only goes back as far as 2004), here, you can see that interest was very spotty until late 2006, but has been fairly steady since. Notice that the data for prominent anarchists follows closely, so we're talking about an increase in interest in anarchist theory, not just interest in anarchist "antics" or some other irrelevance. For a while after 9/11 there was fear that anarchist revival was going to be drown by the surge in patriotism, but as the Bush administration's power grab gave fuel to the left, just the opposite happened. Anarchism definitely established itself as a small but persistent faction in today's politics, at least for the last two years. Aelffin (talk) 13:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * And of course you're talking specifically about the US. The other day I saw an article about the rise in interest in anarchism in Indonesia. Murderbike (talk) 17:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it's a global phenomenon, though the moribund state of North American anarchism in the late 20th century makes its revival particularly noticable. The Google stats I gave weren't limited to the US. Obviously, there's a bias built-in to Google stats, but the high internet use in China, Turkey, India, etc means it's not necessarily an American bias. Aelffin (talk) 19:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Ouch. Look at the slumping interest in anarchism portrayed by this query. Maybe its time to just give it up, eh? :) - N1h1l (talk) 17:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, you've got to be careful about what you're looking at. Compare these and ask yourself "What's a person who searches for 'anarchists' looking for compared to somebody who searches for 'anarchism' or 'anarchy'?" If you include several closely related variables--as I did above by including prominent anarchists--you can pin down fairly closely what the trend is telling you. Aelffin (talk) 19:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

This exchange has gone in some bizarre directions. If you are going to measure the size and importance of the U.S. anarchist movement, you have to go do some actual research. Measuring the scope and influence of the movement by looking at some arbitrary Google search is just silly. It's pretty easy to establish that the U.S. anarchist movement continues to grow in terms of numbers and influence. You can look at the number of books published by anarchist and non-anarchist presses--the number of new titles continues to grow, especially by non-anarchist publishers. You could look at how much academics are talking about anarchism--this would take some researching of the various abstracting and citation services. You could also measure the size of the movement by looking at the number of anarchist events and attendance at those events. Anarchist bookfairs are always well-attended and new one continue to pop up in the most unusual places. Or you could count the number of anarchist infoshops, which contine to open up in small cities and towns across the U.S. There is no easy source that documents the movement's size and influence, but I think that all indicators point to a growing movement in the U.S. (and around the world). Chuck0 (talk) 19:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Chuck0 on some of this, even though I disagree on other matters. The Googlesearch don't work: (anarchism, fascism and Communism, Bakunin Marx for example) Clearly anarchism is still a very marginal phenomenon, and while a handful of extra individuals attending an anarchist event here or there may seem like a significant event, as regards indicating a genuine trend within society, it clearllry falls short of something of genuine significance. However, Chuck0 talks a great a deal about what people might do if they wanted to research, this, rather than dealing with any actual research. We can all reflect upon our own experience, but our contributions to the article should be guided by wikipedia guidelines. As I have already remarked, while i believe there has been an anarcho blip a few years ago, I do not think any real evidence that this surge has continued since 2004 is quitethin on the ground.Harrypotter (talk) 00:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It appears to me that the only sector of the anarchist movement that appears to continue to grow is the anarcho-capitalist movement. It appears to pretty much overwhelm others, if the internet is any indication. It has has the greatest level of revival than social/communitarian anarchism according to Morris, Christopher. 1992. An Essay on the Modern State. Cambridge University Press. pp. 61 & 74. But, even taking in account that, I have to agree with Harrypotter that anarchism altogether is pretty much irrelevant and just a passing curiosity. I don't think anyone expects the slighest risk of anarchists ever accomplishing their objectives in the foreseeable future. There may be some people writing books and attending sporadic conferences, maybe a few social clubs around, and occasional get-togethers by left-wing anarchists to carry signs and break a few shop windows, some sleeping in abandoned buildings, but that's the extent of it. Operation Spooner (talk) 01:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I really didn't say anything about how influential anarchism has been on the rest of society, just how anarchism is growing in terms of numbers, projects, and influence. Yes, anarchism is quite marginal compared to mainstream politics. That's not at issue here. But if you research contemporary anarchism, you'll find that it is steadily growing. Now, if you want to talk about anarchism's influence outside of the movement, that is growing too. Anarchism is becoming more prominent and popular in academic circles. Anarchism is more prominent and influential in the library community. Anarchist culture is reaching more and more people. Anarchists and anarchist ideas have been very influential in the free software movement and the growing movement against intellectual property. Again, people need to do their research. You'll find supporting information for everything I've said here. Chuck0 (talk) 01:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Is this discussion concerned with improving the article? There are plenty of great forums to discuss this kind of thing, but Wikipedia is not one of them. Skomorokh 04:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I take Skomorokh 's point. talk has repeatedly suggested that were someone to engage in original research, that he believes that they would confirm his beliefs. As he cannot quote any actual research that does this, then I feel that the article should not include any unsubstantiated claims of a resurgence, and there is little point in discssing our imaginings.Harrypotter (talk) 12:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

This thread appears to consist almost entirely of people stating their wishes as though they were facts. My Google results provide some evidence to support my statement that anarchism is growing (and my conclusion that this should be addressed). For more information on the recent increase in (left) anarchist activity, I point editors to widely available works by Cindy Milstein and the Institute for Anarchist Studies, and to the articles on the Common Ground Collective, IndyMedia, and other recent anarchist phenomena. This information already exists in Wikipedia. The only question germane to this discussion is the question of why it is excluded from this article. Aelffin (talk) 04:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that your reasoning shows precisely the sort of flawed reasoning which makes much of modern anarchism as unpleasant as old style bolshevism. The google results prove nothing. Having tried out various variations, I reached the conclusion that the noise overwhelmed the message (see here, here and here). Your conclusion drawn is based on anarchist sources and the pretence that Common Ground Collective and IndyMedia are anarchist, just because they welcome anarchists amongst others to participate. The answer to your question is that anarchist wishful thinking coupled  with the misrepresentation of broad based groups which include anarchists does not constitute any serious evidence.Harrypotter (talk) 19:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Look, I'm arguing that the size of the anarchist movement is greater now than in the recent past. Your Google links show that anarchism is small compared to Marxism and a couple other movements. That's a blatant red herring, so please don't point the faulty reasoning finger at me. An illustration of your error can be seen here.
 * Whether Common Ground and IndyMedia count as "anarchist" according to some unspecified meausre of purism is also a red herring. Again, the assertion is simply that anarchist activism has increased. The fact that there are today many organizations in which anarchists are active compared to almost none ten years ago is evidence even if those organizations aren't themselves anarchist.
 * Granted, it is possible that the Google data are too noisy to be useful, but to demonstrate that assertion, you'd have to find a way to measure the noise. Aelffin (talk) 20:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * A better illustration... I say "Barack Obama has become more popular, see." You reply, "No he hasn't, that's just noise, see. Aelffin (talk) 20:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Your example perfectly illustrates my point, even if your reasoning falls short. The graph you quote might suggest that puppies have been becoming more popular, but only to those who choose not to reflect upon it. In order for that suggestion, or the parallel suggestion that anarchism has been becoming more popular would require a deeper analysis, probably even a statistical analysis which no one has yet completed. You and i may argue the toss about how we might think that analysis might turn out, but short of such an analysis being conducted we each have the privilege of nuturing own opinions - as long as we don't expect to see those opinions reproduced on wikipedia. Check this! By your reckoning this is evidence for a big increase in the libertarian movement. Leaving aside the discussion about abortion, the second reference is to an anarcho-capitalist following in the wake of Murray Rothbard. No doubt if someone had the time to waste it would be possible to show that the National-Anarchists were growing in size: witness this. Certainly to my knowledge these racists would not get away with this a few years ago, yet here they are. According to your flawed reasoning we could argue that not only is the anarchist movement growing, but that the far right aspects of it are growing. As regards your response concerning Common Ground Collective and IndyMedia, it is not a matter of purism, but of whether these groups are anarchist. As you correctly point out, these constitute a red herring, which you introduced into the argument. Certainly there were many anarchists active in all sorts of organisations ten years ago, and indeed I agreed that there might well have been an anarcho-blip following 1999, but that I felt it had already peaked. Having little in the way of concrete evidence for this however, I did not edit the article. I would recommend you spend a little more time getting your head around what is the nature of reasoned argument before your next response. I have not been editing the wikipedia page concerning google trends, which would require me to demonstrate what I said. All I have been doing is putting forward reasoned arguments about why your contentions are not supported by the facts. I am confident that allowing yourself adequate time to think these issues through will help you grasp the points I am making rather reducing my contribution to that of a pointing finger.Harrypotter (talk) 21:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sigh. Continuing to state that my reasoning is flawed in no way demonstrates that my reasoning is flawed. Oh well. I admit the data is far from proof, but it is evidence. The libertarian movement has almost certainly grown, and the GoogleTrends data you point out may be indicative of that. Just as this may be indicative of my point. Your "anarcho-blip" certainly occurred, and as you can see in the data, there are several blips prior to late 2006. But it appears that the blips have levelled out to a low, but steady interest level. It is certainly possible that this is a short term situation similar to an economic bubble. After all, the trend I pointed out in the Google data has only been going on for about two years. However, my point is further strenghtened by pointing out that two years is about an order of magnitute longer than the duration of the late 2004 "blip" (even if it hasn't reached the same height). Aelffin (talk) 11:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If you want a good argument against my point, look at this. Here we see two apparently unrelated movements following the same trend. This is a great exercise in logic. Possibility #1: There is a variable external to both movements causing the trends to run parallel. (Perhaps this is evidence of your signal-to-noise argument.) Possibility #2: There is a causal relationship between the interest levels in the two movements. (Perhaps this is evidence of my pet theory--that conservatism causes a "reactionary" anarchist movement.) Aelffin (talk) 12:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I was glad to read your most recent comments as I feel that we are approaching the point when we can agree to draw this discussion to a conclusion. These, I think, are some salient points:
 * 1)Google trends may give an indication of public interest in certain things, but does not really offer hard evidence.
 * 2)Various people may have formed various opinions about whether anarchism is growing phenomenon, but most of this would (at best) be classified as original research and inappropriate for wikipedia.
 * 3)Should someone publish some reliable information on this,which was considered free of bias (I think we are al aware of how political groups tend to present themselves as steadily increasing) this could provide a source to include some information on this to improve the article.
 * Does that sound like a reasonable summary?Harrypotter (talk) 06:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * We're partially in agreement. I took the liberty of numbering your statements so I can reply...
 * 1) GoogleTrends does give reliable data, but interpreting that data is original research, so it isn't appropriate to use this for article content. However, it is fine to use trends to make a case on discussion pages.
 * 2) The opinions of Wikipedia editors do count as original research. However, the published opinions of various knowledgable commentators on the subject are fair game.
 * 3) Statistical studies would be great, but the majority of information on Wikipedia is taken from the published opinions of varioius knowledgable commentators, both inside and outside the topic of the respective articles. There is enough published information to support the contention that at the very least, anarchism is widely percieved as having a resurgence.
 * Aelffin (talk) 13:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Please! GoogleTrends, or anything else operated by Google, is not a reliable source on these issues. For all of the "source needed" tags inflicted on poor Wikipedia article, it's not that hard to figure out that there are fairly standard ways to determine approximate answers to these questions. Citing some blind tool at some search engine? How about citing some articles written by scholars, or by people familiar with the subject, in this case anarchists? Chuck0 (talk) 06:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Chuck, I didn't say that Google is a reliable source, I said that the information is reliable enough that it can be used to back up arguments on discussion pages. Aelffin (talk) 19:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Good, I'm happy with that. Referenced opinion then allows the querent to evaluate the opinion.Harrypotter (talk) 19:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Definition of state in regards to anarchism.
The Anarchy section of the Anarchy article mentions that Anarchism isn't technically "anomie" or lack of laws, but rather simply lack of rulers. There is no mention of a division from anomie where anarchism is concerned within this anarchism article itself. Seeing as it defines itself as such anyway this isn't the problem I have with the article exactly...

Rather, it is how it makes the jump to immediately making itself incompatible with the abstractly approached "state" by these conditions. It begins by defining it's topic as opposed to archons and thus representing the "elimination" of compulsory government which the article putatively defines as "the state".

However the state article defines itself as "a political association with effective sovereignty over a geographic area" or "the set of governing institutions that has sovereignty over a definite territory", therefore a set of laws, not a set of rulers (as sovereignty is similarly defined as something which might not be invested in a singular individual but something more abstract). By these definitions a "state" and "anarchism" are not mutually exclusive (allowing for, in concept, an 'anarchistic state' or 'state anarchism'; a reciprocal governing apparatus with a voluntary bureaucratic professional branch that organizes a federative will for those freely associated under it. For example government entirely formed from the German Eingetragener Verein, where a recognition and incorporation is "compulsory" but there is still no "archon" over oneself or jurisdiction existing that is not voluntary). Even if the bulk of media & literature claim anarchism is always opposed to "the state", the article should claim that as the case, as otherwise there is a logical gap here where the definitions do not align as perfectly against one another. A set of governing institutions and registered voluntary associations can by the definition of the word state, form such a state, and not transgress anarchism's tenets. It may be a very narrow definition, but it allows for such a definition nonetheless and doesn't completely exclude it (the condition where "state" and "anarchism" can come together), I think that is important. 67.5.156.237 (talk) 07:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems to me your argument fails due to the definition of sovereignty. The sovereignty article says, "Sovereignty is the exclusive right to have control over an area of governance, people, or oneself." Key words are "exclusive right," i.e. a monopoly over the right to make laws. Thus, the state is not "a set of laws" as you claim, but a monopoly organization (with a set of rulers.) I'm not familiar with Eingetragener Vereins, but they sound to me like they exist by permission from a state, are subservient to that state, and are not states themselves. BTW many, maybe most, anarchists would define "state" in the Weberian manner - that organization that has a 'monopoly on legitimate violence' over a specific territory. This is covered in the state article. So "compulsory government" means the same as "state," and there's no good reason not to say this for the benefit of readers who use the word "state" for this sort of entity, especially since anarchist literature generally uses the term. PhilLiberty (talk) 03:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "What does 'legitimate violence' mean? Richard Blatant (talk) 04:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * In Wikipedia, the article is monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force. Legitimate in this context means legally or morally acceptable. E.g. the violence of a murderer or thief or rapist is not legitimate, whereas the violence used in self-defense or to recover stolen property is (when proportionate, etc.). PhilLiberty (talk) 04:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That would make everyone's home a state. Everyone has a monopoly on that in their own home. That definition is not adequate. Richard Blatant (talk) 04:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No, your coercive government claims the right to prevent you from doing many violent things, and most people support that coercive government's monopoly. The compulsory government may allow households to do certain things - with its permission. Some compulsory governments don't allow people to have certain tools for self-defense in their homes (firearms), some forbid corporal punishment on children, etc. But I think I see what you're driving at. Weberian "monopoly" should be understood to mean ultimate jurisdiction rather than sole provider, and to mean regardless of property rights. I.e. The state's monopoly sovereignty supercedes property rights. PhilLiberty (talk) 05:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

"Anarcho-Capitalism" again
I never thought it ever existed. I thought that Anarcho-Capitalism was a derrogatory (at least by intent) label sticked by opponents against extreme liberalism, a liberalism that claims everything (including military) can be privatized. Now consider me being wrong, then there is a movement, an organization, most probably derived from some earlier anarchist movement, but maybe instead more like intellectual debating individuals claiming themselves to be "anarcho-capitalists". The political heritage to these hypothetical "anarcho-capitalists" must then be verified. I claim there is no such thing as Anarcho-Capitalism, in the same way as there is no Crypto-Calvinist faith.  Said: Rursus   ☻   09:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The primary influence of anarcho-capitalism is in fact classical liberalism, not anarchism. Zazaban (talk) 09:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Then, are there individuals claiming themselves to be "anarcho-capitalists", by your knowledge?  Said: Rursus   ☻   09:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * For fun, a google of the phrases: "I'm a X" where X is a diversity of opinions:
 * anarcho-capitalist: 777
 * anarcho-syndicalist: 1,010
 * Christian Democrat: 7
 * communist: 12400
 * [f.ex.: “I'm a communist! Yay! Topic: WE ARE ALL COMMUNISTS!!”]
 * capitalist schweinhund: 0
 * social democrat: 1460
 * national socialist: 392
 * For information: I'm undefined, me myself.  Said: Rursus   ☻   09:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Now, jokes aside, I 'm inclined towards separating anarcho-capitalism from anarchism, and put it into liberalism, since the anarchists use to adher to the individual-collective-symbiosis concept, while liberals instead see the individual as a fundamental basis for the collecive (or in the case of "neo-liberalism" denies the existence of a collective, but that's its own story - one may doubt that "neo-liberalism" actually qualifies as liberalism).  Said: Rursus   ☻   09:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Good luck with that. Fifty-two pages of archival discussion indicate that fighting over anarcho-capitalism is a bad idea. - N1h1l (talk) 14:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Is it to much to expect that you would actually read our featured article on anarcho-capitalism? I don't mean to be offensive, but this post shows astounding ignorance of the topic. Skomorokh 19:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to agree there. I know of plenty of people who identify as anarcho-capitalist. To say that it doesn't exist is absurd. I just wanted to point out that it did not actually come from anarchism. Zazaban (talk) 20:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Whether or not classical liberalism is a strongr influence, it is extremely well documented that individualist anarchism – particularly the American tradition of Tucker, Warren, Spooner et al – is a direct antecedent of contemporary anarcho-capitalism. See Anarcho-capitalism Skomorokh  15:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Depends on who you ask. The Great Rothbardo did take some ideas from individualist anarchism to be sure. However, an intellectually honest ancapper should admit that rejecting socialist core principles means that even Tucker and Spooner wouldn't have called Murray an anarchist. Aelffin (talk) 04:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't agree. Afterall, Tucker called Auberon Herbert an anarchist, though Herbert, along with other British individualists, rejected what Tucker took to be the socialist core principle, the labor theory of value and all that follows from that rejection such as non-rejection of interest, rent, and profit. The old individualists disagreed on many things but they still regarded each other as anarchists. Operation Spooner (talk) 16:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Given that Herbert explicitly argued in favour of a state and for government, Tucker was obviously wrong. (see http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secF7.html#secf72 ) Herbert also explicitly said he was not an anarchist. As such, Tucker's comment is hardly strong evidence... Suffice to say, while some academic may consider "anarcho"-capitalism a form of anarchism (probably because they use the word "anarchist"), few anarchists think so. And I should note that Rothbard subscribed to views on key issues which Tucker explicitly argued were statist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.82.107.51 (talk) 13:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's irrelevant as to whether Herbert believed himself to be an anarchist or not. What makes someone an anarchist is not whether he accepts or rejects the term but whether he actually is. Therefore you cannot conclude that Tucker was wrong on the basis that Herbert did not accept the label (btw Tucker knew he did not accept the label). Given that Rothbard did not even reject the label but whose philosophy is more anarchistic than Herbert's because he like Tucker was for competitive security, surely Tucker would regard Rothbard to be an anarchist. Finally I'm wondering what you're referring to when you say that Rothbard subscribed to views that Tucker explicitly argued were statist. Operation Spooner (talk) 00:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * What makes someone an anarchist is heavily debated both inside and outside the movement. The objective fact of the matter is that there are differing views on the subject. Aelffin (talk) 18:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I claim there is no such thing as Anarcho-Capitalism, in the same way as there is no Crypto-Calvinist faith.
 * Most anarchists would agree with you, but thanks to Wikipedia, a small number of militant anarcho-capitalists have exploited this open resource to establish some legitimacy for what most people accurately see as an oxymoron. Some of the anarcho-capitalists eventually grow up and learn the error of this label, with many of them taking up something more sensible like market anarchism, agorism, left libertarianism and so on. The fact that people can use Wikipedia to establish logical fallacies such as anarcho-capitalism and national anarchism as being legitimate demonstrates the serious weaknesses of Wikipedia. Anarchism is anti-capitalist. It's really that simple. Bit in Wikipedia-land, 2 + 2 = 5. Chuck0 (talk) 06:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * First, I want to say I agree with you about anarcho-capitalism's relationship to anarchism proper (see my own rough draft classification scheme here). However, I don't think the fault lies mainly in Wikipolicy.
 * Wikipedia's blanket ban on original research is certainly the reason that the ancap faction can keep a large amount of accurate and important information out of the article. But the ban on OR is important...otherwise, the whole wiki would be full of speculation.
 * Yes, this is unfortunate for anarchism, because outsiders have never done a very good job of studying anarchism and anarchists themselves haven't done a very good job of writing about their movement, so the vast majority of information available in print--and thus acceptable for Wikipedia--is heavily distorted and outright wrong. Much more accurate information is available online and in the huge body of anarchist zines. However, since these sources are amateur and/or hard to find, it is unlikely that this information will find its way into Wikipedia.
 * Since accurate information is in the interest of both Wikipedia and the anarchist movement, I think we should address this lack mainly by seeking publication in respected journals. That will take time, but I think it's the best route to improve the wiki and to improve the image of anarchism. In the meantime, the only other solutions I see are to dig through old anarchist zines and websites for insights and cite them thoroughly, and of course to remember the First Rule of Wikipedia.
 * Aelffin (talk) 15:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * No, it is not. If it is, you can show me IN THE DEFINITION where anarchism is anti-capitalist. Look: I know you hate capitalism. Go rage against it all you like. But for you to bald-facedly claim that anarchism is anti-capitalist is the same type of anti-intellectual nonsense that people use when they say that atheism is communist or that atheism is anti-theism. You can hate capitalism all you want; but you can't get away with trying to add more to a definition than there really is. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 21:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Baawa, I moved your response so it's in the correct order. The question is "Who's definition of anarchism?" My answer is "anarchists' definition" which historically has clearly been inherently socialist. You are free to prefer a different definition, but you can't deny that the anarchist political movement started as and still is self-defined as socialist. It is also very clear as a matter of history that anarcho-capitalism evolved out of neo-libertarian philosophy, not out of socialist anarchism. Whether you want to apply the term "anarchism" to two only distantly related movements is up to you, and I'll respect your decision. But I choose not to, and I expect you to respect my decision. Aelffin (talk) 23:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry about the position of the response. And since "an" "archon" does NOT in any way, shape, or form speak to anything about capitalism or socialism or anything else: adding it to the definition is utterly unwarranted. Again: it's no different from saying that atheism is communism or antitheism. No different whatsoever. It's adding something which does not belong. And I will not respect your decision to add something unwarranted. To do so is to do an injustice to reality. It is to sanction your desire to play a redefinition game, and I'll have none of that. It makes absolutely no difference whatsoever what the "historical" anarchists were. Historically, most christians were catholic, so only catholicism can be the true christianity, right? Further, we must remember that the individualist anarchists in the 19th century weren't opposed to private property (whereas the socialist ones were). Are you going to deny that Spooner was an anarchist? Come on--don't play No True Scotsman. It never works--and it's a fallacy to boot. Fallacies destroy arguments. Always have; always will. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 00:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * As Nietzsche said, "only that which has no history can be defined." Or, to put it another way, the literal etymology of a word tells you very little about what that word actually means; the history of the word's use is what tells us the meaning. All the 19th century anarchists, whether individualist or collectivist, were socialist and opposed to capitalism as they understood it; the article should reflect this history. Some libertarians like to call themselves anarchists, and, mor importantly, have drawn on individualist anarchism, so reasonable to mention anarcho-capitalism in this article; but the idea that the connection between anarchism and anti-capitalism is some kind of "redefinition" is absurd.VoluntarySlave (talk) 01:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, the idea put forth by Chuck0 and others that anarchism is can only be anti-capitalistic IS a re-definition game. Please note that I have never denied that the early anarchists were anti-capitalist. And not all of the 19th century anarchists were opposed to capitalism as they understood it in the sense of ownership of private property. Caplan's FAQ makes that clear. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 03:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not the one playing the No True Scotsman game... I recognize that "absence of government" is one alternative definition. You are free to have that definition. I happen to prefer a different alternative, which you are saying is not valid because of your interpretation of what constitutes an "archon". That's an essentialism that is not backed up by the complicated history of the term "anarchism". The inherently socialist definition goes back to the begining--remember that the ancient Greek anarchists also opposed property--so you can't discount it just because you don't like the implications. That's rewriting history. Aelffin (talk) 01:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, you are playing a redefinition game. And "absence of government" is not simply an "alternative definition"--it's the one found in the dictionary! And the one found at the beginning of the article! So yes: you are playing a re-definition game. Remember: the definition of "christian" and "catholic" were one and the same for nigh on 1,000 years. Are you saying that we need to go back to that, because that's where your re-definition attempt leads. You want to do the historical argument? Fine. You have to be consistent. If you refuse to be consistent, then you admit to playing a re-definition game. Those are your options. It is binary. Choose one or the other. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 03:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The one found in the dictionary? It's a pity you posess only one dictionary. Even more unfortunate that your dictionary only supplies one definition. Dictionary.com gives no less than eight definitions. Some only list government as that which anarchism opposes and some "add on", as you say, other things like "all forms of coercive control". None of these definitions are intrinsically right or wrong. So, again... I recognize your right to pick the definition you please, and I respectfully request you to recognize my right to choose the definition which suits me. Aelffin (talk) 03:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see you've taken to a strawman. Pity. Even more unfortunate that you wish to continue with your re-definition game and that you are utterly inconsistent. Oh-you do have the right to choose a definition which suits you. You just don't get to clam it as fact and get away with it. Because you will be challenged on it. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 03:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * How is recognizing all the definitions of the word a straw man? Please stick to WP:AGF. Aelffin (talk) 04:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * But that's not what you were doing. I wish I could assume good faith on your part, but I cannot at this juncture. You still refuse to admit that you would have to believe that only catholics are christians. To me, that says you're utterly inconsistent and that you just want to have your pet "definition" for some non good-faith reason. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 13:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I said on multiple occasions that there are many valid definitions of anarchism (the same is true of Christianity for that matter). I happen to prefer a particular definition because I think it has some historical weight, but I said I think the others are valid. So again, why do you accuse me of acting in bad faith? Aelffin (talk) 14:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You're talking out of both sides of your mouth, from what it looks like. And I accuse you of bad faith because you're trying to twist what I wrote. That's bad faith. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 22:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * My position for this entire discussion has been this: Anarchism has many valid definitions, some are anti-capitalist and some are not--I think an anti-capitalist definition has greater historical precedence, but you are free to prefer a different definition. In what way have I contradicted this position? In what way have I twisted what you wrote? Aelffin (talk) 22:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * This isn't a personal criticism, but we should look at respected journals as a weasel phrase that goes against the principles of Wikipedia and against the very ideas of anarchism. It could be safely argued that Wikipedia has a long tradition of populism and hostility towards authority, thus we should be skeptical of people who cite respected journals on the topic of anarchism. What we should encourage is that people cite information from materials that are relevant to this topic. In the world of anarchism, zines have traditionally been the medium of choice for anarchists. Academic journals have not been a primary means of communication, so they should be seen as less germane to citations on this subject.


 * Some of you may remember my fight last year with the so-called "anarcho-capitalist" who was later banned by Wikipedia for trolling under a half dozen accounts. I challenged him on several of his citations. He was citing material from mainstream reference books on politics. I'm a librarian who know a few things about reference books, so I pointed out to him that mainstream reference books have a long history of printing false and inaccurate information about anarchism and the anarchist movement. I think we should be extremely skeptical when somebody sources a reference book article on anarchism that has been written by some political science professor who doesn't know squat about the subject of anarchism. As anarchists, we should encourage Wikipedians to be skeptical of citations to material written by academics and "experts." Often, they are wrong, biased, and don't know what they are talking about.


 * Yes, it may be hard to find material on anarchist subjects from anarchist publications. For some of us, this isn't a problem, because we have an extensive collection of anarchist books, journals, zines, and other materials. I can help with citations using my large library, so people just need to ask me for specifics. Chuck0 (talk) 19:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * If you are talking about self-published sources, you can save yourself a lot of effort. -- Vision Thing -- 20:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that the most accurate soures on anarchism are zines, some of which are self-published. Okay, I don't mean to go on, but I want to be really clear about this...


 * Wikipedia policies prohibit the use of the most accurate sources on anarchism.


 * To a certain extent, Wikipedia does allow these sources to be used, for example as self-references and potentially under WP:IAR. However, to a large extent, these resources cannot and should not be used (if you do, you risk throwing all accuracy standards out the window). This means that Wikipedia is necessarily wrong on certain subjects, such as anarchism, and other topics that don't get a lot of mainstream press. Like I said, the way to combat this in the long run is not to throw Wikipolicy out the window, but to get serious, informed writers to write about anarchism in respectable journals. Aelffin (talk) 20:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Let me put that a different way: Wikipedia is not a source of accurate information, it is a source of firmly established information. When a more accurate view of anarchism becomes firmly established, Wikipedia will have an accurate article on anarchism. Until that time, this article will remain inaccurate. Aelffin (talk) 20:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, well put. It's ironic that the populist Wikipedia is moving in an elitist direction, which will mean that it we be default adopt a mainstream bias about all subjects. This is one reason why Infoshop maintains an alternative to Wikipedia. If Wikipedia is going to have policies hostile to citations based on alternative literature, then it will be biased towards a mainstream view of subjects like anarchism. I agree with you to some extent that anarchists should publish more, but the anarchist in me also says that we should make our own policies here. Perhaps we need to fight within Wikipedia for a policy on citations that affirms that non-academic sources are more accurate on some topics such as anarchism. Chuck0 (talk) 18:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that in anarchism and some other topics, mainstream sources are most commonly biassed and outright wrong. I also agree that it would be wise to work within the wiki to develop a more context-dependent set of criteria for judging publications in various fields. However, I am not sure how you would formulate rules that allow the best resources to be favored in the most cases--I'm sure it could be done, but there are a lot of obstacles to overcome. For example, if you let self-published material be used in the anarchism article, wouldn't that mean that self-published creationist literature should be accetped in the evolution article? If so, I don't think it's worth it. Aelffin (talk) 19:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to clear up a false premise employed above, which is the claim that anarchism is historically anti-capitalist. That's not true. Look at anarcho-capitalism for example. It's not anti-capitalist. Review its history. It's been around for a very long time. If anyone thinks it's not historical, then at what year in the future will it be considered historical so that you will no longer say that anarchism is historically anti-capitalist? Recall that at one time, anarchism was historically anti-communist. Now anarcho-communism is considered a form of anarchism. So eventually you're going to have to give in to anarcho-capitalism being a form of anarchism, as the years go by. Or, at least you won't be able to use the argument that anarchism is historically anti-capitalist. I say it's already too late for that argument. Operation Spooner (talk) 03:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Look, there are multiple acceptable definitions of "anarchism". Nobody is contesting that--except possibly Baawa (but I can't really tell). Some definitions are inherently anti-capitalist and some are not. There's no question about that. It's not the label that is at issue here. It is the historical development of anarcho-capitalism with respect to socialist anarchism. You may choose to use the term anarchism in such a way to cover both or you may choose to give them two different labels. I don't care which you choose. What I care about is the history of the two movements, and I think it is clear that they emerged out of two different schools of thought. So, whether you label one or the other or both as "anarchism", I think it should be recognized that they are at most distantly related movements. Aelffin (talk) 04:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You can't really tell? Now I know you're not acting in good faith. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 13:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * No, I honestly don’t understand whether you think there are multiple valid definitions of anarchism or whether there is one "right" definition. Your stance is unclear because on the one hand, you say things like "...for you to bald-facedly claim that anarchism is anti-capitalist is the same type of anti-intellectual nonsense that people use when they say that atheism is communist or that atheism is anti-theism..." and "...show me IN THE DEFINITION where anarchism is anti-capitalist." I take these statements to mean that you are unwilling to recognize that anti-capitalist definitions of anarchism are equally valid to your own preferred definition. Yet, on the other hand you make claims like "...we must remember that the individualist anarchists in the 19th century weren't opposed to private property (whereas the socialist ones were)." and "Please note that I have never denied that the early anarchists were anti-capitalist." I take these statements to mean that you recognize multiple valid definitions of anarchism. Unless I missed something crucial, it sounds to me like you’re arguing both sides. So, yes I think your position is unclear. Perhaps I am mistaken, but that is my honest perception. Now, once more, I ask you to stop accusing me of acting in bad faith, and to please drop the accusatory tone. Aelffin (talk) 14:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * My stance is quite clear. All you have to do is read what I wrote. And drop YOUR accusatory tone. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 22:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no false premise involved when anybody argues that anarchism is historically anti-capitalist. There just isn't any controversy about this within the anarchist movement. I invite you to review the hundreds of books and magazine articles and pamphlets written about anarchism over the past 150 years. Or got talk to any anarchist. Most anarchists will look puzzled if you ask them about anarcho-capitalism. Since anarcho-capitalism is mostly a movement that exists on the Internet (over the past 10 years), many anarchists will never have heard of it. Others will simply laugh and dismiss the concept as an oxymoron. Yes, there is an anarcho-capitalist tendency that goes back decades, but it's really only had proponents since the mid 1990s. And the number of anarcho-capitalists is quite small compared to the rest of the anarchist movement. They sound much bigger, but that's because they use Wikipedia as a form of activism to establish themselves as something bigger. Chuck0 (talk) 19:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * That is exactly correct. I would add that the anarcho-capitalist definition of anarchism is also much closer to the layman's definition of anarchism, so they have a slightly easier time of citing non-academic references that agree with them. Aelffin (talk) 19:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Do we really have to go through this every six months? Is this really productive? Why can't we stick to our current methodology of "if it calls itself anarchist, and some proportion of independent reliable sources call it anarchist, then let's include it"? This article reports and attributes the claims that anarcho-communism and anarcho-capitalism are not really anarchism, and that anarchists usually reject capitalism according to The Oxford Companion to Philosophy. Isn't that good enough - can't we state the controversies and let the reader decide what to think? Skomorokh 18:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * As long as anarchists feel that this article misrepresents their movement, this will continue to be an issue. In the minds of most anarchists, treating anarcho-capitalism as a branch of the anarchist movement is tantamount to treating Creation science as a branch of science or Jews for Jesus as a branch of Judaeism. Right or wrong, that's the perception, and if we want to move past this debate, it'll have to be dealt with better than it's currently being dealt with. Aelffin (talk) 23:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I stumbled across an interesting quote today about this topic from a source that most Wikipedians would not have access to because it is ephemeral like most anarchist publications. I was looking for some materials on situationism today and ran across a booklet titled "Note on Anarchism in North America: 1940-1996" by Mike Hargis. Hargis has long been associated with the magazine Anarcho-Syndicalist Review (formerly Libertarian labor Review). This booklet was published by the old Autonomous Zone infoshop that used to exist in Chicago.

On page 27, Hargis mentions anarcho-capitalists who were active in the 1970s federation, the Social Revolutionary Anarchist Federation (SRAF):

Over the years pressure built up to narrow the parameters for participation in the Federation, specifically to get rid of the anarcho-capitalists, and it is certainly true that left anarchism predominated. As the decade of the 1970's progressed the anarcho-capitalists did for the most part drop out leaving the main division within the federation between cultural and class struggle anarchists.

This little boolet has lots of other useful nuggets. I'll see if I can put the full text online. Chuck0 (talk) 03:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the quote! Very interesting. Let us know if you get the rest of the text online. Aelffin (talk) 11:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)