Template talk:Anarchism sidebar/Archive 2

anarcho-capitalism
Anarcho-capitalism is viewed by nearly all anarchists as an outside movement that uses the term "anarchy" to denote a concept that is entirely different from "anarchy" as it has been used by all previous anarchists in the history of the movement. Anarcho-capitalism bears the same relationship to anarchism that Creation Science bears to science: it is an attempt to gain legitimacy by misusing a well-defined term. --Aelffin 17:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Why is it disputed? If individualist anarchism can be part of the template, then certainly anarcho-capitalism can too. Intangible 21:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The dispute is to whether anarcho-capitalism is anarchism at all, wheras there is little debate about individualist anarchism. Most anarachists (including myself) view capitalism as inherently authoritarian and hierarchical, thus necessitating it's rejection by anarchists (including individualist anarchists). An-caps are just (American) libertarians on steroids. The Ungovernable Force 21:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * But this is about anarchism as a generic term. One is not concerned here if any of the mentioned movements can pressent a coherent argument against the state. Intangible 18:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No, this is not an article about the generic term. It is an article about the Anarchist movement, and movements are defined by continuity. --Aelffin 04:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalism is part of the template. - FrancisTyers · 18:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it says "disputed." What is disputed? It's inclusion? Intangible 22:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You could say that. It is disputed because this is a template about Anarchism, as is shown from the (A), it is frequently and loudly disputed as to whether Anarcho-capitalism is "Anarchism" (as in the (A) kind). Therefore we present that. It is rarely and quietly disputed if any of the other schools are "Anarchism", so they aren't labelled as disputed. - FrancisTyers · 22:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * But this is about small cap anarchism, used as a generic term, not? Then the image seems out of place. I doubt the symbol has any relation to individualist anarchism for example. Intangible 00:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * What makes you say it's about "small cap anarchism"? If it were, we'd have links to "chaos", "destruction" and "lawlessness". And I'm pretty sure indiv anarchists would use the circle-a as well. The Ungovernable   Force  01:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Small cap anarchism in the meaning of term. Namely that it should be about anarchism as generic term. Which individual anarchists? Spooner? Tucker? Intangible 17:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter what somebody thinks Spooner or Tucker or any of the individualists believed. Individualist anarchism (a) was disputed at the time and (b) is long dead. All modern anarchists come out of the socialist tradition. That is the only tradition that has an unbroken line of continuity, which means socialist anarhism is the only living part of the anarchist movement, and the only thing that can be called anarchism properly is that movement or anything that might evolve out of that movement in the future. If some misguided folks want to revive selected distortions of historically anarchist concepts, no problem. But don't call it anarchism, because it is not a continuous line between the old ideas and the new. You could call it pseudo-anarchism or quasi-anarchism, or whatever. Ancap is simply a different movement from anarchism proper. --Aelffin 19:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * To be fair, many modern anarchists are anti-capitalist but would be wary of describing themselves as socialist. Certainly that is true of the primitivists, post-leftists, post-structuralists, and probably most of the greens as well. The whole "take back the factories" mantra of the past doesn't hold up so well when you have people questioning the need for factories, or the need to work in one. Sarge Baldy 20:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Nonetheless, they evolved out of a socialist tradition. Even if all the anarchists in the world got together and said "to hell with anti-authoritarianism, we're all converting to Scientology" they would still be the legitimate standardbearers of anarchism. It's a shared history and culture that defines any movement. Anarchism happens to trace back to a socialist tradition, but if a bunch of anarchists converted to ancap, taking their anarchist culture with them, then you could make a case for that branch of ancap being a type of anarchism. That could still happen. But it hasn't yet, so all existing ancaps will have to be happy as right-libertarians, because that's their culture and history. --Aelffin 04:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Just to mention, whether anarcho-communism is a form of anarchism is also disputed by a number of individualist anarchists. Maybe anarcho-communism should have a disputed tag too?-- Vision Thing -- 18:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Nope. - FrancisTyers · 18:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * By your rational, the inclusion of individualist anarchism should be disputed as well! Intangible 21:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * No. People who dispute Individualist anarchism (Some communists), People who dispute Communist anarchism (Some individualists), People who dispute Anarcho-capitalism (The overwhelming majority of Individualist anarchists, Communist anarchists, Anarcho-syndicalists, Post-left anarchists, etc.). - FrancisTyers · 21:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Who are those "some" and "overwhelming majority" people? How is one to decicide when "some" becomes the "overwhelming majority"? One cannot. One does not try to decide. Anarchism is used as a generic term here, one is not interested if any of these claims made by various anarchist movements are intellectually coherent, or not. Intangible 22:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No it isn't used as a generic term here. As is evident from the template. - FrancisTyers · 23:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Then what is it about? Nowhere explained. Why include individualist anarchism in Anarchism, but not anarcho-capitalism? Intangible 23:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * We include them both in the template. - FrancisTyers · 23:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Then the template is about anarchism, not Anarchism. Intangible 00:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * No, you see thats the clever thing. We know that a minority of people think that anarcho-capitalism is "Anarchism", which is why we include it! - FrancisTyers · 00:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * But how would you defend the position that your template should be about Anarchism, and not anarchism? Intangible 01:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * There is no position to defend, that is what the template is and has been agreed to be. - FrancisTyers · 01:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * But at the start anarcho capitalism was not disputed. So by using your "logic", anarcho capitalism is not disputed, because "that is what the template is and has been agreed to be." Intangible 02:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * All the information had not come to light at that point in time. - FrancisTyers · 02:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Then I shall provide you with new information that the template should be about anarchism, not Anarchism. Always glad to help! Intangible 02:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * What makes you think it's about "anarchism" as opposed to "Anarchism"? First off, the template's title says "Anarchism". And is there really much of a difference, other than the semantical one you want to make to justify including a highly disputed (per)version of anarchism in the template without any disclaimer? And just because you can show a diff of the template that included an-cap w/o a disclaimer doesn't show much at all, because I can (but won't b/c I don't feel like spending the time) show you diffs of all the times people have removed it from the template all together. The Ungovernable   Force  02:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This is a false argument. I can easily show you the many times when those changes were, rightly so, reverted back. Intangible 02:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that was the right way for it to be. Regardless, there were times where an-cap was not included for a while (like feb-april). The constant removal of it though shows that it is disputed. Were the other schools removed that often? No. The Ungovernable   Force  02:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I am having an argument with you, not with those who removed it from the template, and never presented a rational for doing so on the talk page. Intangible 02:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I thought of it as a debate, not an argument, but hey. And like I said, I'm not defending it's removal or the people who did it. I'm just explaining why it's labelled as disputed. And you never answered my question about why you seem to think this is about "anarchism" and not "anarchism", nor did you fully explain the difference. The Ungovernable   Force  02:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The difference is that Anarchism will always be some instance of anarchism. The latter simply means "without rulers" (from the Greek αναρχία), nothing more, nothing less. The instance Anarchism can mean different things: like anarcho capitalism, anarcho syndicalism or individualist anarchism. Therefore the template should be about anarchism, not Anarchism, because one cannot in a NPOV way decide which Anarchism presents a valid argument, and should counter any other form of Anarchism. Intangible 03:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Seconded. The word "anarchy" means "without rulers," not "without heirarchy." There's no reason for anarcho-capitalism to be any more "disputed" than the other forms listed in this template. The popular opinions or relative positions of other self-designated anarchists regarding anarcho-capitalism are entirely irrelevant. The only relevant data are the meanings of the words involved. h3h 17:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't agree. - FrancisTyers · 17:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't agree? Intangible 20:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It doesn't make sense to strictly define anarchy/anarchism in terms of their root. It's a political tradition, not an etymological puzzle. Sarge Baldy 20:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Do agree. The Ungovernable   Force  21:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, and even if it is an etymological puzzle, bosses, landowners and other assorted capitalists are rulers. Furthermore, a hierarchy is a system in which people are ranked according to authority, or rulership. No rulers should inherently imply no social hierarchy. The Ungovernable   Force  21:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Right, except anarcho-capitalists might not be so quick to use "ruler" to mean the ruling class, as clear as that might seem to others. Although if you do want to play the etymological puzzle, "hier-archy" is very clearly one form of rule. Sarge Baldy 21:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * "bosses, landowners and other assorted capitalists are rulers." I assume you mean people with property in general? That is an ethical question. Wikipedia editors cannot favor one ethics over the other. Intangible 21:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That's not a question, it's a statement of fact. They have authority over others by their having those things when others do not. I'm not asking if that's right or wrong ethically (personally, I think it's wrong), I'm pointing out that an anarchist can't support those things while still calling themselves an anarchist based on H3h's definition. Anyways, like Sarge and I said, that's not really the important part here. What is important is that as a social movement anarchism has pretty much always rejected capitalism. Why don't you focus on the larger points of our arguments, rather than the small details that I even admit aren't as important? The Ungovernable   Force  22:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that people who support private property can't be considered anarchist? -- Vision Thing -- 18:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes and no. Most anarchists make a distinction between two different types of property: personal posessions and private capital. Different terms are used, but most anarchists would agree that personal posessions are fine up to a point but private capital is almost always used to maintain power relationships. In other words, it's fine to have your toothbrush, your house, your car, but if you acquire large amounts of wealth from, for example, making profit off others' labor, then you're effectively a ruler of those people. That's exploitation. You cannot rationally call yourself an anarchist if you support exploitative relationships because that is the very definition of rulership. Thus, anarcho-capitalists are not anarchists because they either don't recognize the difference between the two types of property, or they recognize it but don't have a problem with exploitation. Differences in power = rulership. --Aelffin 12:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Not all differences in power are rulership. -- Vision Thing -- 20:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * According to Dictionary.com, to [rule] means "Governing power or its possession or use; authority." My emphasis. --Aelffin 20:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * From A is B you can't derive that all Bs must be A. -- Vision Thing -- 20:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You are right, A being a subset of B does not make B a subset of A.
 * But I never said that. What I said was:
 * If A is a subset of B and B is a subset of C, then A is a subset of C.
 * 1)Possession of power is a sufficient condition for rule.
 * 2)Rule is a sufficient condition for rulership.
 * 3)Therefore: Posession of power is a sufficient conition for rulership.
 * QED --Aelffin 04:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * QED --Aelffin 04:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * That falls on the first premise. You assumed that possession of power is a subset of rule and not the other way around (possession of power as a superset of rule). Terms are usually defined with broader, not narrower, category. -- Vision Thing -- 20:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Larger points

 * I am not even sure what your "larger points" are. Maybe you can enlighten me. The rejection of capitalism does not follow from the definition of anarchism ("without rulers"). Intangible 13:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Historical anarchists have always considered the power relationships that issue from capitalism to be a type of rule. The slogan "No Gods, No Masters!" is a reflection of this. Anarcho-capitalism did not originate from within the anarchist movement, and does not share the same understanding of rulership that constitutes perhaps the only uniting link between all anarchists. To call anarcho-capitalism a type of anarchism is to distort the notion of anarchism to the point of uselessness. --Aelffin 17:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * To give a quote from a 1889 article: "The Invididualistic Anarchists accordingly profess to have very little in common with the Internationalists. The latter are Communistic Anarchists." Shall one dispute the inclusion of individualist anarchism in the template as well??? Intangible 18:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Not at all...differences are fine, as long as they emerged from within the anarchist movement, i.e. as a result of divisions among existing anarchists (as individualist anarchism did). Let me ask you an hypothetical question. Let's say some guy decides he wants to be king of the world, and when he achieves this end, he will declare a state of chaos, and at that time, he personally will force everybody to be chaotic. Okay, bear with me. Now, let us assume that he decides to call his new system "anarcho-monarchism" because he thinks anarchism has something to do with chaos. Should, in your opinion, "anarcho-monarchism" now be included in the template? One more question: what if a microbrewery releases a new beer produced by a process they call "anarcho-brewing". Should this be considered a type of anarchism? In short, do you think that *every* wacko that misuses the label "anarchism" should be included on this page? --Aelffin 12:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No, only the wackos that properly "misuse" the term anarchism, or capitalism for that matter. Intangible 21:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * So, you agree that there might be certain people who call themselves anarchists who aren't really anarchists, right? And that would mean we need some criteria for determining which "anarchists" use the term properly and which use it improperly. I suggest some criteria below, and I'm willing to entertain the notion that anarcho-capitalism might belong on the template if you can meet any of these criteria:
 * (1) demonstrate that it emerged from within the anarchist movement
 * (2) demonstrate that it shares some particular philosophy with other anarchists
 * (3) provide a convincing argument for why points (1) & (2) are not valid criteria
 * (4) provide better criteria for determining which "anarchists" are really anarchists
 * --Aelffin 11:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Let me quote Sanders instead: Some of those who argue against the state call themselves "capitalist anarchists." Others contend that this is a contradiction in terms, since capitalism institutionally requires the state. Curiously enough, the capitalist anarchists frequently say the same thing about the socialists...At least as regards the arguments that arise among anarchists, and to a considerable extent also as regards the more general argument, this conflict rests largely on terminological ambiguity...This terminological ambiguity can be resolved fairly easily. One way to do it is for capitalist anarchists simply to begin to refer to themselves as "market anarchists." This would at least avoid the nearly pointless arguments, endemic between the two groups, about whether capitalism really is driven by markets. If it isn't, then market anarchists are no happier with capitalism than socialist anarchists are. (from For and Against the State). Intangible 16:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Listen, anarchism is a type of socialism--it absolutely requires evening out wealth--there's no way around it. So, are you unable to address the points I made, or just unwilling? I'm not sure why I should treat your opinion with any more respect than you treat mine, but I will address the Sanders quote nonetheless: Sanders says that if capitalism is not driven by markets, then "market anarchists" are anticapitalists too--okay, so Sanders agrees that pro-capitalists aren't anarchists. However, Sanders does not say that "market anarchists" are anti-rulership or anti-heirarchy. Thus, by the definition of the word anarchism, they are not anarchists. If you support any kind of rulership, you are not an anarchist. End of story. Are you willing to claim that anarcho-capitalists oppose all rulership? Are you ever actually going to address any of the points I make here or above? --Aelffin 17:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Anarchism is not socialism (or collectivism) per se. Benjamin Tucker for example though that wealth should be distributed according to the mechanism of the free market.
 * Market anarchists are against the state. Voluntary contracts are not a form of rulership.
 * (1) This is pointless, since individualist anarchism died out before World War II. Although the work of Albert Jay Nock and Frank Chodorov provide for some continuity.
 * (2) See individualist anarchism. The only differnence is the notion of economic theory, namely subjectivism (marginalist revolution) versus the labour theory of value.
 * (3) and (4). See Sanders.
 * Intangible 17:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You are free to believe that economic coersion into contractual servitude is "voluntary" but anarchists disagree, and always have, thus ancaps reject a core principle of anarchism.
 * (1) You admit then that ancap has, at best, a tenuous continuity with a dead form of anarchism.
 * (2) By that argument, capitalism is a form of communism because the only difference is the total core of the economic theory. Even most individualists agreed that profit, rent, and interest are forms of exploitation (e.g. rulership), something that ancaps do not agree with.
 * (3) & (4) The Sanders quote you supplied doesn't make the point you seem to think it does--in fact, it comes close to making the opposite point. Furthermore, Sanders apparently subscribes to the idea that anarchism = anti-statism. Anarchists have always argued against this mistake. Furthermore, if I'm not mistaken, most ancaps are pro-corporate, whereas all anarchists see corporations as a type rulership, if not outright states. Thus, anarchists aren't really anti-state either.
 * Rejecting anarchist notions of profit, rent, interest, heirarchy, rulership, exploitation, I have to wonder what you think ancaps actually have in common with anarchists. It seems to me that anarcho-capitalists reject anarchism altogether. --Aelffin 18:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that the Labor theory of value is still taken seriously by economists? Intangible 18:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Nope, I didn't say that. But it wouldn't matter if I had, since anarchists recognize most capitalist economic theories as *contingent* on the existence of capitalism, rather than as absolute laws in the way ancaps and other American libertarians see them. Oh, and by the way, anarchism is socialism but not necessarily collectivism since the two are not the same thing. --Aelffin 18:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The majority of current economics is a cargo cult. - FrancisTyers · 20:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Part of the vast capitalist conspiracy? Intangible 20:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Not a conspiracy, just a pre-scientific mythology resulting from a tragic mixture of ignorance and selfishness. --Aelffin 20:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Where did I mention "conspiracy"? I said cargo cult. - FrancisTyers · 01:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * See for example Richard Feynman's wonderful essay on Cargo cult science. And before you ask, yes Marxism also falls under this umbrella. - FrancisTyers · 01:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Please don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. - FrancisTyers · 19:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I was just being WP:BOLD, see the 1889 article's quote. Intangible 19:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Hardly conclusive. - FrancisTyers · 19:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are not the place for political/theoretical discussions
The fact of the matter is that the article on anarchism, as well as the anarchism template, part of the series on politics, deals with anarchism as a political philosophy and movement. Semantic discussion of the word 'anarchy' belongs in a dictionary. --AaronS 14:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not exactly sure what you are trying to say here. Clearly one must have some definition of anarchism before one can start an article about it... Intangible 14:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, the "definition" found in history books, academic essays, textbooks, reviews, journals, and other reliable sources which allow for sufficient verifiability. --AaronS 14:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Except for a dictionary? Strange... Intangible 15:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This is an encyclopaedia, not a dictionary. Etymology is the study of words' roots, not the study of their meaning. --AaronS 15:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Where do I say that the anarchism article should be solely about the etymology of the word anarchism? Intangible 15:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You said: But this is about anarchism as a generic term. One is not concerned here if any of the mentioned movements can present a coherent argument against the state. Etc. --AaronS 15:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * A logical extension after an etymology of the word "anarchism" would be to talk about movements who see anarchism as a political end, which would be a discussion of the generic term anarchism, i.e. a discussion about the classes of movements who see anarchism as a political end. Intangible 15:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * But we have already established that etymology has nothing to do with meaning. 'Anarchism' is a term that describes a political philosophy and movement. Discussion of anarchism, in the anarchism article, as well as in the anarchism series, should be limited to that. If you want to start an article on anarchism (word), go ahead. --AaronS 16:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Then why do anarchists not call themselves communists or capitalists? If words dont have meaning at all. Where does "we have already established that etymology has nothing to do with meaning" refer to? Intangible 16:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Etymology is the study of the origins of words. You seem to be proposing that the meaning of anarchism lies in etymology. But, we already know that anarchism, the political and philosophical movement, has a meaning that lies in its political and philosophical theory. Edit the article on anarchy or create a new article, anarchism (word), if you want to talk of etymology. --AaronS 16:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * From anarchism: "Anarchism is the name for both a political philosophy and manner of organizing society, derived from the Greek αναρχία ("without archons" or "without rulers"). Thus "anarchism," in its most general semantic meaning, is the belief that all forms of rulership are undesirable and should be abolished." This corresponds 100% with what I am saying here on the talk page. It logically connects etymology with the generic term for movements that see anarchism as the political end. Intangible 16:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The meaning of the word, in the context of its political and philosophical implications, is not in its etymology. --AaronS 17:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course not. If that were to be the case one could just do with an etymology of the word anarchism in the anarchism article and call it a day. Intangible 17:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe you are not familiar with this quote by Tucker:
 * "Anarchism is a word without meaning, unless it includes the liberty of the individual to control his product or whatever his product has brought him through exchange in a free market - that is, private property. Whoever denies private property is of necessity an Archist."
 * So, according to Tucker, anyone who opposes private property is an archist. Obviously there are various visions of that what anarchism is, and some of them exclude each other. It's not ours to decide which of those visions of anarchy is correct.-- Vision Thing -- 18:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Let's leave it up to the sources to decide. --AaronS 18:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * How can a source decicide upon the Template here? I've already showed a 1889 source that sees almost no common between individualist anarchism and communist anarchism. Intangible 19:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Sources. See my comments on your talk page. --AaronS 19:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Demanding the Impossible : History of Anarchism by Peter Marshall includes Individualist Anarchism, but excludes Anarcho-capitalism. - FrancisTyers · 19:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thus? The 1889 source did not include anarcho capitalism either. Intangible 19:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Anarcho-capitalism didn't exist in 1889. Besides, just because the individualists weren't communists doesn't mean they weren't anarchists or anti-capitalists. There are plenty of people who are oppossed to both communism and capitalism. This template is about anarchism as a historical trend, similar to it's presentation in other encyclopedias. Since anarcho-capitalism's place in that trend is disputed by many anarchists and scholars, we should label it as disputed. Other schools/traditions (like anarcho-communism, indiv anarchism, post-left anarchism, etc) are rarely disputed, at least not as much and as passionately as anarcho-capitalism is. Therefore we have a note that it's disputed. The Ungovernable   Force  20:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Can someone who believes in free competition and free trade be an anarchist? Intangible 20:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Depends in what other things they believe. - FrancisTyers · 20:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well that was a really clear answer. What do you mean with depends? Intangible 20:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It's important to note that economics isn't the only position anarcho-capitalists have a radically different stand on things. They support private police forces, private laws, private everything. Really you can sum anarcho-capitalism up as radical privatization, or an extreme form of social contract theory. To anarcho-capitalists, even slavery is acceptable, in principle. Not surprisingly, few people have even bothered trying to reconcile such a position with anarchism. Even anarcho-capitalists tend not to see themselves as representing a form of anarchism but as representing the form of anarchism, or the "purest" form. There's just too big a gap between anarcho-capitalist philosophy and traditional anarchism to include the former without some form of disclaimer. Sarge Baldy 21:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Not with individual anarchism though. Intangible 03:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Who cares. Great, you think it's a small step from indiv anarchism to an-cap. But do you still want to say it's not disputed? This is exactly the nature of the dispute: some people say it's a type of indiv anarchism, others say it's not even that. In other words, people dispute whether it's a type of anarchism. This talk page is proof of that. You're never going to convince us that an-cap is a form of anarchism, and we'll probably never convince you that it isn't. We can debate it for years on end and never come to a conclusion. Let's stop trying to convince each other that it is/n't a form of anarchism and agree to disagree. I think it's pretty clear that it's diputed, would you not say so? The Ungovernable   Force  03:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This is second time this week that I'm encountering this claim about slavery. It looks like a lot of antianarcho-capitalist doesn't know for what anarcho-capitalism really stands for. In his "The Ethics of Liberty" Rothbard said:
 * "The fundamental axiom of libertarian theory is that each person must be a self-owner, and that no one has the right to interfere with such self-ownership. From this there follows immediately the total impermissibility of property in another person. One prominent example of this sort of property is the institution of slavery. Before 1865, for example, slavery was a "private property" title to many persons in the United States. The fact of such private title did not make it legitimate; on the contrary, it constituted a continuing aggression, a continuing criminality, of the masters (and of those who helped enforce their titles) against their slaves." -- Vision Thing -- 20:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Let me quote Sanders instead: Some of those who argue against the state call themselves "capitalist anarchists." Others contend that this is a contradiction in terms, since capitalism institutionally requires the state. Curiously enough, the capitalist anarchists frequently say the same thing about the socialists...At least as regards the arguments that arise among anarchists, and to a considerable extent also as regards the more general argument, this conflict rests largely on terminological ambiguity...This terminological ambiguity can be resolved fairly easily. One way to do it is for capitalist anarchists simply to begin to refer to themselves as "market anarchists." This would at least avoid the nearly pointless arguments, endemic between the two groups, about whether capitalism really is driven by markets. If it isn't, then market anarchists are no happier with capitalism than socialist anarchists are. (from For and Against the State). Intangible 16:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, we'll hold down the fort, while you start the letter writing campaign :) - FrancisTyers · 16:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Right. As I've said before, there's no point trying to convince Wikipedia editors that anarchism and capitalism are compatible or not compatible. Our points of view on the topic are largely irrelevant. Changing editors' points of view doesn't change what is a neutral point of view. Our discussions need to center less around pleading the case for anarcho-capitalism as anarchism or as an oxymoron, and more around the broader opinion of self-described anarchists regarding anarcho-capitalism. Sarge Baldy 17:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks like self-described anarchist are disputing validity of this template. Shall we put a disputed note on it too? -- Vision Thing -- 20:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It has very little to do with this page. Go to any anarchist discussion group and you'll find ancaps trying to pretend they are anarchists while actual anarchists tell them they're full of crap. Look at any anarchist literature in the history of the movement, and if you can find any mention of ancaps at all, you will see a dispute as to whether they are anarchists. *History* is what determines the membership of all movements. --Aelffin 21:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I cannot see how using the notions of "self-described" anarchists would help us here, since that would still constitute OR and POV. I provided a quote to Sanders, he only sees differences on terminological grounds. His chapter is online at . Intangible 20:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You seem to be skipping over the part where he says that the terminological dispute is not substantive and where he claims that he is an anarcho-capitalist. --AaronS 20:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Not 'substantive', I don't think he is saying that? Where does he say he is an anrcho-capitalist? Intangible 21:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

"This looks better"
How does adding two ugly asterisks make the template look better? --AaronS 20:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Because they aren't ugly and template looks better, more encyclopedic that way. -- Vision Thing -- 20:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Any other thoughts on asterisk? -- Vision Thing -- 20:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * We have moved beyond this, and are currently working on a redesign of the template. SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Stop
Stop debating about whether anarcho-capitalism is capitalism or not. I'm getting quite sick of it, especially since that is not the issue! The issue is whether anarcho-capitalism is disputed as a type of anarchism and the clear answer is yes, as evidenced by this discussion (and countless others). Stop engaging in pointless arguments and focus on the real issue at hand. No one has said they are going to take anarcho-capitalism off the template so stop trying to prove it's anarchism. The Ungovernable   Force  02:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, I think the question of whether anarcho-capitalism belongs in the template at all is still up for debate. It is a movement that is hostile to anarchism and the only thing it has in common with anarchism are the first six letters of its name. As such, it is properly left on the disambiguation page, or better yet on the Libertarian page (where it already is). Look at science and you will not find a link for "scientific creationsm (disputed)". Look at Jew and you will not find "Jews for Jesus (disputed)". --Aelffin 10:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Just make the compromise. You're never going to get rid of them, they have too much influence in America and on the net. They are always going to be on the anarchism pages and will always be inserting their pov. The best we can hope for is to make sure people realize that most anarchists reject them as a part of the anarchist movement. The Ungovernable   Force  17:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * There are three reasons not to drop it. 1) There are more anarchists than ancaps and our internet presence is growing faster than theirs, so we're likely to win out eventually, as long as we don't allow a precedent to be set now. 2) As long as we keep the argument going, ancaps and onlookers are being educated whether they like it or not. 3) Ancaps only want to be noted here and elsewhere because it gives them an opportunity to convert people, and that is something anarchists should oppose. While I think it is reasonable to have a remark within the body of the article to the effect that ancaps believe themselves to be anarchists, if you put it in the template you are incorrectly implying that other anarchists recognize them as such. Not only is that inaccurate, but it is quite offensive. --Aelffin 18:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't treat the Wikipedia as a battlefield. -- Vision Thing -- 20:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Sarge Baldy 20:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Point taken. I'll keep my personal justification to myself in the future. Noneltheless, it should be about accuracy. --Aelffin 01:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

article
From DeLeon (American Quarterly, 1973):
 * "The heroes of the old, libertarian right were Jefferson, Paine, Garrison, Spencer, Mencken, Robert Taft, and the Herbert Spencer of today, Ayn Rand. This tradition even included the anarcho-individualism of Spooner and Tucker from the 19th century."


 * "Within the generally acknowledged rubric of libertarianism, these new, explicit anarchisms differentiated themselves with such terms as anarcho-capitalist, anarcho-Communist, anarcho-individualist, anarcho-Marxist, autarchist, Christian anarchist,...Despite this diversity, we can categorize all anarchists as essentially left-wing libertarians who champion the growth of the individual within a community (anarcho-Communists, Christian anarchists and most anarcho-pacifists) and the right-wing libertarians (anarcho-capitalists and ultra-individualists) who are more egoistic, and stress the individualism of the unregulated market...it is not surprising that what I call right-wing libertarianism was the predominant element of the new anarchism."


 * "The left and right have shared certain pieties about the past: a common admiration for the work of Sam Adams, Paine, Thoreau, the anti-gradualism of Garrison, and the struggles of militant abolitionism."

There. QED. Intangible 20:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That doesn't prove anything other than my point: anarcho-capitalism is disputed. You can cite 100 sources that say it's anarchism, and I could cite 100 sources that say it's not (and honestly, I think I'd find more than you would). There is a dispute. This cannot easily be denied. You are avoiding the real issue. The Ungovernable   Force  22:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The source explicitly states that anarcho-Communists and anarcho-capitalists are anarchists. There is no dispute. Intangible 01:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Correction: the author recognized no dispute at the time because there were damned few anarchists around to dispute it in 1973. Furthermore, even though the author has no historical citation to back up any claims, they do point out that ancap came from right-wing libertarianism and not anarchism proper. A movement is defined by its history and evolution, not by some theoretical framework that you or any other writer feels like shoehorning it into. Now, find an anarchist source that says the same thing and you might be onto something. --Aelffin 04:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Intangible, you don't seem to be paying attention to what I'm saying. I agree, your source says anarcho-capitalism is a type of anarchism. That doesn't mean there is no dispute. Who made your source the only source? Like I said, there are a lot of sources that say it is not anarchism as well, therefore there is a dipute. That's when people disagree on an issue. In other words, you expect some people to say it is, and others to say it's not. I don't know if you are purposefully avoiding the issue or if you really have trouble understanding what I'm saying. The Ungovernable   Force  06:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * There is no dispute saying that anarcho-capitalism is not anarchism, instead I proved that it is a form of anarchism. There still as well might be a dispute between anarcho-capitalists and anarcho-communists, but that doesn't concern the discussion here. If I do not see any other refereed journal articles that explicitely say that anarcho-capitalism should be disputed as anarchism, I am going to change the template. Intangible 17:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Anarchists (as well as ancaps, I suspect) do not consider mainstream political journals to represent their point of view accurately, therefore the journal you quote is itself in violation of NPOV. However, I think the problem is that we're equating the Anarchist movement with anarchist philosophy, and they're not exactly the same thing. I suggest we split the page into Anarchism (movement) and anarchism (philosophy). Then, we can debate whether ancap is a part of anarchism (philosophy) or not, but it should be perfectly clear that Anarchism (movement) does not include ancap. --Aelffin 17:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Let's take off "(disputed)" and add the heading "Other Anti-Statist Movements:" That's both accurate and nonjudgemental. --Aelffin 12:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It isn't really a movement, how about "Other philosophies opposed to the state"? - FrancisTyers · 12:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Why wouldn't it qualify as a movement? --Aelffin 12:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * When is the last time you've seen an anarcho-capitalist do anything besides debate arm-chair philosophy on the internet? Have you ever seen an anarcho-capitalist activist? When's the last time you've seen anarcho-capitalists in the news protesting against something? What about organizing in their communities to create the type of society they want to see? I haven't. Hard to call it a movement.


 * As for Intangible, I don't need to provide a source because this is obvious enough, and because you can just read the articles anarchism, anarcho-capitalism and anarchism and anarcho-capitalism to see that people dispute it's place. Also, I'm claiming right here that anarcho-capitalism is not a type of anarchism. Many other anarchists have said the same thing, including many editors here, and many notable anarchists in the real world. Also, many classic anarchists (who were around before an-cap developed) have claimed that anarchism is inherently anti-capitalist. Therefore, it's disputed. If it wasn't we wouldn't be having this conversation. The Ungovernable   Force  19:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * "I don't need to provide a source because this is obvious enough" Please read WP:OR, WP:V and WP:NPOV. Intangible 15:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * What do you think to the proposal above? - FrancisTyers · 16:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well "opposed to the state" is pretty much superfluos to "anarchism." Maybe just a space/break will do? Intangible 10:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, here we have the heart of the problem. You want to say that anarchism = opposition to state. But that means you've changed the definition of anarchism. As we all know anarchism, as defined by anarchists, has always meant opposition to rulership including economic domination . This is why anarchism is iherently socialist. You can't throw out the economic part of the definition and still call it anarchism. But is economic domination rulership? You could disagree with that analysis, but that is the way anarchists see it. So, if you disagree, then you are not an anarchist. Anarchists think that every time one person is in a position of power over another, that counts as a type of rulership (as I proved above). To put it another way, ancaps might not believe in formal government, but they have no problem with corporations and other informal governments whereas anarchists oppose all governments. --Aelffin 12:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * "how about "Other philosophies opposed to the state"?" This is FrancisTyers talking, not me. Intangible 17:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Review of the Literature
I have said in the past that I fall squarely in the "ancap is not anarchism" school of thought, but--criticisms notwithstanding--if we accept that Noam Chomsky is an anarchist, then the quote below does provide some evidence that there has been at least some degree of cooperation between anarchists and ancaps in the past. I'm not sure if that is enough to make me change my opinion, but it does bear keeping in mind as we decide what constitutes a part of the movement.

Excerpted from an interview in Z Magazine:
 * Interviewer :Many "anarcho-capitalists" claim that anarchism means the freedom to do what you want with your property and engage in free contract with others. Is capitalism in any way compatible with anarchism as you see it?
 * 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.
 * I should add, however, that I find myself in substantial agreement with people who consider themselves anarcho-capitalists on a whole range of issues; and for some years, was able to write only in their journals. And I also admire their commitment to rationality -- which is rare -- though I do not think they see the consequences of the doctrines they espouse, or their profound moral failings. --Aelffin 15:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Though Chomsky is widely described as an anarchist, and certainly seems to advocate elements of anarcho-syndicalism at times, he generally describes himself not as an anarchist but as a "fellow traveler". In fact I've removed direct mention of him as an anarchist from the anarchism page a couple of times for that reason, but it always finds its way back and isn't a pressing issue in my opinion given his close association with anarchism.  Anyway, I'm not sure this quote demonstrates a great deal that is relevant to this template.  That there are overlap ideas between anarcho-capitalists and anarchists in general is already known, anarchists and anarcho-capitalists all rail against "the state" as such, and there are many issues subordinate to that issue that are shared.  However, there are also very striking differences between anarcho-capitalism and the rest of the anarchist traditions, and this has been noted by historians and anarchists and indeed anarcho-capitalists themselves for a long time.  Anarcho-capitalism is at the very least a subject related to anarchism, and at most a divergent tradition within it, between those two poles is where the debate lies, probably somewhere around a divergent tradition outside of it, imho.  That it is disputed or contested is something that seems rather beyond reasonable doubt.  Blahblahblahblahblahblah 04:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Personally, I'd say it fits most clearly in the "criticisms" section. But in order for us to have a debate, we'll need to agree on some criteria with which to classify a school of thought as "divergent from" or "convergent with" and "interior to" or "exterior to" the Anarchist and/or anarchist movement and/or philosophy. So far, we're all using different criteria and I'm hoping that providing other borderline cases (like Chomsky) will tease out what criteria each player is using. Then, maybe we can get somewhere. --Aelffin 19:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Other Disputed Schools
I have personally witnessed disputes as to whether Christian anarchism is a form of anarchism. My intuition says yes, but I'm not speaking from an informed POV. Anybody willing to suggest that Anarcho-capitalism and Christian anarchism belong together in a "disputed" category? If so, what is the nature of the dispute. If not, what is the difference between the two disputes? --Aelffin 15:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It is disputed, but not as much as an-cap. I mean, Tolstoy was a Christian, and he is considered an anarchist by most. Although I personally dislike the idea of Christian anarchists, I would consider them (misguided) anarchists. As long as they don't try to force Christianity on others, I don't see why their own personal belief in a god should exclude them from being anarchists, but it is fairly ironic. I do have friends (who have been involved in the anarchist movement for quite some time) who were surprised to hear Christian anarchists even exist and we spent time talking about how absurd it was. I think it's absurdity comes down to what defines them as Christian though. But there are some anarchists who are very adament in saying that anarchists can't be Christian or religious (which I find to be pretty ironic as well). The Ungovernable   Force  05:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * "It is disputed, but not as much as an-cap" Maybe it would be easier to put the disputed tag to anarcho-communism, that would save one a lot of talk in the future. WP:V does not allow one to base one arguments on "unknown masses." Intangible 17:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't see what's so "ironic" about it. They're anarchists because they're Christian, and they interpret the bible to forbid domination over fellow human beings, and their religion as incompatible with formal institutions. They're not anarchists who just happen to be Christian, so I don't see how they're "misguided". Unless you're saying their interpretation of the bible is wrong and they should learn to appreciate the church and state like their peers. Convincing them to keep the "anarchist" part of their philosophy and ditch the "Christian" wouldn't make sense to me, since the latter feeds the former. Sarge Baldy 18:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes I agree. Though I find metaphysics and spirituality as a whole objectionable on epistemological grounds, I don't see anything inherently anti-anarchic about the more liberal interpretations of Christianity or any other religion, nor do I see anything in anarchist philosophy that justifies rejecting a person because they happen to subscribe to a particular mythology. Quite the contrary. --Aelffin 18:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I should explain more, because after re-reading my post and the reponses here, I think I may have not explained very well, and may have also come accross as a bit more antagonistic than I really feel. First, I tried to say an important part of this discussion is why they call themselves Christian and what that means to them (and same with "anarchist"). Some call themselves anarchists because they believe God should be the only authority, which seems pretty unanarchistic to me. What if I said "I'm an anarchist because the President is the only authority I will listen to"? Remember the slogan "No Gods, No Masters"? Anarchism has a long tradition of opposing churches, and in many cases religion as a whole. I have only met one Christian anarchist myself, which I fully admit is not nearly enough for me to make a reasonable and full assessment of the situation. First off, the guy I talked to was nice and definetly knew about anarchism and what it means, unlike some other self-proclaimed anarchists. At the same time, I didn't see the point of assigning such a high emphasis on Jesus, even if he did have some good things to say and had some anarchist leanings (depending on your interpretation of the Bible). Just because I really like and admire Emma Goldman doesn't mean I'm going to go around and call myself a Goldmanist and worship her as a figurehead. It just seems weird and cultish to me. And it smacks of hierarchy. And why do they believe the Bible is a legitimate source of authority, yet something like the Consitution is not? Neither seems to have more veracity than the other to me. It seems like a severe lapse in analysis to reject virtually all authority while clinging to another. But again, different people have different reasons for calling themselves Christian and I don't claim to know or understand them all. And not all Christian anarchists (or even Christians in general) necessarily fit into the model I'm describing. I'm sure there are some for whom none of these criticisms really fit, and there are probably others who deserve much more critique. And again, even for the ones who do fit into this, I don't really think it's important enough to make a big deal of, especially here on wikipedia. I don't personally understand why an anarchist would want to label themselves Christian and I find it somewhat contradictory, but whatever. As long as they don't try to force Christian morality and ideas on others I'm cool with it, since unlike anarcho-capitalists they don't advocate continued hierarchical relationship between people. The Ungovernable   Force  07:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Your last point is the key distinction. Besides, I don't see Christianity as a truly heirarchical system; it's just a metaphoric heirarchy. Much like if I were to say "I want to devote my life to anarchist principles" or "I totally worship Milla Jovovich". That's all fine, as long as you don't make other people do it too. In fact, even if you truly did want to live a life of submission to somebody else, I don't see a problem with it as long as you don't insist other people do the same and as long as you haven't been coerced into making that choice or maintaining that position--and that's where the opposition to Church comes in. --Aelffin 09:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Except of course if they subscribe to the "mythology of capitalism." Intangible 18:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Exactly, the "mythology of capitalism" is like "mythology of government" or the "mythology of anarchists are f---ing terrorists". You just can't be an anarchist if you hate and reject most of what anarchism stands for. I mean, you wouldn't think it's possible to be a pro-government anarchist, right? --Aelffin 18:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * So you suggest doing away with all democratic means? That sounds like nihilism to me. Why not kill the bureaucrats instead? Because that would be morally wrong! Intangible 19:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I really don't understand what you're trying to say. What words above do you construe as meaning I want to "destroy all democratic means"? You're pulling that out of thin air. On the contrary, I want democracy. I want direct democracy where everybody has equal right to participate. Capitalism destroys democracy because only the ones with the $$$$$$ are able to participate. Capitalism is undemocratic because it takes poor people out of democracy. Capitalism is undemocratic because it lets people steal land and water and other things that belong equally to everybody. Capitalism is anti-democracy and capitalism is anti-anarchism. Actually, I'm so democratic that I haven't deleted anarcho-capitalism from the template yet. If we weren't anarchists, we would just make the change without listening to your opinion (you know, like you said you were going to do). So, I gave a handful of reasons why capitalism is anti-democratic. Maybe you could explain why I'm wrong, or even give one reason why you think capitalism is a good thing. I'm listening. --Aelffin 19:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That fact that I can decide myself what bread to buy, instead of having User:Aelffin decide what bread I should buy. That's real democracy, and it would be morally just. Is voting not pro-government? Anyways, this discussion is quite off-topic... Intangible 20:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * User:Aelffin does not want to tell you what kind of bread you should buy. Why do you think User:Aelffin would tell you what bread you have to buy? Is that what you think anarchism is about? Nobody has a right to tell you that. That is your decision. In an anarchist system, you would also be able to decide what bread you want to buy. Not only that, but in anarchism, if you thought your favorite bread had gone downhill, you would have the right to fix the problem by going down to the factory to take part in the decisions about how the bread is made. You would probably be able to participate in a discussion very much like the one we're having right now, where everyone gets to say what they think and we won't make decisions until we've all had a chance to talk about it first. As a customer of the bread company, you are affected by the decisions made at that company, therefore you have a right to be a part of those decisions. I happen to live a couple of miles away from the Wonder Bread factory, but if I went down there and asked to speak with the owner about the way they make bread, they'd laugh in my face. In fact, in capitalism, somebody could come along and buy the bread company and close it down, and I would never have a chance to buy that bread again and I would never have a chance to tell them I want them to keep making my favorite bread. In capitalism, only the people with the money can make important decisions. Am I wrong? Then tell me why. If not, then how can you say capitalism is democratic? Anyway, to answer your question...voting can be democratic, if everybody gets an equal vote. Under capitalism, we all get to vote, but only the rich people get to have dinner with the senators and tell them what the policies should be. That's not democracy at all. --Aelffin 22:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Exactly. I really like the way you explained that. It's much better than I could have. One more thing--if for whatever reason the factory still didn't want to make the bread you wanted, you would still have the resources available to go make the bread yourself without anyone else interfering. The Ungovernable   Force  08:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * DIY in the motherf---ing house! ......you know, like cieling repair and such.....um ok......dawg. --Aelffin 09:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I have to say I find myself siding with Intangible on the reference issue. Even though it is completely and utterly obvious that anarcho-capitalism is disputed, and even though it is completely and nearly-utterly obvious that anarcho-capitalism is inherently anti-anarchist, I have to agree that we'll need to demonstrate those facts referentially before we can justify what amounts to censoring a minority opinion. However, we can't just throw quotes back and forth at each other because the references themselves use the term "anarchism" in several different ways, and we'll have to be clear about what *we* mean by anarchism for the purposes of this article. More on that in another thread... --Aelffin 18:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I offered one reference earlier, from a non-anarchist. "The term 'anarcho-capitalism' for this domain of right wing libertarianism is generally regarded as a political oxymoron by anarchists" (Anarchism by Sean M. Sheehan, 2004). Sarge Baldy 10:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Encarta
From Encarta: "Another branch of individualism was found in the United States and was far less radical. The American Benjamin Tucker (1854-1939) believed that maximum individual liberty would be assured where the free market was not hindered or controlled by the State and monopolies. The affairs of society would be governed by myriad voluntary societies and cooperatives, by, as he aptly put it, “un-terrified” Jeffersonian democrats, who believed in the least government possible. Since World War II this tradition has been reborn and modified in the United States as anarcho-capitalism or libertarianism." Intangible 18:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * That is one source that doesn't mention that it is disputed. Many others have been presented which mention that it is disputed. - FrancisTyers · 18:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Notice, also, that the article has sections on all of the different types of anarchism, save anarcho-capitalism. Moreover, Levy only writes that the tradition was reborn and modified. It's one sentence out of four pages discussing anarchism. RJII tried to push this one, and failed. --AaronS 19:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * What sources? None have been presented at all by you or others... Intangible 18:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Correction: I have seen one source... see Sarge, above. --Aelffin 19:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * One source, by some unknown author, who starts his book with a chapter on the WTO riots in Seattle, is not "many." Sigh. I wonder if Tucker gets a mention in his book, or even Stirner. Intangible 19:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, if you can find a source saying that most anarchists DON'T think anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron, be my guest. But honestly I don't think you could find such a thing. As much as you might consider it legitimate, or work to convince us that it fits neatly within anarchism, the fact remains that most anarchists see it as nonsensical. It isn't our place to throw around arguments. As unfortunate as it might seem in some cases, our job is to create an encyclopedia reflecting reality, not to create our own. Sarge Baldy 21:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Then give a decent source that supports your argument. I have given three sources, one being Encarta, one being an article in a scholarly journal, and one from a book written by a RIT professor, all talking about anarcho-capitalism as being part of anarchism. This book by a free-lance journalist simply does not cut it. I am not saying that there is no dispute between the anarcho-communists and the anarcho-capitalists, I do say however that they both are forms of anarchism. Something which I have presented beyond reasonable doubt, using verifiable sources. Intangible 22:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * We'd take forever looking at every single published anarchist's opinion on the topic. Most anarchists aren't published. And I would say the word of most anarchists drowns out the words of the scrappy minority who happens to have a published opinion, one way or the other. Sarge Baldy 22:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I can imagine that most sources do not mention that it is disputed for several different reasons: (a) they do not mention anarcho-capitalism at all, (b) they do not know that anarcho-capitalism exists, and (c) they know that it exists, but do not mention it, because they do not consider it to be anarchism. The first two are probably very likely. --AaronS 21:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * All WP:OR or WP:POV arguments. Where are your sources? FrancisTyers has said: "Many others have been presented which mention that it is disputed." Can someone point me out where these have presented? Intangible 22:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that you mean to refer to WP:NPOV. Perhaps you should read the policy. Namely:
 * We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties.
 * and
 * Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements.
 * It's just not that simple. --AaronS 23:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It is when you do not present any sources. See WP:V. Again the dispute here is not if there exists a dispute between anarcho-communists and anarcho-capitalists, but if anarcho-capitalism in itself is a form of anarchism. Intangible 03:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Find me a source that says that magic isn't real. --AaronS 07:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Please try make a reasonable contribution here in this discussion. This is nonsense. Intangible 18:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No, it isn't. I want you to find me a reputable source discussing the unreality of magic. Preferably published by Oxford University Press. --AaronS 19:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Wrong on both counts. It's not a matter of anarcho-communists and anarcho-capitalists arguing, it's a matter of virtually all self-described anarchists and anarcho-capitalists arguing. And the issue is not whether an-cap is a form of anarchism because we would never resolve that issue. It's a matter of whether it is disputed enough that it deserves mention that it's disputed, and the answer is yes (if you need proof, just look at this talk page). The Ungovernable   Force  04:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Instead of repeating yourselves, bring sources that say that anarcho-capitalism is disputed as anarchism. Intangible 21:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * +A note on citing sources...it's not enough (for either side of the debate) to cite incidental mentions of anarcho-capitalism here an there--which is all anybody has supplied so far. Rather, we need to find examples of fully fleshed-out arguments from non-anarchist sources for one side or the other because incidental mentions in literature present no way of identifying the quality of the source material or the expertise of the writer, and non-anarchist sources are less likely to be biassed. Unfortunately, we know that any detailed argument about this particular topic is likely to be politically biassed because almost nobody outside of anarchism or anarcho-capitalism has seen fit to take up this debate.
 * +However, there is more than one way to resolve this. All we have to do is to is to cite non-anarchist writers who consider anarchism a type of socialism. If we can agree that anarcho-capitalism is not a type of socialism, then we know that the experts wouldn't call it a type of anarchism. And that would mean it doesn't belong on the template at all. Anyone willing to up the ante and agree to these rules of debate??? --Aelffin 04:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Individualist anarchism is anti-communist, and thus anti-socialist. Intangible 18:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Remember that communism is only one type of socialism. There are plenty of non-communist socialists. But, if you can find individualist anarchist writings that say they're anti-socialist, then you may be onto something. --Aelffin 21:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Socialism isn't the same thing as Communism. - FrancisTyers · 23:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Encarta says anarchism is "basically anticapitalist."

The Ungovernable   Force  05:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Encarta cannot be considered a definitive source, any more than any other encyclopedia. We can't really use it to make a point here, and I wouldn't cite it in an article due to it not being a primary source. The brevity of Encarta articles cannot present a complete picture of any given political theory, and inevitably nuances are lost.--Rosicrucian 15:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I won't disagree on this point. Encyclopedias don't exactly qualify as secondary sources, and Encarta probably isn't exactly a top selection among Encyclopedias. Sarge Baldy 16:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Encarta says anarchism is "basically anticapitalist." So were the Nazis (they were anti-communist as well, like the individualist anarchists!). This notion doesn't the debate here one fig. Intangible 18:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it is better to make a distinction in the template between collectivist, individualist and other anarchistic movements. ie:
 * That dichotomy is basically contrived. --AaronS 20:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know if I agree. The individualist/collectivist split was a basic sticking point in early anarchism. I still think the individualists were socialists by and large, but I'd have to see some source material to be sure. Anyway, I think the approach is basically correct: we need a "family tree" of the movement, pointing out when the splits occured, and which groups kept which ideologies. --Aelffin 21:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That's a good intuition, but, unfortunately, it was tried before. It didn't work, because there was no way to prevent it in a fashion that accorded with NPOV. Anyways, see my comments below. --AaronS 21:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The false "individualist versus collectivist" dichotomy"
The individualist versus collectivist dichotomy was first introduced into these various articles by banned users Hogeye and RJII. The problem is that it's not a very good dichotomy, as it doesn't really make much sense to divide anarchist philosophies into individualist versus collectivist ones. Those editors basically used it as an excuse to lump anarcho-capitalism in with individualist anarchism and then juxtapose them to all of the rest (most notably anarcho-communism). But the most prominent anarcho-communist, Peter Kropotkin, is described as follows by Charles A. Madison in "Anarchism in the United States," taken from the Journal of the History of Ideas:
 * Since it was in the very nature of government to exercise constraint, they were opposed to any communal organization which arrogated authority over its individual members. Peter Kropotkin, perhaps the most persuasive exponent of this doctrine, defined it as 'the most complete developmennt of individuality combined with the highest development of voluntary association in all its aspects, in all possible degrees, in all imaginable aims; ever changing, ever modified associations which carry in themselves the elements of their durability and constantly assume new forms which answer best to the multiple aspirations of all.'

Hardly sounds like a collectivist, tout court, to me, because he defended and aspired to the same individualistic ideals as the individualists did. The point is that opposition to capitalism does not immediately entail collectivism in the Marxist or Communist sense. --AaronS 21:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * From the Blackwell Dictionary of Modern Social Thought (2006): "However, his [Proudhon] successors, Michael A. Bakunin and Peter A. Kropotkin in Russia, substituted for his 'mutualism' first 'collectivism' and then 'communism' — the latter implying 'everything belongs to everyone' and distribution according to needs."
 * The Dictionary earlier stated: "Repudiation of rulers is at the core of anarchism. In developing this negative notion, modern anarchists, broadly classifiable as either individualist or socialist, reject the state, hold that social order is possible in its absence and advocate moving directly towards 'society without the state'...Anarchists take John Locke's view that 'the natural condition of mankind', in which all are free and equal, no-one having the right to command obedience of others, does constitute a society...In distinguishing sharply between society and state, both individualist and socialist anarchism build on liberal foundations. The former may be seen as liberalism taken to an extreme, or logical, conclusion...nineteenth-century individualists sometimes thought of themselves as socialists. But their successors today, such as Murray Rothbard (1973), having abandonded the labour theory of value, describe themselves as 'anarcho-capitalists'.
 * Then concluding: "A generation after the eclipse of anarcho-syndicalism, anarchist ideas reemerged, sometimes spectacularly, in the context of the New Left movements of the 1960s...At the other end of the political spectrum, individualist anarchism, reborn as anarcho-capitalism, is a significant tendency in the libertarian New Right."
 * QED. Please stop this nonsense talking about anarcho-capitalism being not a form of anarchism. I have provided sufficient sources that say so, and I think the above template is a nice compromise, since anarcho-capitalism, if you like or not, is the rebirth of individualist anarchism (although there is some continuity with the work of Albert Jay Nock). Intangible 17:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the below discussion and subsequent proposal for revision of the nav template sidesteps this dispute rather nicely. Considering we've got AaronS and Aelffin on board, and managed a compromise that keeps anarcho-capitalism on the nav template, I think we might be better served hashing out the proposed revision to the template below.--Rosicrucian 17:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, the discussion below seems to be working in the direction of compromise. However, I would point out that to solve the matter of whether ancaps are anarchists requires more than citing some dictionary or encyclopedia. It involves going to original sources and tracing whose ideas were used by whom. That being said, I think Intangible's citation makes puts the case for ancap in a much better light. Not decisive, but intriguing. --Aelffin 19:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Or from the Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy (1996): "There are several recognized varieties of anarchism, among them: individualistic anarchism, anarcho-capitalism, anarcho-communism, mutualism, anarcho-syndicalism, libertarian socialism, social anarchism, and now eco-anarchism." Intangible 22:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, soundbite arguments. I'm reserving my opinion until I've read Mr. Rothbard and the individualists he is alleged to have based his philosophy on. The encyclopediae you've quoted leave too many questions up in the air... like what does "anarchism" mean? And these varieties are "recognized" by whom? Original sources would be nice. --Aelffin 23:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The only difference is between economic theory, labour theory of value against marginalism. Intangible 03:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Another quote, this time from the Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Political Thought (1991): "Individualist anarchism has recently been revived, and now forms part of the broader movement known as libertarianism. But while the earlier individualists thought that a society of equal freedom would radically modify capitalism, their modern descendants celebrate that system, and often describe themselves as 'anarcho-capitalists', a phrase that attracts vitriolic condemnation from anarchists of other persuasions." Then later: "A student and disciple of the Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises, Rothbard combined the laissez-faire economics of his teacher with the absolutist views of human rights and rejection of the state he absorbed from studying the individualist American anarchists of the nineteenth century such as Lysander Spooner and Benjamin Tucker. (Rothbard himself is on the anarchist wing of the movemement [libertarianism].) Both by his writings and by personal influence, Rothbard is the principal founder of modern libertarianism." Intangible 03:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, this quote is much more developed, but to my mind, the acceptance of the labor theory of value is what made individualist anarchists socialist (perhaps even marxist). So, whatever Rothbard took from individualist anarchism, the rejection of the core economic theory represents at minimum a radical break with anarchism proper...such that it really should be considered a brand new philosophy. I wouldn't mind calling it a sort of "pseudo-anarchism" or "para-anarchism". Maybe even "neo-anarchism" if it weren't for the fact that there are already people calling the other modern movements "neo-anarchism". Also note that your source recognizes the huge gulf between ancaps and anarchists, so it is still reasonable to label ancap as "disputed"--unless you don't think "vitriolic condemnation" counts as a dispute. Perhaps we should abandon "disputed" and put in a nice header that says Universally Condemned Schools of Anarchism. Or maybe just "Anarcho-capitalism (condemned)". It has a nice ring to it. The other thing I find interesting is that your source says Rothbard is the founder of modern libertarianism, which seems to reinforce what I've been saying all along...that ancaps are more accurately described as neolibertarians. Unless you want to say that neolibertarianism is an offshoot of anarchism. That sounds kind of nice too; the ifluence of anarchism on today's political landscape is sadly underappreciated. --Aelffin 04:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah but is irrelevant for the discussion here. "Anarcho-commmunists" are not a replacement for WP:NPOV. The sources all dictate that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism so far. Intangible 16:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm not really following you. Are you going to supply a detailed citation that actually addresses the similarities and differences between the doctrines, so we can see for ourselves what these claims amount to? --Aelffin 18:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The question is only if anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism. It is not about the differences and similarities between individualist anarchism and anarcho-capitalism. Intangible 19:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * If it stems directly from individualist anarchism (as ancaps claim), then the answer is a clear "yes". If it is rooted in neoliberalism (as I think history shows) then the answer is a clear "no". If it is some mix of the two, then it's up for debate. --Aelffin 23:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * What do you mean with "directly"? Individualist anarchists didn't really organize themselves in a movement anyways, but I have refered to Albert Jay Nock before. Rooted in neoliberalism? See Ordoliberalism. Intangible 23:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

From the Dictionary of Marxist Thought (1992): "Although anarchism rests on liberal intellectual foundations, notably the distinction between state and society, the protean character of the doctrine makes it difficult to disinguish clearly different schools of anarchist thought. But one important distinction is between individualist anarchism and social anarchism. The former emphasizes individual liberty, the sovereignty of the individual, the importance of private property or possession, and the iniquity of all monopolies. It may be seen as liberalism taken to an extreme conclusion. 'Anarcho-capitalism' is a contemporary variant of this school." Intangible 17:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The dictionary of Marxist thought. Ah, right... now that's the very picture of unbiassed scholarship! --Aelffin 18:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

This is a navigation template
This template is to help readers find different topics under the broad umbrella of anarchism. Regardless of whether a capitalist system will result in controlling state-like entities, it is a rather non-minor philosophy that has at least the idea of eliminating the over-arching monopoly state. Regardless of whether it has the lineage of more socialistic political thought, it remains under the broader idea of no state and is a philosophy that a prospective reader will look for under anarchism. The presence of anarcho-capitalism in the template is not tantamount to a statement that it is the culmination of anarchist thought, and it can be always placed in a separate section of the template. —Centrx→talk &bull; 22:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with you completely. There is nothing wrong, however, with noting that anarcho-capitalism is disputed. It's information. Further, anarchism has never simply been opposition to the state (that's anti-statism), but rather opposition to all coercive authority. --AaronS 22:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, anarcho-capitalism is opposed to all coercive authority, but it has a different idea of what constitutes coercion than other anarchist philosophies have. —Centrx→talk &bull; 22:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Which is at the center of the dispute, I imagine. Anarcho-capitalist non-normative interpretations of concepts like coercion are also at the heart of the featured article status review discussion of the anarcho-capitalism article. --AaronS 22:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm starting to think that the question we should be asking is: "Which Politics Series is your average user going to be going to if he wants to find out about anarcho-capitalism? Anarchism or Libertarianism?"


 * If that answer is "Anarchism," I still don't see a need to asterisk it or list it as "disputed." Nav templates are there for ease of navigation, not to inform. If it's so urgent to make it obvious, make a subheader on the template for "Disputes" and include such articles as Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism under it to underscore the debate.--Rosicrucian 02:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That's a very good point about navigation, and I suppose that I wasn't considering the importance of that. Perhaps your idea is a good one. Another question, I imagine, is whether or not it belongs under the header of "traditions." Is anarcho-capitalism an anarchist tradition, per se? Or is it a politico-economic theory that was influenced by anarchism? As of today, anarcho-capitalism has no movement and hasn't really done anything outside of academia and the Internet discussion forums, whereas other anarchist traditions, in the proper sense of the word, have affected international politics and world history. Are these differences significant? --AaronS 03:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree the template is supposed to be navigational. As such, the current one is not doing a very good job since it excludes many of the ideas a reader might genuinely be looking for when he/she looks up the word "anarchism", including anomie, lawlessness, disorder, punk rock, Molotov cocktails, assassination, destruction, etc. If the template is purely navigational, then it makes sense to simply make a judgement-free list all of these things alphabetically without imposing an order on it. However, I do think the template has a secondary, informational function, reflected in our tendency to split it up into subheads...the same is true on other templates within politics. So, the question isn't whether anarcho-capitalism belongs on the template, but how it is grouped in relation to the traditionally recognized branches of anarchism. If we group it closely with them, then not only are we violating NPOV by weighting the ancap perspective too heavily, but we would also be violating accuracy requirements by implying a factually incorrect picture of its relationship to anarchism proper. It's the "Jews for Jesus" problem. --Aelffin 04:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Good points. It's also important to note that the template is a part of the series on politics, so we're strictly talking about political anarchism, here. --AaronS 04:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Proposal
Based upon our discussion, here is a sandbox proposal to work with. Edit it as you wish. We can fight over this one instead of the real one. ;-) --AaronS 03:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Question, why is anarcho-primitivism not in the first area? Isn't a type of post-left and green anarchism? Is there something about it that makes it "anarchist influenced" (like an-cap) rather than anarchism? I know some people don't like it (and I have some problems with parts of it) but I'm not sure why it's in that section. Also, post-left anarchism is on there twice (under Modern Anarchism and Anarchist Theory). The Ungovernable   Force  05:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Aaron's not the one who put it there; I did. The duplication of post-left anarchism was unintentional, but as it happens, it illustrates a nice point. If we break up the template into different sections, it's likely that some philosophies/submovements may fall in more than one category. As for anarcho-primitivism, I'm inclined to accept it into the fold though I have huge problems with its implications. However, I know there is debate in some quarters as to whether it's part of anarchism proper. The question has been mentioned in a couple of talks at the Institute for Anarchist Studies' R.A.T. conferences, and Bookchin's argued strongly against it. I don't know much about the history of the movement, but several primitivist travelers who held a meeting at a squat in my hometown mentioned Theodore Kaczynski as one of the key thinkers in the founding of the philosophy. If that's the case, and if anarcho-primitivism differs significantly from traditional branches of anarchism, then we have a situation parallel to anarcho-capitalism. Namely, a founder whose ideas are not founded on anarchist principles and a movement that only bears a superficial similarity to anarchism proper. Anyway, it's sufficiently controversial that I'd like to see a debate on the subject. Go ahead and edit the template as you see fit--that was Aaron's suggestion, and I'd like to see people adding links to a much larger number of potentially-related articles because the more examples we have, I think, the more likely the concepts will sort themselves out into an intuitive order. --Aelffin 13:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Bookchin isn't even an anarchist anymore (by their own admission). I'm not sure Kaczynski really started it. I thought Zerzan was probably one of the major founders (although he later became friends with Kaczynski). I could be wrong of course. I do agree it is contentious though, so I can understand not putting it in. What do others think? The Ungovernable   Force  04:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Bookchin not an anarchist? Hadn't heard that. Yeah, I think anarcho-primitivism is harmless enough to put up with, and I think their vision has some nice asthetics, but they're definitely fringe. Which is not to say that eco-anarchism or Green anarchism are fringe...on the contrary, I don't know of any anarchists (except ancaps) who don't consider themselves eco-friendly, and sometimes/oftentimes that manifests itself a mild sort of luddism. I only mention it because (for some reason) people seem to lump primitivists into the environmentalist camp, but the connection is slim. Primitivists are an entirely different order of luddites. Primitivists will say things like "we oppose civilization as a whole" or "language is patriarchy". At least the ones I met. I was impressed by their ability to facilitate large group discussion and the roadkill-raccoon soup wasn't too bad either. --Aelffin 11:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, Bookchin isn't much of anything anymore since he died yesterday (I found out soon after posting that last post). But in his later years he said he was no longer an anarchist. The Ungovernable   Force  15:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I like how this is looking. I've moved ind. anarch. into the "main" section, and subst "Maknoism" for "Platformism". - FrancisTyers · 13:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, I think separating into "Anarchism today" and "Historical tendencies" is probably better. - FrancisTyers · 13:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I noticed that we didn't have South American anarchism represented at all--which is especially egregious since it's been one of the most active areas in the past twenty or so year--so I added Especifismo (spelling?) and the Zapatistas...I'm sure there are other topics that should be added in relation to S.Am. Come to think of it, where's Hungarian anarchism and Japanese anarchism? Aren't there significant submovements associated with these anarchisms? --Aelffin 13:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Theres pretty much as many anarchism in X as there are countries in X. - FrancisTyers · 14:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd say for any region (x), the number of anarchist movements in the region (Ax), relative to the number of countries in the region (Cx) is represented by the inequality Ax>>Cx. --Aelffin 14:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Haha! :) - FrancisTyers · 14:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Wait, is that a reference to Anal Cunt? I think so, but I could be missing something. The Ungovernable   Force  05:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No; if it were I would have been more blatant about it. You have heard their cover of the Three's Company theme, haven't you? --Aelffin 21:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

While I can appreciate the broader focus, I'm reluctant to have redlinks on a nav template. Hopefully we can make sure we have at the very least stubs for each (though of course non-stub articles would be better) before we roll it out.--Rosicrucian 15:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This is just an experiment at the moment. --Aelffin 15:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Good deal. Heck, if expanding the nav template results in some good new articles with enough central placement to ensure they get a dedicated body of editors, I can be happy with that result.--Rosicrucian 16:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The biggest problem with this template, clearly, is that it's gigantic. Even how it is now it's probably too large. I'd suggest dumping the "Associated Concepts" section right out, although even then it's still too large. As Ungovernable suggested, post-left anarchism isn't needed along with post-left anarchy. I also don't see why "anarcho-primitivism" (actually a misnomor; it's just primitivism) is marginalized to inspired movements. Although I'm regionally biased, where I am saying you're an anarchist will have most people assuming you're a primitivist, green, eco-anarchist, or post-leftist. Or most often, some configuration along those lines. So from my standpoint, it's somewhat bewildering. Sarge Baldy 18:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I've seen bigger templates work decently, like Template:ScientologySeries or Template:Christianity. Might be more of a layout task than trimming. I'll agree that "Associated Concepts" seems to paint with too broad a brush, and many items there should be trimmed out, or possibly the subsection eliminated entirely. Still, it might be good to look at other successful large nav templates for guidance.--Rosicrucian 18:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, even right now the template is almost as big as the scientology one. The version below even dwarfs the Christianity one. It would look very strange on a lot of pages, because it'd be far longer than the content of the articles. Sarge Baldy 19:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Then is there a more effective way to use the space? Smaller type like on the Scientology template? Would that be worth a try or would it sacrifice usability?--Rosicrucian 19:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I made it fatter, but shorter. What do you all think? --AaronS 19:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it does a pretty good job of presenting the breadth and diversity of the anarchist movement, and I like the organization. The placement of a couple links might be debatable, but it seems usable and inclusive, and overall it's pretty decent. --Aelffin 19:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually it does not. It only talks about revolutionary anarchism. Someone like Proudhon or Benjamin Tucker would have balked at the "associated concepts." See also my earlier point of today above. Intangible 19:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * But if we say that the template's purpose is mainly navigational, then we need to include things that people associate with anarchism, rightly or wrongly. The differences can be tackled in the respective articles. I do think "Historical tendencies" is a little problematic...doesn't seem like the right term. Maybe these topics can be put under a header along the lines of "Anarchist approaches". Intangible, what "non-revolutionary" anarchism are you refering to? If there's something you'd like to add to the proposed template, go ahead. --Aelffin 19:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I might move the Individualists out of "Anarchism Today," given that most Individualists these days are instead Anarcho-capitalists or some other flavor. Other than that, as above we might tweak the text size on the individual entries, and spiff up the presentation a little. Such a big block of grey gets a little monotonous. As for Proudhon or Tucker, as discussed above this is a nav template not a philosophical debate. While I can agree as I said above that we are perhaps casting our net too wide on "Associated Concepts," I do not believe we have to go back to Proudhon for everything when we're aiming for ease of navigability.--Rosicrucian 19:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that it seems strange to put the individualists in "Anarchism Today" since that was basically a nineteenth century movement. I might agree that the "Associated concepts" header may be a little too broad, but at least some of the concepts (anomie, and especially the autonomen, for example) are near enough to anarchism to warrant mention. --Aelffin 19:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * There are many individualist anarchists around today, indeed, many people who describe themselves as "anarchists" probably take something from every philosophy. - FrancisTyers · 20:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe if you use the term "individualist" loosely, but I doubt that there are many people familiar with the actual writings of the historical individualist anarchists. The only self-labeled individualist anarchists I know of are the ancaps. People who think of themselves as something and people who actually base their opinions on particular philosophies are two different things. --Aelffin 20:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps true, but we aren't being prescriptivist. - FrancisTyers · 11:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. I'm not sure what you're getting at here. To hold an ideology...any idiology is by definition prescriptivist. However, the post you replied to asserts no right or wrong position, it simply points out a narrower use of the term individualist. --Aelffin 15:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

"Relevant Lists" looks awkward being the only one not condensed to have more than one item per line. Also, maybe we could try bullets instead of pipe characters?--Rosicrucian 21:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalism can't be in the "Offshoots" section since more than enough scholars say that it's a form of anarchism and those who deny that it also deny that it came from anarchist tradition - so who actually claims that AC is an offshoot of anarchism? Further, why is anarcho-primitivism in that section? Judging by its article, nobody is denying that it's a form of anarchism. Section "Historical approaches" also looks like an OR to me. What the "historical approaches" should mean? As for associated concepts, they are too numerous to be in a template. They might be added in "Relevant lists" in form of a special article. -- Vision Thing -- 20:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Too wide!
As it stands right now, the anarchism template that we're playing with is way too wide. It loses its beauty when it gets too wide (it reads best visually when it's long and slender), and you also run the risk of crowding out your articles with a navigation sidebar. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thinned it down a bit. --Aelffin 03:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Still WAY too fat. Let me tinker...  SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Consider it tinkered. We do need, however, to give a good hard thought about what needs to go in here, because this thing is getting awfully big.  I'd cut a lot of stuff...  SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yep, sounds like that's the next conversation to be had. Suggestions to be cut? --Aelffin 10:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * How about this as alternate wording? I changed "Historical tendencies" to "Historical approaches" (seems less vague) and "Anarchist-influenced philosophies" to "Offshoots" (acknowledges relationship without implying continued ties). --Aelffin 11:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * "Offshoots" definitely seems like a more graceful way to put it.--Rosicrucian 16:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I would be interested in "associated concepts", as that seems to me like a good place to do some cutting, either to trim it, or cut it out altogether, since a few of those connections are kind of weak. Additionally, I'm of the belief that any redlinks do not belong in a proper template.  So that would strike a good bit of it right there and bring it down to size, both long and wide.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 22:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that broken links should not appear on the template, but I think at least three of the red links are active and important enough to stay, even if we need to put up a stub article temporarily. Namely [Especifismo], [Social Insertion] (what I've heard called "Insertionism"), and Anarchsm by country. I think the template as it stands, as well as the sandbox template below are strongly eurocentric, which is particularly problematic since the most active areas of anarchism in the last 30 years (and the source of inspiration for the current upswing of anarchism in North America today) has been the South American anarchist experience.  --Aelffin 23:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Looking good, I've made a start on Anarchism by country by listing the various sub articles we have listed at Anarchism. - FrancisTyers · 23:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Awesome...it's looking better and better to me. I started stubs on especifismo and social insertion, trimmed all of the remaining red links, removed a few of the associated concepts, and added a link to Freeganism since it's closely associated with anarchism and kind of high profile right now (they did a story on CNN!). --Aelffin 23:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

"Offshoots" sounds like these forms have a pedigree. I still stand behind my first suggestion of the template (collectivist, individualist, other), possibly added with "anarchism in culture" and "relevant lists" and "anarchist theory." The "Associated Concepts" can go imho. Proudhon had "kind words" to say about slavery... Intangible 19:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Instertionism?
Can anyone clue me in on this? It's a redlink, and it's coming up dry on Google.--Rosicrucian 22:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * See link above. --Aelffin 23:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, typo. Got it. I figured as much, but some terms turn out to be genuinely bizarre spellings rather than simple typos so I figured I'd ask.--Rosicrucian 00:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Further vertical trimming
Seems we're losing a lot of vertical space just to the HR tags. Maybe we could trim it further vertically by giving each subsection header its own cell with a border, perhaps a contrasting BG color to call them out? I've tried it on the sandbox without much success so I invite anybody else to give it a try.--Rosicrucian 23:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Compare
We should go with the SVG. Per policy. - FrancisTyers · 15:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmmmm. Good point. I'm going to test the images for scaling because I think the SVG looks kind of crappy. Of course, the PNG is only marginally better, so maybe... --Aelffin 15:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Makes a big difference for scaling it up, but they both look kind of clipped at the edges in the smaller versions. --Aelffin 15:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, no matter how nice a PNG is, it's still raster art, and scales like arse. Definitely prefer the SVG.--Rosicrucian 15:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Grab Inkscape and make a new version then :) Btw, what browser are you using, some might render SVG better than others. - FrancisTyers · 16:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Template games
Okay, so after much fiddling, this is my first crack at a space-saving, professional-looking template. It could use some color though, huh? --Aelffin 03:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Fixed a minor mistake in the historical approaches, but this is looking nicely slick now.--Rosicrucian 04:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I tried to give it a little color by letting our green and red show through, but the palatte still seems a bit wrong to me. Ideas? --Aelffin 04:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The white-on-burgundy looks quite a bit nicer.--Rosicrucian 14:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The white-on-burgundy (i.e. the right-side one) looks a lot nicer than the other one, whose colors just look kind of funky.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, how about between these two? --Aelffin 18:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't like either, sorry :( The colours look all wrong. - FrancisTyers · 18:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Go ahead and change them up if you want. Or tell me what you're thinking and I'll see what I can do...anybody want to weigh in on the orange? --Aelffin 18:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * One word: Yuck. The orange doesn't "work" with it at all.  I still stand by my original endorsement of the burgundy-and-gray one, which now is located to the left.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll come back to it later. Feel free to mess with the colors all you like. Anyone considered green? Or standard black-and-red? Maybe muted grays with a touch of blue. Earth tones? Let's look around at some other templates and see what looks good. --Aelffin 18:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Standard black-and-red would make the most sense. With the other color schemes, I was thinking, what does this have to do with anarchism?  SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that the standard black and red would make most sense, but personally I find it jarring and hard to read. I was aiming at something reminiscent of the black and red, but less high-contrast with the burgundy version but I personally find it kind of ugly. I've really abandoned the idea of making it somehow thematically consistent with anarchist symbology and now I'd just rather make something that looks clean and professional so it's easy to use. --Aelffin 20:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You might then want to go with the "papayawhip" color that the template used up until April. I always thought that looked sharp (this was the last version to use the color).  After it changed to gray, it became kind of depressing-looking.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Isn't that the same orange you didn't like earlier? Okay...here's black and red...--Aelffin 20:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmmm.... Okay, enough for now. --Aelffin 20:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This is a lighter shade than the one I rejected earlier. This one I brought up is closer to a "manila" color.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to say this but new colors suck. The newest version is the best one but red and black are anarcho-syndicalist colors and it's better to avoid bias were it's possible. What's wrong with the current colors of the template? -- Vision Thing -- 20:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, red and black is anarcho-syndicalist as well as DIY punk. Black and white is more neutral. --Aelffin 20:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't like the quasi-A image on the one in the middle. It's a nice image, but I've never seen it in use (other than on Aelffin's user-page) so it isn't really a notable anarchist symbol. I'd use the circle-A like we always have. I like the color-scheme on the right. The left one is good too. The Ungovernable   Force  20:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

On the designs as currently presented, I like the left one and would move to implement it on the production template. This is the one in "papayawhip", as I suggested. That combines black with a "neutral" color, and just looks nice. The middle design that replaces the circle-A with Image:Bw anarchsit flag.jpg just looks strange. The new image reminds me greatly of the KOA logo. The right-side design, the "green" version, is aesthetically pleasing, but I just can't see its going on a page like anarcho-syndicalism with a strong bit of red on it. I just see it as potentially being too aesthetically clashing with some of the material on other pages.

So yeah, that's how I see it... SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I would support putting the left one in. Anyone object? The Ungovernable   Force  21:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

How about just black and grey like the old one? - FrancisTyers · 21:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Too depressing. I never liked the gray version in the first place.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 21:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * How about now ? - FrancisTyers · 21:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You're going to either need to set a bgcolor, or ditch the white text.--Rosicrucian 21:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I did, "grey" and "lightgrey". - FrancisTyers · 21:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Then make the text something other than white. Maybe it's just me, but I can't read the headers anymore. Yours is the monochrome one, right?--Rosicrucian 22:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. Btw, what browser are you using? Perhaps it doesn't support international English spelling ;) You can change it if you like to see if it makes a difference... - FrancisTyers · 22:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Found the problem. I use IE at work, and IE doesn't parse "grey" as a color, but it will accept "gray" and now appears correctly to me.--Rosicrucian 22:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I like that little tiny bit of whitespace between each section. It looks a little more high-class that way.  Without it, as with the new gray one to the left, it looks a bit crowded.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 22:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I like the effect the cellpadding too, and the green and orange ones are probably the two tightest we have right now, layout-wise. Even if we tweak the colors, I'd suggest using the layout on those two as a guide.--Rosicrucian 23:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm happy with going with the layout of the Green/Orange and the colour of the grey one. - FrancisTyers · 15:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Although my second favourite is the white one, although replace pancakes with the circle A :) - FrancisTyers · 15:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Can the kitty be our mascot? The AnarCat?--Rosicrucian 20:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That's not an anarcat...that's an anarcat... [[Image:Sabcat2.svg|100px]] --Aelffin 20:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I love that kitler pic, so funny. I see it's up for speedy deletion though. The Ungovernable   Force  20:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, she's got my vote. So...are we rolling out a new template here or what?--Aelffin 20:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I thought someone might, but I don't really know what she has to do with anarchism....I think we should stick with the circle-A. The AnarchCat is nice, but if Intangible won't let us use red and black because it's too syndicalist, then he's definetely not going to want the cat. The Ungovernable   Force  20:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Straw poll
OK, so which color scheme do people want? We have pretty much decided on layout already, no? In terms of colours: Oppose papayawhip and green, Support Grey/Lightgrey/Black/White or White/Black. In terms of style, support any of the padded ones and the White/Black one. :) - FrancisTyers · 22:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Orangy/Beige lookin one. The Ungovernable   Force  20:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Grey. Sorry, the orange one looks like a creamsicle. =) --AaronS 20:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Force...which orangy/beige one? Top or bottom? I vote for top (aka papayawhip), but I'm flexible....Aaron, is there anything with some color that you would accept, or are you not going to budge from monochrome grey? --Aelffin 20:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment But creamsicles are so good! I wonder if they have any vegan versions? I'm trying to go vegan, but I'll sure miss those. Oh well, I don't eat them much anyway. And the papayawhip. The Ungovernable   Force  20:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. They are delicious. To be honest, I'll take whatever color the majority adopts -- no need for consensus, here. I won't be hurt. Although, I do have a high opinion of my sense of the aesthetic. :-P --AaronS 21:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, your sense of aesthetic is pretty damn boring ;) C'mon, plain grey? We've had grey forever, let's try something new! The Ungovernable   Force  21:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * A conservative aesthetic is sometimes appropriate; I happen to think that grey works well in an encyclopedia article, where the infobox should not distract from the text or images. Using the orange infobox would be like randomly throwing in a picture of a pumpkin. --AaronS 21:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Or a random picture of pancakes, Reagan, a cat dressed like Hitler or a woman chained to a cross....I see what you mean, but the reason I like papayawhip is that, although it adds color, it is pretty subdued and doesn't stand out. The Ungovernable   Force  21:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. The ones with the cellpadding are definitely the best layout-wise, and I have no real preference on color right now.--Rosicrucian 21:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * About layout...I do kind of like the "floating panels" version (with no outside border) below "Papayawhip" that Intangible designed. That's what I based the white one on. Though only if it had the circle A and had a different color scheme. --Aelffin 21:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It's ok, I still sort of like the border (wait, don't take that out of context), but I don't care enough to raise a stink. The Ungovernable   Force  21:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I think we're still honing in...I bet we can come up with consensus yet. I'll think about it tomorrow though. Tonight is the night of the drinking. See yous. --Aelffin 21:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, this can wait. I've got the day off from work tomorrow, so I'm making the most of my Thursday night. ;-) --AaronS 23:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I like the beige best, except the portal part at the bottom should match the theme (i.e. should be white text on a black background.) I still don't see how primitivism is an "offshoot", though. It's certainly no more an offshoot than post-left anarchism, with which it shares some key similarities. Although on another note, I think the "associated concepts" should be scratched altogether. It makes the template too long, and there's just way too many associated concepts to give any good sampler. Sarge Baldy 03:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * As for the bottom cell of Papayawhip matching the theme...that would involve changing the color of link text to white instead of wikipedia's universal blue/purple. I don't think we should--or can--take such liberties. But a different background color would look better than grey, but what color? --Aelffin 16:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Papayawhip. It seems the neatest-looking of the five.  That new one at the bottom just looks weird.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 13:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Looking at them more, I do like the lack of a wraparound border in the white one. Playing with the preview function to give it the same logo as the others shows me that it's easily as tight layout-wise as them, so I'm putting my support behind the no-border dealie, in any color scheme.--Rosicrucian 15:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The white one does look nice, but if it's going to look right, it needs that overall wraparound border to provide a white background across the whole thing. Otherwise, it visually narrows and has a break in it in the space where the "A" exists, since the background otherwise is not quite white.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Templates
As I said above, content of first four templates is OR. My suggestions for content of template can be seen here. -- Vision Thing -- 17:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Colour
So, now that we've decided on the content, what colour should the template be? I oppose vehemently papayawhip. I tried a couple of blue variants, but they are hard to read (blue on blue text). My favourite versions so far are the white and grey ones. - FrancisTyers · 17:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I hate the papayawhip, but I don't really care about the color. I'd prefer a neutral tone, like white or grey. --AaronS 17:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I love the papayawhip, but since two editors strongly dislike it, I guess we should try to find something else. Damn, sometimes majority rule dictatorship is so much easier than consensus direct democracy! Oh well, what better page to prove it can work than the anarchism template? The Ungovernable   Force  18:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, but let me add, I really don't like grey or white (although I don't "hate" or "oppose vehemently" either of them ;) They're too boring. The Ungovernable   Force  18:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I kind of like the white one actually. --Aelffin 18:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If we're not going to go with papayawhip (still my personal favorite), I also will throw my hat in support of the white one. But we need to add an overall border around the whole thing to give it a total sense of unity... I'm just afraid it will look strange without the border.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 22:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know were you got an idea that there is an agreement about content. -- Vision Thing -- 19:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, you seem to be the only one who has any major problems with the new layout. Would you care to discuss why you reverted the template back to the older version? The Ungovernable   Force  19:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * As I already said, it's full of original research. -- Vision Thing -- 19:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Anything specific? The Ungovernable   Force  19:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, this -- Vision Thing -- 19:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree, it's got serious problems. I think half the links under "Anarchism Today" should be shunted into historical tendencies (which itself continues to be problematic), and a couple "related concepts" should go under "anarchism today". What I'd like to see for headers is something like this:
 * Contemporary Trends
 * Debates
 * History of the Movement
 * Related Concepts
 * --Aelffin 19:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

We also need to talk about what constitutes unbiassed source material. Because it ain't the usual suspects in this case. --Aelffin 19:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, but I don't see how we are ever going to come to an agreement on this page though. The Ungovernable   Force  19:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * We got the disclaimer off anarcho-capitalism without too much pain. It's all in the praxis. --Aelffin 22:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Anarcho-primitivism
Ok, so there is some disagreement over where to place this. It looks like Sarge and myself want it in the "Anarchism Today" section, while some others feel it should go in the offshoots. I think we need to come to a consensus on this issue, so this is the place to discuss it. Anyone have any thoughts? The Ungovernable   Force  18:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree; this needs to be hashed out. As does the anarcho-capitalism issue. I think the new content is an improvement over the current template in that it makes a compromise on ancap (no disclaimer/no association), and it includes a few new hot topics in contemporary anarchism. I think there are two proper ways to go about organizing this information: Historical/Sociological or Theoretical/Philosophical. The first would organize based on which movements evolved from which while the second would organize based on the conceptual similarities between the different categories. --Aelffin 19:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Primitivism should go with *Capitalism (imho) - FrancisTyers · 19:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Real Poll
Okay, since people are trying to implement template changes without asking the group, I suggest we go ahead and have a real vote. We can deal with content later. --Aelffin 22:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * White with or without border, but preferably without (I think putting the border around the Circle-A was enough to pull it together...besides, there's symbolic value to erasing the border!). --Aelffin 22:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * White with border. I'm afraid that running the design without the border won't give the template enough side-space and will lead to a "crowded" appearance.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Grey or White with or without border. - FrancisTyers · 10:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * White with or without border.-- Vision Thing -- 11:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Brown or White. They seem to be the only colours that do not seem out of place with other possible navigation templates in an article. I have become in favor of a bordered one though. Intangible 16:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Problems
Vision Thing said:
 * Anarcho-capitalism can't be in the "Offshoots" section since more than enough scholars say that it's a form of anarchism and those who deny that it also deny that it came from anarchist tradition - so who actually claims that AC is an offshoot of anarchism? Further, why is anarcho-primitivism in that section? Judging by its article, nobody is denying that it's a form of anarchism. Section "Historical approaches" also looks like an OR to me. What the "historical approaches" should mean? As for associated concepts, they are too numerous to be in a template. They might be added in "Relevant lists" in form of a special article. -- Vision Thing -- 20:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Those who deny that anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism do not necessarily deny that it was inspired by anarchism or came from anarchist tradition; moreover, hardly more than enough scholars say that it is a form of anarchism. It has also not been shown that anarcho-capitalism exists outside of the Internet. There are anarcho-capitalists, of course, but do they ever take their philosophy from their web sites and blogs and do something with it? How has anarcho-capitalism affected history? How has it changed politics? How has it changed philosophy? Perhaps the solution is to not have any divisions and simply list everything either chronologically or alphabetically, but I doubt it. --AaronS 01:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is based on verifiability, can someone provide sources that anarcho-capitalism is an offshoot (defined as "a natural consequence of development") of anarchism and at the same time not a form of anarchism? As for sources for claim that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism, I can provide a dozen of them. Further, anarcho-capitalism is an individualist philosophy and individualists, in general, are not very eager to join a mass-movements or organizations. Their self-reliance and independence from collective are characteristics that make them individualists. Idea that someone needs to be a party member to be taken into consideration is a collectivist bias. -- Vision Thing -- 11:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Quick question...if 99% of "verifiable" sources say that anarchism is chaos and destruction, then is that correct--should it be represented that way on Wikipedia? --Aelffin 12:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If 99% of sources would say that anarchism is chaos and destruction than the article about Anarchism would need to be about chaos and destruction, and Anarchism (philosophy) about political philosophy.-- Vision Thing -- 20:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes! And that's exactly the way we should handle this debate. By splitting the page. Anarchism (movement) would be about the current movement on the streets which has its roots in 19th century social anarchism and Anarchism (philosophy) would be about all of the different philosophies that are related to anarchism. Aelffin 21:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Then we would have two banners? -- Vision Thing -- 19:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It would be better to talk about movements which have a name, like Provo. Socialism in itself is not a political movement, neither is anarchism. This would also clean up the Category:Political movements. Intangible 21:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm really confused. First---anarchism has a name, it's called anarchism. Socialism is called socialism. Second---you clearly have a different definition of "movement" from mine. In my understanding (and everywhere else I've seen), both socialism and anarchism are political movements, philosophical movements, and social movements. I doubt you could find many sources that contradict this. Anarchism is also a minor cultural movement and socialism is a major cultural movement. Each consists of a large number of sub-movements, both internal and offshoots and each is a member of a number of larger movements, including libertarianism and Enlightenment philosophy. Even just looking on Wikipedia, we can see...
 * Political movement says: "Classic examples include abolitionism, anarchism, the women's suffrage, the Labour movement, universal suffrage movements and anticolonialist movements."
 * Social movement says: "Social movements are a type of group action. They are large informal groupings of individuals and/or organizations focused on specific political or social issues, in other words, on carrying out, resisting or undoing a social change."
 * Philosophical movement says: "What makes a movement identifiable and interesting as distinct from a specific theory is simply that a movement consists in a large flourishing of intellectual work on one or more ideas, in a fairly specifiable time and place."
 * Cultural movement says: "A cultural movement is a change in the way a number of different disciplines approach their work."
 * Aelffin 16:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This is just an abstraction made in those articles. If you look at Definitions of anarchism, you see that basically call it a doctrine. Abstractions are not really helpful when dealing with categories. I could even call conservatism or liberalism a political movement with some imagination, this does not help the category hierarchy. Intangible 17:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm still lost. None of the definitions on that page contradict my statement, and three of them explicitly label anarchism as a movement...I'm baffled by your reluctance to call anarchism and socialism movements. I really am. Just read the page you posted
 * MS Encarta Encyclopedia (UK version by Carl Levy): "...political concept and social movement that advocates the abolition of any form of State, which is regarded as coercive, and its replacement with voluntary organization"
 * The Ism Book (extended def): "In popular usage, the term is often colored by the sometimes-violent anarchist political movement that was especially active in the years around 1900."
 * L. Susan Brown"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."
 * Of course liberalism and conservatism are movements...in all of the senses above. This is trivial and universal. I can't believe you're arguing this, Intangible. If the definitions I've given are not enough, then tell me what is your definition of "movement"? Just tell me what you mean, because what you're saying is extremely confusing. Aelffin 17:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * There were of course more definitions at that page...Anyways, for me, for something to be a political movement, there needs to be a historic naming (such as "Provo") that separates people from other people. Although you probably would claim that anarchism would create such a separation, I beg to differ, there are certainly anarchists who have not been part of a movement. Come to mind, most individualist anarchists were certainly not, since they did not take part in any collective activism. Intangible 23:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * And, of course all of those other definitions fall well within the boundaries of one or more of the definitions of "movement" that I supplied several posts ago. Taking part in collective action (according to the Wikipedia article) is part of the definition of a social movement. At least some individualists were certainly part of the anarchist social movement. However, all individualists were part of the anarchist philosophical movement because they interacted with and based their theories on one another. While anarcho-capitalism certainly is a philisophical movement in its own right, but I have yet to see any evidence that it is actually based on the traditional anarchist philosophical movement. It certainly is not part of the current or historical anarchist social movement, nor the current anarchist cultural movement. Aelffin 13:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Where did anyone say "party member" ? - FrancisTyers · 12:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * But, Vision Thing, there are individualists who decidedly have changed philosophy, and who have become internationally known as a result of their application of their philosophy to their life, work, or legacy. Henry David Thoreau, who wrote "the book" on self-reliance, comes to mind; his tax revolt and experiment on Walden Pond are well-known, at least in the United States. From my understanding, individualists are not individualists because they don't like other people or don't like cooperating with others; they're individualists, because they do not want to be forced to do so, and would like to have a choice in the matter. In this regard, individualists and collectivists agree, which is why the individualist-collectivist dichotomy very poorly describes anarchism. All anarchist philosophies are individualist; even the most "collectivist" forms have as their pinnacle goal the complete liberation of the individual. Even Marxism -- the paradigm of collectivism -- has this as its final goal. So, I think that it's a lame excuse to say that anarcho-capitalism is not prevelant in the real world simply because it's an individualist philosophy.
 * You're correct that "offshoot" probably is not the proper term. But anarcho-capitalism is not yet a movement, never has been a movement, and its influence has been mainly restricted to the Internet, Wikipedia included. And when I say "movement," I do not simply mean social movement; I also mean philosophical and political movement. How has anarcho-capitalism changed philosophy? Politics? Society? It is a socio-political philosophy. It must be measured on socio-politico-philosophical grounds.
 * As for its relation to anarchism, it was inspired by anarchism. But anarchists, for the most part, have wholeheartedly rejected it. Consider this (probably very poor) analogy: pretend that the Protestant Reformation is occurring now. Up until this point, the only deal in town for Christianity was Catholicism. Martin Luther posts his theses on the door, and it causes a stir. Protestantism, however, has not yet swept the world; it has, for the most part, yet to leave that door. It is confined to a few circles, and the vast majority of Christians reject it as against their beliefs. If this were happening now, it would be unencyclopaedic for Wikipedia to give undue weight to Martin Luther's theses. Wikipedia would then be acting as a soapbox for Protestantism. Now, this of course is not how the Reformation occurred, and anarchism is not a religion, but I believe that the analogy provides some sense of where some of us, who are trying to be neutral, are coming from. --AaronS 12:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You are right about individualist-collectivist dichotomy. However, as for influence of anarcho-capitalism on philosophy, politics and society, it seems that you don't apply the same criteria on anarcho-capitalism as on other recent anarchist movements. What is the influence of green anarchism or post-left anarchy on today's world? -- Vision Thing -- 20:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I have never argued that these should be placed prominently in any article on anarchism. --AaronS 17:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * To the anarchists: While I agree that it's obvious that ancaps are not anarchists, I have to point out the fact that we--myself included--have not done our homework here. Vision Thing is acting in good faith, citing sources, doing the footwork. We need to do the same. Vision's sources may be totally naive on the subject of anarchism, but I have seen almost no sources at all from the anarchists here. Come on, we can do better than that. Sure, encyclopedias and dictionaries are always inaccurate about anarchism, but there are anarchist books out there and some of them must have dealt with the issue of anarcho-capitalism. Furthermore, there have been plenty of anarchist periodicals over the years, and these are probably more representative of the movement as a whole. Doesn't somebody have some back issues of Northeastern Anarchist laying around? If we can't resolve this through citing sources, I see no alternative but to split the page into Anarchism (movement) and anarchism (philosophy), keeping traditional anarchism in the first, and all the new upstarts in the second.
 * To the ancaps: Look, the confusion is understandable. It's called anarcho-capitalism, its ostensibly anti-government, even encyclopedias describe it as a type of anarchism. So why shouldn't it be called a type of anarchism on Wikipedia? Good question. Look at it from our viewpoint...imagine a doctor comes to your house one day with a hampster and announces that this is your new daughter. He presents a birth certificate and a blood test, "proving" the hampster to be your very own offspring. Normally, that sort of verification is hard to deny...but it's a hampster for god's sake! The idea that this could be your daughter flies in the face of everything you know about everything. You would insist that the birth certificate is mistaken, if not outright fake, the blood test must have been performed incorrectly. In short, you need a greater standard of evidence for such an unusual claim. The same is true here. All anarchists *except* ancaps know with total certainty that anarchism is anticapitalist and always has been. If you find some encyclopedia that says otherwise, it's obviously wrong. So, you need higher than normal standards of evidence...you need source material. Primary, not secondary. I think if you could find Goldman or Bookchin or somebody to explain exactly how anarcho-capitalism comes out of anarchism proper, or if you could explain in detail how Rothbard supposedly derived his philosophy from anarchism, or if you could find examples of anarchists working with anarcho-capitalists or anarcho-capitalists supporting other anarchists or having *any* sort of contact with the movement other than some tenuous theoretical link, then we'd accept a compromise. But short of that, it sounds like you and Rothbard alike are just making things up and using shoddy sources to back it up. And even in the unlikely event that it turns out to be some fringe sort of anarchism, then that still doesn't make it notable enough to dedicate an entire subheading in the article. --Aelffin 13:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia policy prefers secondary, not primary, sources but... For instances that I know of, anarcho-capitalist supported Noam Chomsky - he said (while criticizing anarcho-capitalists philosophy): "I find myself in substantial agreement with people who consider themselves anarcho-capitalists on a whole range of issues; and for some years, was able to write only in their journals." As for tradition, some scholars claim that anarcho-capitalism is a modern version of individualist anarchism, and anarcho-capitalists often see Benjamin Tucker and other individualists as important figures for contemporary ac philosophy. -- Vision Thing -- 20:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe so but if a source says anarcho-capitalists are individualist anarchists, then they obviously didn't research what they were writing about because the individualists and all other anarchists are anti-capitalist socialists:
 * "...they must sell [their] labor for much less than the amount of wealth it produces. In this way ten, twenty, or a hundred men are literally robbed of an important portion of the fruits of their labor, solely that a single monopolist may be gorged with wealth." --Lysander Spooner, Poverty: Its Illegal Causes and Legal Cures
 * "...the names of the two schools of Socialistic thought [are] State Socialism and Anarchism." --Benjamin Tucker, Individual Liberty
 * "If a treaveller, in a hot day, stop at a farmhouse for a drink of water, he generally gets it without any thought of price. Why? Because it costs nothing, or the cost is immaterial...[t]he water or the wine must posess a value to the reciever...but to make this value or worth the measure of its price constitutes a glaring iniquity of the case, and would class the farmer among the wreckers of Norway, who first sink rocks in order to wreck vessels, and then demand of the crews all their cargoes and vessels for saving their lives...[and] it would class him with flour-dealers and every other huckster of provisions or clothing, with bankers and all other moneymongers and systematic speculators...[t]he only difference between them is that the wrecker must know that he ought to be shot, while the others may suppose that they are following a very 'legitimate business'!" --Josiah Warren
 * Aelffin 22:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Your quotes prove that individualist anarchist supported labor theory of value, and today's anarcho-capitalists support subjective theory of value. However, labor theory of value is contested by most current economists, and even by some Marxists. Economic theory evolves and it would be self-destructive to support erroneous theories.
 * 2) Writers of the An Anarchist FAQ claim that implementation of individualist anarchism would lead to capitalism. Also, by An anarchist FAQ, Kropotkin claimed that Tucker's ideas are "a combination of the anarchist Proudhon's and the liberal capitalist Herbert Spencer's".
 * 3) Tucker supported private property and free market claiming that: "Anarchism is a word without meaning, unless it includes the liberty of the individual to control his product or whatever his product has brought him through exchange in a free market - that is, private property. Whoever denies private property is of necessity an Archist." And private property and free market are cornerstones of anarcho-capitalism. -- Vision Thing -- 19:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

As for anarchism being a "political movement." Where do the individualist anarchists fit into this picture? As far as I understand, they hated the organizational forms of the communist anarchists (and their tactics of violence!). No political movement for them. Intangible 16:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

By getting involved in what you believe in, be that opposition to taxes, or workers' rights, e.g. Joseph Labadie - FrancisTyers · 23:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * So me not paying my taxes constitutes a political movement? Intangible 00:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure, if you do it actively, and in cohort with other people who are doing the same &mdash; consider the movement against the Poll tax and Poll Tax Riots in the United Kingdom. For sure its a shame that more people don't stand up to taxes in the same way. - FrancisTyers · 00:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * That was a movement against specific kind of tax. Critical mass that would oppose all forms of tax doesn't exist; largely thanks to prevailing view that taxation has a positive role in a society. -- Vision Thing -- 19:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)