Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anarcho-fascism

Belongs on meta, or something. No evidence of the existence of a political movement terming itself "Anarcho-fascism". - snoyes 11:38, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Well sure there is, you just have to know where to look: "Whilst the first GAndalf trial was on and signatures for the Alternative Media Gathering solidarity statement were being collected, the Neoists held a meeting on "anarcho-fascism" at the October 1997 Anarchist Bookfair and launched yet another pamphlet, Anarchist Integralism. This argued all anarchists are fascists because Bakunin once supported pan-Slavism."  This passage describes the existence of such a movement by a third party, and its activity at the 1997 Anarchist Bookfair in which they hosted a workshop by that name.
 * Or there is this forum from last year in which an individual describes herself as an anarcho-fascist: "I consider myself a 20 year old anarcho-fascist"
 * Indeed, many anarchists are aware of "national-anarchist" movements claiming to exist in several places on the internet (an external link to one such site was recently place on the anarchism page). This philosophy is often interchangably refered to as "fascist anarchism".  And while the history of this particular name might only be between 5 minutes and 15 years old, the philosophy itself is much older, possibly predating all other forms of anarchism.  Kev 12:09, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Delete. This is obviously a case of trying to prove a point with a dramatic illustration of it, rather than just discussing it.  I've been tempted myself.  This article was never intended to be encyclopaedic, and the author knows that no such movement exists. &mdash; Chameleon 11:53, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Not only have I supplied evidence for the existence of this movement, but I challenge anyone to supply evidence that it is not one of the largest anarchist factions in modern times! Kev 12:09, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Challenge accepted. It gets 81 hits on Google, while Anarcho-syndicalism and Anarcho-capitalism get more than 10,000. Even Anarcho-communism (surely not a mainstream anarchistic subdivision) get over 2,000. DJ Clayworth 16:55, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * "Anarcho-communism (surely not a mainstream anarchistic subdivision)" -- Hahahahahahaha. WHAT THE FUCK are you talking about? Why do so many people who obviously know nothing about anarchism feel the need to get involved in this debate? Spleeman 00:56, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * This is the same fuzzy logic being used by those damned anarcho-socialists to discredit anarcho-capitalism as a major player in the anarchist movement. Just because nearly all newspaper articles published on anarchism refer to anarcho-socialism of one form or another does not mean that anarcho-capitalists are anything but a majority!  Clearly, what you should be searching under is "fascism" and "anarchism" separately and count all those links, after all, this would be parallel to the claims of our capitalist brothers that the numbers of objectivists and members of the Libertarian party demonstrate the vast ranks of anarcho-capitalists.  It is true that not all fascists are anarchists, but there is an "uneasy relationship" between them and it needs to be documented on wikipedia, just like the uneasy relationship refered to on the anarchism discussion page.  Kev 21:32, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Decision to vote delete very easy when the words "Wikipedia gave birth to..." are near the beginning of the article. Saves me the trouble of reading the rest. Isomorphic 12:47, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * You shouldn't have stopped there. You missed gems like: For the past 300 years many anarcho-fascists argued that the phlogiston found inside the monad particles of Proudhon's decaying corpse prove that anarchism means only "without state". It's funny but delete it anyway. MK 04:46, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, really anarcho-fascism has existed for thousands of years in its current form. It is true that it hasn't been called that by name until more recently, but clearly if our anarcho-capitalist brothers can claim a tradition extending 100 years before Rothbard first used the term (again, this claim can be found on the anarchism discussion page) then we can claim one about 2000 years ago.  Kev 21:41, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Delete. Wikipedia apparently gave birth to POV ranting.  Postdlf 12:48 25 June 2004 (UTC)
 * The page describes a political point of view, so obviously it is going to be POV and should be left in tact. Our anarcho-capitalist brothers declared the same thing of their own page in the anarcho-capitalism discussion page in order to save themselves from a horrible bunch of qualifiers that would dilute their message.  Kev 21:41, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * All I can say is it's fucking hilarious. A work of art. Suggestion: Delete it after the anarchism/anarcho-capitalism dispute has been resolved. Spleeman 13:05, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * A few bloggers seem to be using the expression, and maybe some offbeat polotical commentators, but the term is hardly widespread. Meanwhile the article is clearly way off base. Unless someone replaces it with a well-thought-out article before the end of the deadline, delete. DJ Clayworth 15:16, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Keep, but provide little doubt as to the questionableness of this term, the questionableness as to what it means, the suspicion of many individuals that it is an oxymoron, and note its extreme obscurity. --Daniel C. Boyer 15:36, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Hilarious, almost insanely so, but delete as original research, conjecture, neologistics or all three. BTW, I was a bad boy and disputed the sanity of the article. - Lucky 6.9 16:48, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Anarcho-fascists are very proud of their insanity, though they tend to call it either logic or economics interchangably. Thank you for adding that dispute, it better describes their philosophy!  Kev 21:41, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Delete it as soon as possible. Anarcho-fascism is a logical impossibility. About the dumbest thing I've ever come across. --Tothebarricades.tk 17:32, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * This does exist - as internally contradictory as it may sound. The world does indeed have national anarchists, national bolsheviks etc. Move to third position and write a general discussion on them. Secretlondon 18:25, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * The sanity of this page is disputed.? LOL!  I don't think Wikipedia has given birth to any political movements, hm?  Delete.  RickK 19:02, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)
 * "new (and yet very old, even ancient)"? Okayyyy. Hey, wasn't this concept a gag in Ferris Bueller's Day Off? Delete. -Sean Curtin 22:35, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * But if you delete the anarcho-fascism page on such a silly justification you would have to delete the anarcho-capitalism page for having declared that their tradition spans far beyond the date of their origin. I object!  There is clear evidence that both politics existed before they were labeled such. Kev 23:17, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Well then, would you vote to delete the anarcho-capitalist critique of left-anarchism page? If so, maybe we should list it on VfD as well. Anyway, I'm sure my positive vote will be far out numbered by the votes for deletion. millerc 06:02, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * This page is the product of a number of POV warriors who are seeking to make Anarchism better suit their personal views of anarchism. (You can pretty quickly figure out who they are by the fact that they're supporting the page's maintenance here.) Delete the page with extreme predjudice. Snowspinner 02:17, Jun 26, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. We might be able to salvage it as an article based on what other anarchists think about the "national anarchist" movement, hence calling it "anarcho-fascism" would be very appropriate. Or we might turn it into a "left-anarchist critique of anarcho-capitalism" (like the anarcho-capitalist critique of left-anarchism, but with a milder sense of humor than the current version, and a warning msg) with a re-direct.  millerc 04:10, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Somehow I doubt that would help return this site to some semblance of sanity and NPOV. We don't need separate pages for people to rant against rival philosophies. Such pages to little to help inform readers. What we need is for people to restrain their opinions and approach the writing of articles with the highest standards of neutrality and intellectual rigor. Thorough research, careful writing, logical organization, correct classification, and of course, careful adherence to and respect for NPOV will make this possible. My vote it still to delete it, despite its endearing humor. Spleeman 05:19, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes I would gladly vote to delete the "anarcho-capitalist critique of left-anarchism" page. Solidarity. Spleeman


 * Send it to best of BJAODN. &#8212;No-One Jones 06:29, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Good idea. Spleeman
 * Agreed! Although I was thinking of just archiving it on something like talk:anarchism/anarcho_fascism page as well, since it was a part of the conversation, and, therefore, should be archived for future reference. millerc 06:02, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, please. Or I'll send you to the nearest "exist". -- Cyrius|&#9998; 06:37, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * "Their philosophy is a blend of capitalism, authoritatianism [sic], and phrenology." Therefore, "anarcho-fascism" is a misnomer.  Move to anarcho-phrenology.  On second thought, move to BJAODN.  JamesMLane 07:57, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * When I wikilinked the term I didn't realize that it could lead to the this mess. In its current form the article is a joke. But I think there is room for a serious encyclopedic article about the topic. G-u-a-k-@ 12:43, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Please. Don't be ridiculous. There is no room for a "serious encyclopedic article" about "anarcho-fascism". Come on. -- Spleeman 22:24, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Why not? There is room for an article about anarcho-capitalism :) G-u-a-k-@ 00:41, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Hehe :) Spleeman 00:52, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: No social phenomena so described exists. Fifelfoo 14:24, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: outright fabrication, or insignificant splinter group, or both. Even if there was a workshop at a bookfair once, it wouldn't rate an article. Wile E. Heresiarch 16:26, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. As impossible as a blonde redhead. Denni &#9775; 02:51, 2004 Jun 28 (UTC)
 * What about a strawberry blonde? :) Spleeman 06:03, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Your point is oddly compelling. :P I vote delete anyway. Lord Bob 14:30, Jun 28, 2004 (UTC)
 * delete--XmarkX 15:43, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep I found it very interesting -ZeroFuzion
 * Delete. Mathematically impossible. -- Viajero 22:40, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)