Talk:Anarchism/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Conceptions of anarchist society

In a minute, I'm going to overhaul this section. I'm going to condense the "political organization" into the introduction, and then follow up with subsections on economic and social organization. I'm going to treat "political organization" as synonymous with "regulation of violence". In fact, the idea of "anarchist political organization" is rather oxymoronic. AdamRetchless 23:36, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

How would they regulate my violence w/o coercing me? Sam Spade 23:48, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Bribery? I dunno. I look forward to seeing the section. Hm. Speaking of which, at some point I should finish the types of anarchism section. I never did put in anarcho-capitalists and libertarian socialists. Snowspinner 23:59, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Wow, good job Adam. And I see no reason to wait, snowspin. Sam Spade 00:57, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

The reason to wait is called "My Masters Thesis" Snowspinner 01:03, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

Heh, sorry. For some reason I thought you ment you were waiting for the page to settle down or some such. Until the wiki starts paying us, we can't exactly be demanding a very high priority in each others scheduling, can we? Anytime would be just dandy ;) Cheers, Sam Spade 01:06, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

Thanks Sam. However, I'm a bit uncomfortable with my inability to document my statements. I'm basically working from a synthesized memory of a bunch of reading and discussions from several years ago. BTW, when I do Google searches for "anarchism and X" I am often directed to Spunk Library. Spunk has been around for a long time, so I'm going to add it to the article somewhere...AdamRetchless 11:53, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

When I spun Political Economy out into a seperate article, I had a very useful list of topic headings for people to backfill. Mostly it was associated with communist-anarchism. If someone wants to resurrect those points (particularly wages for housework which someone has removed! sounds a bit sexist.) Also, the removal of these topic headings has changed my PE article from the Political Economics (as a discipline) argued about by anarchists, to the Political Economics (as a social structure) argued for by anarchists. Fifelfoo 22:54, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

To be frank, I welcome any explanations in this area, at least until someone has quotes handy. Citations are great, but without some specific objections I am plenty happy to have your wording, and anything suggested by Fifelfoo (or whoever) included. This is the area perhaps most confusing to non-anarchists, and would do every reader a great service in its signifigant enlargement. Sam Spade 23:13, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

Coercion

' Generally, anarchists regard all unjustified coercive control and authority as unnecessary '

Generally, unjustified, unnecessary? What if I said making someone my slave was necessary in a particular situation, say because their family owed me money? What if I said that shooting vandals on sight was justified by the need for city beautification? Arn't these weasel words weasling the definition right out of being anarchist at all? Sam [Spade] 05:43, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

The use of "unjustified" there has been bothering me, but the author seemed to have a point (eleaborated in comment associated with edit). Maybe the author was just using a strange definition of "coerce". Dictionary.com definces "coerce" as "To force to act or think in a certain way by use of pressure, threats, or intimidation; compel." I think many/all anarchists would consider parental "pressure, threats, or intimidation" towards their children to be inappropriate. Sure, a parent might take matches away from their child, but I don't think that qualifies as coercion. Punishments (such as grounding or extra chores) could count as coercion, but they can be understood as in the context of "as long as you live under my roof you follow my rules", which is not coercion. However, corporal punishment would be coercion, and if the parent physically prevents the child from going off to live with a neighbor or relative, then any punishment could be coercion. I'm not sure how to deal with that sentence, but I hope those thoughts help. AdamRetchless 22:23, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

Punishments (such as grounding or extra chores) could count as coercion, but they can be understood as in the context of "as long as you live under my roof you follow my rules", which is not coercion. Ok? I'm not sure I understand. By the same logic then, a government official could say that as long as you live within the boarders of that countries' jurisdiction, he/she could tell you to follow its rules or else there would be punishment (including capital punishment) without it being coercion and as long as you work for a certain buisness you could be told to do as the buisness owner pleased without it being coercion. How then is coercion related to anarchism? And how is coercion even a meanigful word?

Most anarchist would believe that the government uses "unjustified" coercion (regardless of if you may choose to leave that country), and left-anarchists would say that modern buisnesses tend to use "unjustified" coercion (regardless of if you may leave that job). The unjustified bit is necessary because different anarchists disagree on weather coercion is sometimes justified, or if certain relationships count as inherently coercive. Its a NPOV issue. But you cannot clearly delineate the issue in the introduction alone, since it depends on the details of the different philosphies which come under the heading of anarchism. millerc 22:09, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

The difference between parental authority and state authority is that the state does not provide anything to its citizens. It cannot give anything more than it has taken, whereas an individual can actually provide support to another individual. Aside from that, capital punishment would be in the same category as corporal punishment. With regards to the business owner, by left-anarchist theory, this idea of "ownership" is based on coercion, so any influence derived from ownership is also based on coercion. "Coercion" may not be the best word in this context, but the word "unjustified" is absolutely worthless. Every person/society condemns acts that he/it considers unjustified. We need to explain what makes particular acts unjustified to an anarchist. If coercion is not the issue, then we should eliminate that entire statement and find a better way of explaining it, but I think that "coercion" is a meaningful word if we use the definition that I pulled from Dictionary.com. However, if anarchists don't agree that coercion is the root of all evil, then we should replace that statement. AdamRetchless 23:54, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

Your definition of a state is sort of weird. Any social institution, after all, is made up of those indiviuals which make up the social institution (so the state being a collection of individuals may provide support to one another). This is the same regardless of if it is a set of parents or the 'state.' The 'state' isn't something handed down by some unseen deity, it's something that we have created, and something we maintain. Unjustified coercion comes from individuals or groups of individuals, who use the current structure of society to thier advantage, while denying the freedoms/rights/liberty of others. The exact deliniation of what is unjustifed is based on what one thinks about 'freedom/rights/liberty'. I think anarchists believe that coercion in many forms is unjustified (the word 'evil' is a quasi-religious term so I would stay away from it, and the phrase 'root of all evil' seems somewhat absurd, so I wouldn't use it either).

To emphasize the anarchist view of the state, let's compare it to a cotton plantation in the Antebellum South. The slaves turn over their produce to the plantation, and the plantation provides them with a little bit of food and shelter. Does the fact that the plantation "provides" their food and shelter give them any reason to be thankful towards to the plantation? Does the plantation have any right to cease "giving" them that support? Is the plantation something that they created and maintained? I think this illustrates why an institution should be viewed as being neutral in the economic sphere. Like a tool, it neither produces nor consumes--the people do. At most, an institution can be considered an extension of the individuals that control it. In that case, the plantation is an extension of its owner, and the state is an extension of the elite that controls it (in anarchist thought), such that these institutions are exploiting the people and consuming their produce, which is the exact opposite of providing support to the people.

Ok? Again how does this argue your point (that the word unjustified should be removed, or changed somehow)? I think anarchist thought is varied, and your above analysis of what constitutes the anarchist position is somewhat shallow. You may take that comment as just being my opinion, since I really don't want to get into it. This whole argument doesn't even seem to attempt to answer the question as to if we should maintain the sentance that uses the word unjustified. millerc 03:43, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Everything you said about justification and freedoms/rights/liberties is true, but it provides no insight into what makes an anarchist an anarchist. If opposition to coercion is not a defining trait of anarchism, then that sentence should be removed rather than turning it into fluff by inserting "unjustfied". BTW, I had no intention of using the term "evil" in the article. AdamRetchless 02:53, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I think it does, as it seems to be a blanket statement that applies equally to every group calling themselves anarchist, which is good for the introduction of an article -- so it is a defining trait. Again, the nessecity of making the statement somewhat vague is caused by the fact that there are so many groups calling themselves anarchist (including the deeply opposed groups of anarcho-capitalists and libertarian socialists), so we have to make vague statements if we want to say anything general at all, and maintain a NPOV. 'Unjustified' is not fluff, since it makes the reader aware that there may be a deeper analysis of what constitutes justified vs unjustified. This deeper justification belongs in the body since it depends heavily on the type of anarchist. If you don't agree with my statements then maybe you would be willing to change the introduction of the article to simply say that anarchism is used as a term to denote a philosphical position which rejects the state (as this seems to be the only issue which clearly definines all self-described anarchists)? Anything else by your characterization would only be 'fluff', since it would have to be vague enough to encompass all self-described anarchist thought. millerc 03:43, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

You said: 'Every person/society condemns acts that he/it considers unjustified.' ...and my reply would be so what? The term anarchism relates to many different political views; you have to maintain a NPOV. If you wish to explain further (I have no problem with this), do so in the body of the article, since the explanation will require multiple view points on what exactly deliniates justified from unjustified. millerc 22:23, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

So what? Exactly my point. AdamRetchless 02:53, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Not really... So we're talking circles around each other, and not really even attempting to come to consensus, at this point. Do whatever you want; I've pretty much given up on editing any articles dealing with this type of subject matter, anyway. I just thought that interjecting my POV would help work some issues out, but I guess not. millerc 03:43, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

BTW, I think Noam Chomsky has discussed this issue before, in which he has stated that parents may use justified coercion in keeping their child from harm, but that this form of coercion is not the same as the unjustifed coercion used by many state and economic institutions. I'm not sure of the source of this, but I seem to remember it beeing in the Manufacturing Consent documentary. millerc 22:14, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

This sounds like a very sloppy way of evaluating the validity of an act (but that doesn't mean that anarchists don't use this rule). I know that anarchists would not accept the argument that "it's for his own good" if it was applied towards an adult. It is (obviously) paternalistic. First, the benefit of an action is a matter of judgement, and anarchists would respect the right of each person to come to their own judgements and act on them (within the logically necessary limits). Similarly, since it isn't necessarily clear whether coercion was exercized to prevent harm, this argument can easily be used to serve selfish ends. AdamRetchless 23:54, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

How is it a sloppy way of evaluating an act? Noam Chomsky never defined how to determine if something is a valid form of coercion. He only said that coercion might be justified in some instances. Saying something might be justified and defining exactly when something is justified are two different things. millerc 22:23, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Is there anything non-anarchist about slapping your kids? How about beating up people you don't like? Isn't killing a president or placing a bomb in a marketplace an act of coercion? Sam [Spade] 02:06, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

Anarchists believe (so far as I can speak for them all) that people have a right to be free, and that the state does not allow for this. While many view the state and capitalism as seperate entities, they are inextricably intertwined and therefore, to first approximation, they are the same thing. They have similar interests at heart. But capitalism is based upon one idea: exploitation. The purpose of Capitalism is to exploit the labour of others. As the capitalist system allows for massive and unlimited private ownership, this creates a situation where the means of production/distribution are in the hands of the very rich, and therefore, is oppressive as workers have no way of competing with the gigantic selling power of multi-national corporations. Capitalists do very little work, (maybe administrative/managerial) but the basic idea is that they profit from the labour of others. This creates a knid of 'slave' trade and is therefore fundamentally oppressive. Therefore, corporations (and capitalism) are unjustified, coercive, and controlling.

Regionalism

I came across this interesting resouce, called the Anarchist Projects Network [1]. It is basically an attempt to increase communication among anarchists and let each other know what they've been up to in the real world (as opposed to theoretical work). It looks like it could be helpful for describing what anarchism is about, but it is rather limited, as all of the projects are in North America. It occured to me that anarchist traditions and networks will tend to form in a regional context, and that it may be worthwhile to expand on the character of anarchism in different parts of the world. So far, I'm only familiar with what's going on in North America and Europe. I've heard nothing of South America, India, East Asia, Africa, or the Middle East (tho I have met an Islamic anarchist born in the Middle East). Would it be good to have separate articles for each region? How would we organize it? Maybe we should just have a "see also" section for anarchism in various parts of the world. Any thoughts? AdamRetchless 22:51, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

I think any additions you make are likely to be beneficial. Sam [Spade] 03:10, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

Zapatista Autonomous Municipalities

I highly question the inclusion of this in "historical examples of successful anarchies". Not only is it true that the Zapatistas do not call themselves anarchists, but the article even indicates that they are structured along rule by an elite. Calling "good government councils" fluffy bunnies with pink ears would not change the fact that these "councils" enact laws, that these laws are in turn enforced upon unwilling participants who may or may not have participated in their formation and are then subjected to their dictates. Government, law, and rule by elite council does not all wash away just because they claim to be following "the will of the people" anymore than it does in states like China or did in the Soviet Union. I propose that this paragraph be either seriously qualified or modified in order to express that certain aspects of the Zapasita movement are similar to anarchism but not actually anarchist per se, or that it simply be stricken altogether. Kev 19:00, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

I think that's essentially what I did say. --Tothebarricades.tk 05:21, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It goes a little overboard in implying that Zapatistas are anarchists in everything but name. I've tried to fix it up a bit, but I still think the entire passage is inappropriate given the fact that it is under the heading "historical examples of successful anarchies" and this example is expressly not an anarchist one. Again, pointing out similarities is fine, but putting this in the successful anarchies section implies a lot more than similarity. Anyway, I'll leave it up to see if anyone else raises this objection or has an easy fix. Kev 09:49, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Anarcho-fascism

With capitalists claiming to be anarchists swarming over wikipedia it was just a matter of time until nationalists (i.e. fascist ethnic-seperatists) claiming to be anarchists also appeared. Thankfully the form of their appearance is still so objectionable that this piece of rhetoric can be removed on other grounds. Namely A) this is an external link placed within the text, B) this highly controversial contradiction in terms has been posted by an anon who has offered no justification or explaination in the text for why any of us should believe that nationalism and anarchism are compatible.

So-called "capitalist" anarchists are bad enough, if nationalists can claim the title then what meaning can the word possibly have anymore? There is documented proof that the first people to call themselves anarchists rejected both capital and the state, not by coicidence, but as part of their ideology due to the coercion entailed in both. National communities would in practice -require- coercion to close their borders. Are the claims of "no true scotsman" arguments now going to allow the most blatant of statists and corporate propertarians to make claim to anarchism without even the necessary qualifiers? Does anyone even know what it means to oppose government anymore? Can words have any meaning when any ideology can twist them to mean the exact opposite? I'll wait for comment then remove this in a few days like the Zapatista stuff above.

"National-anarchism (http://www.nationalanarchist.com) emphasizes the creation of isolated, nation-like communities."

I hope that this is not some declaration that you will be turning this article into a POV battle between anarcho-capitalists and other varieties of anarchism. This would be neither prudent nor helpful. For my part, I don't see how one can claim to be an anarchist while calling for the overthrow of private institutions such as corporations. I think the article as it stands frames the debate between anarcho-capitalists and other anarchists fairly clearly and well, and that we don't need to eliminate either side. Snowspinner 20:40, May 31, 2004 (UTC)

This article, and several others, have long since been POV battles between anarcho-capitalists and anarchists in general, take a look at the history if you aren't already aware of that. I have no intention of making these contests any worse, but you have done nothing to address my questions and I believe these questions need to be addressed to avoid further outbreaks.

It is a fact that the first people to be called anarchists were leftists and rejected the label as an insult. It is a fact that the first person to accept the label and refer to himself as an anarchist rejected both the state and capital as antithetical to anarchism. All of the movements which sprung from Proudhon's mutualism including individualism and anarcho-communism similarly rejected BOTH capital and the state as a fundamental part of anarchism.

To then reduce anarchism to mere anti-statism and forget the anti-capitalist part is to change the meaning of the word to something other than what it meant before. This sort of thing happens all the time in politics, for many reasons, and turing back the clock is simply no longer an option even if the reasons that capitalists first tried to co-opt anarchism are highly suspect. But this sequence of events is exactly what needs to be made clear. Anarcho-capitalists are anarcho-capitalists, not because some advisory board declared them such but because they can call themselves whatever they want and there isn't much anyone can do about it. However, if we are going to call them anarchists, rather than anarcho-capitalists, and associate them with anarchism rather than classical liberalism, then we have to make clear that "anarchist" to an anarcho-capitalists means something entirely different than what "anarchist" means to all other anarchists, and that furthermore the meaning that anarcho-capitalists endorse is not what anarchism as an ideology originally stood for.

Why do we have to be so careful? The nationalists tell us why. Because there is basically no valid wikipedia method of saying, as bluntly as possible, that fascists claiming to be anarchists are totally full of shit. So instead we need to prepare the grounds, and make it clear that "fascists and nationalists claiming to be anarchists are using a radically different meaning of the word than what those who originally considered themselves anarchists meant." But in order to do that, capitalists are going to have to face the uncomfortable truth that the exact same thing is true of them, not only that they are an adaptation of a pre-existing theory, but that their philosophy is so radically different it is easy to claim that they are in fact subverting it. That is the only NPOV way to make these facts clear and avoid having "anarchism" become an entirely meaningless word.

Finally, I would love to respond to you as to exactly why anarchism originally arose as an anti-capitalist ideology but this isn't really relevant to this discussion. Regardless of the validity of the anarcho-capitalist arguments, the facts should still be the same concerning the history and origin of the ideology. However, there are plenty of such arguments already out there which explain anarchist positions on this matter, so I encourage you to pick up something by Proudhon, Kropotkin, or Tucker, all of whom represent different facets of anarchist ideology and all of whom predated so-called "anarcho-capitalism" by considerably more than 50 years, to see exactly why each of them argued that anarchism by its nature rejects capital and the private corporations that arise from it. After you have some understanding of what anarchism is, I would be happy to supply arguments that are more modern and respond to the attempts to transform it by so-called anarcho-capitalists. Kev 01:30, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I do not think that Wikipedia is the proper forum for these concerns. I think that we are best suited to note the current usage of the word "anarchism" and to explain the debate that exists - however I firmly reject any notion of using Wikipedia to prove a political point. Snowspinner 02:54, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. In fact, I had already said so myself, "I would love to respond to you as to exactly why anarchism originally arose as an anti-capitalist ideology but this isn't really relevant to this discussion." But I felt that your statement of personal belief concerning the validity of private corporatism as anarchism still merited a response. Kev 07:13, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Worthless

This wikipedia entry has to be one of the most inaccurate Wikipedia entries. Somebody has recently gone through this entry and added tons of anarcho-capitalist nonsense, giving the false impression that anarcho-capitalism is a major strain of thought within anarchism. In fact, only a handful of anarcho-capitalists exist. The ideology they promote is an oxymoron. Anarchism has always stood in opposition to capitalism, because capitalism requires the state to exist. It's extremely upsetting for this anarchist and librarian to see all of the sabotage posted here by some "anarcho-capitalist" nut! (Chuk Munson, webmster Infoshop.org)

Chuck, whether or not you believe only a handful of anarcho-capitalists exist, they DO exist, and it IS a strain of anarchism, major or no. Personally I think your characterization is correct, but it's also correct to say only a handful of left anarchists exist. Either way, the information is relevant and describes a historically important strain of political philosophy that still has a lot of currency (among free market ideologues). Removing it in no way improves wikipedia, which does not exist to promote left anarchism. Graft 18:13, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

All right, I added this: "Anarcho-capitalists are mostly isolated from the rest of the anarchist community, which is traditionally anti-capitalist. Anarcho-capitalism is considered a paradox by some, who place the theory closer to right-wing libertarianism than to other currents of anarchist thought." under anarcho-capitalism. I tried to avoid my own POV (which is the same as Chuck0's) and just show what most anarchists think of it. --Tothebarricades.tk 19:14, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I disagree w all 3 of you about the fundamentals (I like the conception of politics on http://politicalcompass.org/ ) but I think your handling of this subject has reached such heights as that I am considering nominating the page as a Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. Thoughts? Sam [Spade] 05:14, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

No form of capitalism is a strain of anarchism, which is simply the most radical form of socialism. 'Anarcho-capitalists' are merely a bunch of freaks trying to steal our cool by stealing our word. Unfortunately, they are quite vocal and therefore merit a mention in any NPOV article on anarchism. It is vitally important, however, that such a mention should never imply that this ideology is compatible with anarchism as understood by anarchists. Chameleon 11:03, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Capitalism is anarchic if you approach anarchism from a philosophical, rather than a political perspective. That is, if you treat the fundamental demand of anarchism as not having any organization claiming to act on the behalf of society as a whole, and, more to the point, claiming to have a mandate to do so from society as a whole. Corporations, being private, do not fulfill this requirement, and anyway, how could you ban/regulate them without having a de facto state? Which is not to make a case for anarcho-capitalism. It's just to point out that, from an abstracted standpoint, anarcho-capitalism makes sense, and that it's POV to exclude it. Snowspinner 16:12, Jun 17, 2004 (UTC)

This is odd Snow. I refered you to the huge amounts of literature already written on the subject that you seem not to be familiar with, all of which predates anarcho-capitalism and clearly rules it out of the domain of anarchism, and you told me that this is not the proper forum to express these concerns. Then you continue to argue your personal belief that that anarcho-capitalism is in fact a form of anarchism and should be included in this article on those grounds.

And anyway, your logic is flawed. Private property is an institution which requires enforcement, it is a mandate set over a given sphere of influence. You say that the fundamental demand of anarchism is to reject any organization which claims a mandate over society as a whole, and that corporations cannot do this because they are private. First, your declaration as to the nature of anarchism is questionable, why should we accept this peculiar definition over the many pre-existing ones just because this one happens to favor your personal perspective? This form of thinking is attempting to draw an inference in reverse, you are altering the view of anarchism that existed before capitalists called themselves anarchists in order to justify the event afterwards. Second, within their spheres of influence these corporations DO mandate over the "society as a whole" in the form of private property enforcement (and sometimes in other forms of enforcement as well). That they do not always mandate over other corporations (I say always because sometimes they do) is merely analagous to the fact that states do not always mandate over other states. This sphere of influence of a corporation is only limited by its size and economic power, they can in theory become as large as any state in both respects, and even before doing so would easily fit into your own argument as being incompatible with anarchism to the degree that people within those spheres will have their behavior dictated in many of the same ways as they would in more obvious states.

Finally, your argument that corporations cannot be banned/regulated without a de-facto state is nothing but a straw-man. It is like the anarchist claim that corporations cannot be upheld without a state to back their claims. In either case both arguments are beside the point. If corporations are able to operate in an entirely voluntary manner then anarchists would not object to them, if they are not able to operate in such a manner (which is precisely what anarchist claim) then anarchists will object to them on the basis of their state-like qualities. So to argue that an anarchist cannot reject a corporation without endorsing a de facto state is like arguing that they cannot reject a state without endorsing a de facto state. In other words, it is to argue against anarchist itself, not for anarcho-capitalism. To emphasize, anarchists are not arguing against voluntary behavior in the form of corporate economics, they are arguing that corporate economics are, either by definition or in practice, involuntary.

I would like to remind you once again that justifications for anarcho-capitalism are irrelevant here. Either anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism or it is not, but either way some people believe that it is so it should be included in wikipedia in some form. The only question is what form, and given the facts on hand it is hard to deny that anarcho-capitalism is a subversion of the anarchistic theory that preceded it. This interpretation should not be included in the wikipedia pages, but the factual evidence that allows a reader to come to this conclusion on their own must be included to avoid POV. Kev 19:15, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

By the way, I just wanted to say that the suggestion that capitalists began using the word "anarchist" in order to steal its cool is preposterous. The word is a curse. There are few terms in the political vocabulary that have more negative connotations from the general public. I suspect that the only reason A-C's started using it was something along the lines of "embracing the negative" (as with certain ethnic terms), because critics kept accusing them of being anarchists.

That said, how is this whole argument of "who is/is not an anarchist" anything more than a semantic dispute? - Nat Krause 16:12, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It's about historical reality, not semantics. Although the term anarchist might be applied by the general public to anyone who wants to dismantle the state government. It doesn't mean that the general public is using the term correctly in its historical context. Before anarchism was reduced to a term that simply meant someone who was against the state by people who wished to discredit the movement, it had a much fuller meaning. Only left-anarchism fits the fuller historical meaning. If we wish to reduce the political term down to something that only means that someone is against the state government, then as Kev said previously, we would also have to allow some nationalists to call themselves anarchists if they wish. Most of the discussions on this page (esp. the ones brought up by Sam Spade and AdamRechless) are about how to define anarchism in general terms, which IMO is absolutely futile if anarcho-capitalist are anarchists, since they share almost nothing in common with left-anarchists (the only exception being that they seek to dismatle the state government). The basis of the anarcho-capitalist philosophy is so foreign to a left anarchist, that to even apply the same termonology to each would be a mistake. The best we could hope to do is state some vague things in the intro. (since being concrete would lead us to implicitly using ideas from one philosophy or the other), and then separating out the two philosophies throughout the rest of the article.

The problem that some left-anarchists are having with the article is that the termonology being used, and the "general" statements that are being made are starting to become removed from the left-anarchist political philosophy. millerc 20:37, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Millerc, I think I agree with much of your argument here. Anarcho-capitalism and anarcho-socialism are two completely different animals. The article will always be confusing if it treats them as two types of the same thing. They are similar only in the same sense that Scandinavians and Eskimos could both be described as "Northmen". I think that we should focus on two separate articles for A-C and A-S. We can have an overview, same as we would want if there were going to be a "People of the North" article, but it should link to other pages for specific information.

(Looking at what I just wrote, I see that it's a little too strong. Both the left and right anarchists are influenced by the American "individualist anarchists" of the 19th century (influenced more or less directly perhaps; I don't think I know the individualists well enough to comment on that). But that doesn't change the fact that they come from fundamentally different places and are, for the most part, mutually unintelligible.)

I don't think the historical issues are particularly important here. Words always change their connotations over time and new ideas are always developing. I don't think it will be very profitable to have an article on anarchism that leaves out A-C, which many people think of as a form of anarchism. I also don't think that we can have a coherent article that treats A-C and A-S as similar. I know I keep repeating the same thing, but my point is this: we can and should define "anarchism" in general terms, but those general terms are not a meaningful basis for a complete article in this case. Hence, the need for two articles. - Nat Krause 13:11, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Good points, Nat Krause, thankfully there are clear headed people like yourself here so that we may actually get somewhere with this conflict. I do disagree with what others have said about this article needing to give "the truth" (see below), since this would be a slippery slope that I would rather not head down. I can't seem to come to any definite conclusions about how this conflict should be resolved. I support the right of the anarcho-capitalists to call themselves anarchists, but I also see this label as conflicting with historical facts. I think the anarcho-capitalist article is the perfect place to expand on the actual anarcho-capitalist philosophy. Maybe what we need is a similar article for all strains of left-anarchism (I've noticed that an individualist anarchist article already exists as well)? I've always just used the label anarchism for left-anarchism, and anarcho-capitalism seems to be a term used much more extensively than anarcho-socialism or left-anarchism. If I came to wikipedia for the first time, and I wanted to find out about left-anarchism, I think I would simply look up anarchism, so this needs to be taken into account.

I also dislike how long and convoluted the article has become, maybe it was a mistake to redirect all the subject specific articles to this article rather than linking to them from here. If we link to separate articles on the specific topics, and articles on the specific philosophies, and just give historical information about how the different strains of "anarchism" came about, then we would no longer have to worry about discerning any specific philosophical positions or about having to give the "true" version of anarchism. The historical facts are something we all might be able to agree on, and they would clearly show that individualist anarchism was first, then left-anarchism, and then anarcho-capitalism. The reader might be able to discern for themself that anarcho-capitalism is something entirely different from left-anarchism, and, in fact, was preceeded by left-anarchism. millerc 00:06, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Rights based definition of anarchism

I think this might suffice as a general description of anarchism:

1. All rights belong to individuals (as opposed to groups)
2. All individuals have equal rights
3. No individuals have rights over another individual

I realize that not all anarchists necessarily consider "rights" to be a useful concept, but I think this could be accurate in a descriptive sense. These three criteria make a strong distinction between anarchism (both capitalist and socialist) and any other view of human relations. It could also be used as a framework for describing the differences among anarchists, altho we probably don't want to go too deep unless we find some scholar of anarchism who has done that sort of analysis. If you think that we can work with this, then toss it in the article. AdamRetchless 00:19, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I think socialists presume a right over others, by definition. Also anarcho-capitalists don't believe in equality of outcome, or involuntary redistribution of goods (theft) in attempt to achieve such. Sam [Spade] 02:50, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Adam, those principles apply to socialism in general, so anarchism could not be distinguished from socialism (and the two, whilst related, are stridently different ideologies). In theory, they also apply to liberalism up to a point, and I'm sure even some modern conservatives would claim adherence to those principles in some form. I'd also suggest that, in real-world terms, the second and third principles (which are essentially the same, surely) are wholly incompatible with capitalism; philosophically, capitalism is fundamentally opposed to equality, and in practice it consistently ensures individuals do not have equal rights. As you say, the distinction needs to be between concepts of human relations. Socialism accepts liberal and conservative notions that there are certain functions within society that must be fulfilled - anarchism refutes the existence of those functions. Socialism maintains a belief in hierarchical structures, but in a representative, accountable, democratic form - anarchism rejects such structures completely. That's not a matter of rights, it's a matter of social organisation.

Positive liberty/Negative liberty

That is the question, as I see it. Sam [Spade] 18:16, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

That's only some of it. And I don't think you'd get any real sense of agreement on which side of hte debate represents which type of freedom. I think the larger issue is really derivation of rights, and, more specifically, which rights are innate human rights and which rights are granted through a social contract. (With an eye towards the anarchistic belief that any social contract is invalid) Snowspinner 18:56, Jun 21, 2004 (UTC)

' Helvetius expresses this point clearly: "The free man is the man who is not in irons, nor imprisoned in a gaol, nor terrorized like a slave by the fear of punishment...it is not lack of freedom not to fly like an eagle or swim like a whale." ' Sam [Spade] 19:01, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Sounds like neo-liberal/Libertarian propaganda to me. As such, it doesn't have anything to do with anarchism (at least any sort that's not anarcho-capitalism). I don't see how the liberty to be who you want to be (personality wise, since it's obvious we all have physical/mental limitations and this doesn't limit our liberty) and the liberty to be free from coercion are different. One thing I did notice about the articles is that the freedom from coercion bit mentioned government coercion, as if the government was the only social institution capable of being coercive, which makes me really suspisious about the people that buy into this particular dicotomy. The ideas of rights/social contract/innate rights are also classical liberal in origin, and wouldn't be a valid way of describing anything about left-anarchism (rights and liberty are two differnt things). So the idea of a derivation of 'rights' is would be erronious as well. millerc 20:07, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)