Talk:Anarchism/Archive 25

Archive 20

←

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

→

Archive 30

Starting a portal

Hey, I just created a portal. Who wants to help develop it? Should we create a project for it? Marc Mywords 10:18, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Quite interesting, not a waste at all

I think that all versions that are presented here give a clear view of the different anarchisms. [Libertarian socialism] is the only type of anarchism I've ever experienced, although I've met many people who adhere (or at least talk about) the other philosophies presented here. I think, on balance, and with the warning about the topic being in dispute, this is a wonderful example of Wikipedia's repository of knowledge.68.226.183.58 04:31, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

total waste

All I can say is this article is total waste now, totally inaccurate, and full of shit. Might as well just vandalize the whole page to be the sentence "anarchism cannot be defined correctly on wikipedia."

What do you regard as inaccuracies? MrVoluntarist 01:16, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm pretty confident that this user is referring to the inclusion of "anarcho-capitalism" and "national anarchism" as forms of anarchism. I know that I personally find this article hard and even quite a bit depressing to look at with their inclusion. It effectively hijacks the furthest left-wing attitude and folds it back onto the right. Ironically, I'm a former anarcho-capitalist myself and at the time would have said I was "anarchist", but only because I had such a poor grasp of the subject to know otherwise. In fact, I was so confused I thought anarcho-capitalism was the only "true" anarchism because I considered anarchism to only oppose the state when in effect it opposes all means of oppression. As it happens, I now consider capitalist structures much more powerful than a simple state.

In fact, if you think about it, anarcho-capitalists are no more "anarchist" than communists, who are insistent on destroying capitalism albeit preserving the state, after you consider that they consider capitalism the more potent threat. To a right libertarian, such an idea is apparently beyond any sort of comprehension. The only peace of mind I'm left with is my confidence that these topics will be removed from the article in some fashion or another. Sarge Baldy 02:15, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

All these schools of thought oppose what they believe to be coercive relations between individuals (and oppression) and favor what they believe to be voluntary relations --the key phrase is "what they believe to be..." The minute an editor starts injecting his personal judgements into the article as to what actually is or is not coercive, voluntary, or oppressive is when the POV problems arise. An NPOV article cannot make that judgement, but must include all schools of thought that favor what they believe to be an anarchistic mode of operating. RJII 02:30, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

And yet your reason for wanting it listed here is because you "believe it to be" anarchist. There's no such thing as an "NPOV article", and it certainly isn't very NPOV to put philosophies here most often seen as the enemies of anarchism and listing them here. An open-minded policy in deciding what is allowed is good, but there is a point where you make the article completely POV by overrepresenting your own viewpoints in a way that isn't compatible with the common perception of a subject matter. Even anarcho-capitalists themselves do not identify themselves as anarchist foremost; you would make certain to state that you are an anarcho-capitalist so as to highlight the difference, and from there you might claim that your philosophy is anarchist. There are no "schools of thought". Anarchists are anarchists, and identify as such. If you have to create a different label for yourself, you clearly cannot be properly anarchist, but are rather simply attempting to usurp the name for your own uses. Sarge Baldy 03:53, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh really? So all anarchists agree with each other on everything? There is just one monolithic movement? They all support the same economic system, etc? If that's what you believe, you're in for an education. Read the article. RJII 04:01, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't particularly care which of your own beliefs you decided to overemphasize in the article. You should be aware that Wikipedia policy states that even facts can be POV when overrepresented. All anarchist organizations that exist are open to other anarchists. It doesn't surprise me that you've created an article on "American individualist anarchism", which as it happens is not surprisingly part of the popular anarchist movement either and is much more closely tied with anarcho-capitalism. That it's called itself "American individualist anarchism" shows that it was never even accepted by individual anarchists. That you've listed one of these people first in the article is another example of your rampaging attempts at establishing *your* POV as *neutral* POV, and accordingly I've brought the {{pov}} tag back to the article. Sarge Baldy 04:12, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Individualist anarchism in America was never accepted by individualist anarchists? You really are in for an education. Almost all the individualist anarchists are Americans. Your claim that it's not part of the "popular anarchist movement" may be right if you're talking about a social movement where people are out rioting in the streets and flipping cars over. But individualist anarchism is "philosophical anarchism." This article has to cover all notable types of anarchism, not just "popular anarchism." You're putting the POV tag on the article is therefore unjustified --this article is very NPOV. What you're really upset about is that the article is NOT POV. And, the reason why individualist anarchism is listed first is because the schools of thought are listed in chronological order of origin. RJII 13:27, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

If individualist anarchism is American individualist anarchism, then what was your point in constructing a second article on the topic? And there you go again, certain that your own point of view is the "neutral" point of view simply because it is more inclusive. I think you might actually want to read Wikipedia's NPOV policy because you seem to have no understanding of it. Particularly read the section on "undue weight". You're correct in thinking that expression of all positions is justified, but expressing them as "equals" isn't, particularly in a case like this where anarchism already has an established meaning and which you're merely attempted to modify to fit your own definition. In fact, this article will never be in any way neutral so long as two competing philosophies are listed here as being equal parts of the same one. You probably feel that it's a "compromise" that topics on "left-wing" anarchism are even allowed to remain here, just as I might have at one point, and that it's "neutral" since both point of views are represented. However, that they're represented as being integral parts of a single philosophy makes no sense, and that you've pushed 20th century American individualism into the primary spot on the list of so-called "schools" shows your intention of redefining anarchism primarily to your own definition, although allowing "traditional" anarchism a substantial minority position due to your own unbounded generosity. Sarge Baldy 20:34, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Wow, you're really off the mark. Individualist anarchism is not synonymous with American individualist anarchism. All the latter article does is confine the discussion to the individualist anarchists in America so those philosophers may be discussed in depth. There are other individualists anarchists that are quite different from the individualist anarchism that arose in America. The individualists in America simply have a uniquely American character. (I even put up a tag on the top of the individualist anarchism article because I felt that the non-Americans weren't being being represented enough). And no, I don't look at it as a "compromose that topics on left-wing anarchism are even allowed to remain here" as you suggest. I only wish there were more kinds of anarchism to include in the article. Finally, again, you are wrong to presume that anarchism is a "single philosophy." It's a variety of movements and philosophies that all happen to oppose the existence of government in favor of voluntary relations between individuals; beyond that, anything goes. As the Encyclopedia Britannica says, anarchism is "cluster of doctrines and attitudes centred on the belief that government is both harmful and unnecessary." Get it out of your head that it's a single unified movement. It's not at all. It's a hodgepodge of philosophies and movements that are competing to be the "true anarchism." RJII 21:37, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I won't go into the issue of whose philosophy is correct, but what do you propose we do? Wikipedia is not allowed to show bias. If a prominent school of thought considers itself to be anarchist, we have to include it. (And please, spare us the lecture about whose philosophy is bigger: everyone here knows that each side likes to inflate its numbers, with ancaps claiming numerous adherents among right-libertarians, objectivists, and conservatives, and leftist anarchists claiming that everyone in a labor union or at an anti-globalization protest is a traditional anarchist.) Further, many "true anarchists" consider anarcho-capitalism to be a non-traditional form of anarchism. This is well-documented on Wikipedia. But of course, you knew that already, judging from the level of involvement revealed by your user page.

If you want to start an article with a pared-down focus, like anti-capitalist anarchism, or 19th-century anarchism, go ahead. But please don't claim to be an authority on who is a true anarchist, or that you own the term. That would be the height of irony. MrVoluntarist 02:39, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

My proposal is that this article should be split in two, with [[anarchism]] representing the predominant "left anarchism" generally understood with the term, and [[right anarchism]] representing movements such as anarcho-capitalism and anarcho-nationalism intent on using anarchism to satisfy a status quo. Before you cry this is unfair, note the similar arrangment with Libertarianism representing right-libertarianism and Libertarian socialism representing left-libertarianism. That these articles are split makes sense to me, because they are certainly beyond the point you could call them related philosophies. It also makes sense to me that right-libertarianism holds the main article, since that is the common perception. Here, however, we have two very different philosophies shoved into the same article, resulting in an article no one will ever be content with. I'm not even against you calling these ideas "anarchism", but I do believe they don't belong in this article. I do find your little "19th century anarchism" thing a good joke though, considering as far as I can tell every anarchist organization that has ever existed has been "anti-capitalist anarchism". That's not to say there aren't organized anarcho-capitalist movements, but they operate under the cloak of the term "libertarianism" because they acknowledge what anarchism refers to in popular context. Sarge Baldy 03:53, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

First of all, anarcho-capitalists do self-refer as anarchists. Second, if we use capitalism in the broad sense to refer to free markets and support of contracts that allow an employer to retain profit, obviously some anarchists have supported capitalism, such as Kevin Carson and Keith Presont in the former case and Benjamin Tucker and Lysander Spooner in the latter case. Third, you dodged my point about certain "true anarchists" recognizing anarcho-capitalists as anarchists, but I'll take your reply to RJII as a response. It's incorrect. Even Peter Kropotkin recognized the American individualist anarchist Benjamin Tucker as an anarchist. You must have missed the past archives in which the left anarchists here repeatedly insisted that the American individualist anarchists were not associated with anarcho-capitalism. (Both views are presented NPOV on the Individualist anarchism and anarcho-capitalism article.)

Fourth, the libertarian article refers to right libertarianism because that is by far the most common usage. You have to go through something like 10 pages of Google results to get to a reference to it in the socialist sense. Correspondingly, most people - including, as mentioned in the archives you didn't bother reading before upsetting the delicate order, several 19th century anarchists - think of "anarchism" simply to refer to opposition to all government in the sense of the state. Again, this was thoroughly discussed in the archives in which every random sample of dictionaries - which specialize in reflecting the common usage of the term - defined anarchism as anti-state but not necessarily anti-capitalist. You can check for yourself if you like. Fifth, if people dispute that anarcho-capitalism is true anarchism, then by all means prominently mention that in the article. Actually, it already is. But if you're going to do that, you have to mention every dispute on which strand of anarchism is "true anarchism." RJII has done a great job in showing that anarcho-syndicalists, anarcho-communists, and anarcho-primitivists have been denied the title of "true anarchist" by other anarchists. Insofar as all of these disputes are mentioned, it's NPOV and doesn't warrant your tag. Finally, you didn't explain why my "little" "19th century anarchism is a joke. Did I miss anything? MrVoluntarist 04:49, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

You said Fourth, the libertarian article refers to right libertarianism because that is by far the most common usage. You have to go through something like 10 pages of Google results to get to a reference to it in the socialist sense.

You rest my point. You know how many pages it takes to get to a result relating to anarcho-capitalism searching for anarchism on Google? I don't, because I gave up trying after 25 pages of results. Sarge Baldy 04:55, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Really? You emailed the heads of all those sites and asked them how they defined anarchism? That's the difference between libertarianism and anarchism: it's immediately clear how a site is using the term "libertarian". It's not so clear if a site defines anarchism as necessarily anti-capitalist, and even if it did, it would need to spell out what aspects of capitalism it opposes. There are many aspects of what would often be considered "capitalism" that anarcho-capitalists certainly oppose, and many aspects of what would often be considered "capitalism" that traditional anarchists do not oppose. That's why it makes sense to use dictionaries to measure common usage in that case. Btw, do you want to contest any of my other points? Because if you don't want to defend your position, for example, that American individualist anarchists were never associated with traditional anarchism, you're just revealing how ill-informed you are on this matter. MrVoluntarist 12:54, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that the "anarchism" and "right anarchism" division is a good idea, because it seems to me that the definition of anarchism given (opposed to rulers/opposed to the State) is completely compatible with Anarcho-capitalism, for instance. Whether you consider capitalism oppressive or not doesn't seem relevant, because the definition of anarchism isn't "anti-oppressive". If it was, we'd have to throw in a bunch of other forms of government (i.e. democracy) that many have claimed are not oppressive. So, you could divide the pages into "anarchism (anti-oppressive)" and "anarchism (anti-government)", but I think the former would be relatively worthless as far as classifying forms of government from a NPOV. My suggestion is that either a new definition of anarchism be given (but I don't know what that would be), or we should use the following criteria:

1. Does the proposed system lack a government?
2. Has the term been used widely enough that it deserves a place in Wikipedia?

If the answer to both is "yes", why shouldn't the term be mentioned somewhere in the article? If you want to divide the section into two pages "anarchism (anti-capitalist)" and "anarchism (anti-government)", and you can justify that the former is a popular notion, then I suppose that's OK. But to leave out a page such at this one, which is essentially "anarchism (anti-government)", is to deny that there exists a connection between the systems listed.--Blah99 22:35, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Anarchism isn't always defined simply as a lack of government; it just as oftens refers to an end of any form of hierarchical rulership, and the actual etymology of the word (with archos alternatively being translated as "rulership" or "governance") not helping to clarify anything either. As ruler can be defined to mean anyone possessing power and influence over others (and not simply rational-legal authorities), limiting the translation to "government" does not seem appropriate. The article division you suggest doesn't work either because anti-capitalist anarchism is as opposed to government as anything else styling itself with the word. Sarge Baldy 23:22, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, well, perhaps a solution similar to the one you mentioned would work. Make the main anarchism page as you described: Anarchism is defined as an end of hierarchical rulership. The top of the page would make it clear that this is the definition being used, and it would link to another page, called "Anarchism (anti-government)" or "Anarchism (anti-State)", because clearly there are a number of people who use that definition. This page would feature Anarcho-capitalism and any other system that couldn't be included on the main page. Would anyone object to that? I don't think the term "Right anarchism" would be good for the page, because the connection between the two definitions is that they have the same roots; the connection is not that one is a branch of the other. Just my two cents.--Blah99 00:08, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

This solution would be acceptable to me, although as suggested by MrVoluntarist might result in other issues. The status of individualist anarchism is particularly problematic, since it too is split historically between an earlier "left" anarchism and a more modern pro-market anarchism. The article in its current states focuses more heavily on American individualist anarchism, which is its dominant context; however, there are a number of important earlier European anarchists associated with it critical of markets. I'd be tempted to say that American individualist anarchism should simply merge with its parent, and another article could be constructed for earlier, anti-market individualist anarchists (i.e. I think that article needs to be torn apart as well). I think a better name for a split is to an "Anarchism (pro-market)", since I believe that's the biggest schism. Still, this leaves "national anarchism" out, which both supports a racial hierarchy and opposes capitalism; this could be listed either as a controversial issue within anarchism or in my own preference listed additionally as a disambig. Sarge Baldy 01:39, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Here's how I see it...what is considered the most popular definition of Anarchism? Let's say that it's "an end of hierarchical rulership". That means we can't include certain forms of anarchism on the main page, such as Anarcho-capitalism, which only considers States (coercive monopolies) to be rulers. That's fine, we put those forms on the other page. For the forms of anarchism that do go on the main page, we just have to include their disagreements as far as what constitutes a "hierarchical rulership". As far as the other page, I don't think we should call it "pro-market", because that seems to imply a contradiction ("we want anarchy, but um we still want a market"), which is POV. Instead, the other page is simply defining anarchy in different terms. By calling it "Anarchism (anti-State)", we can include Anarcho-capitalism and the other forms on that same page, and perhaps discuss why some forms see the market as a ruler and other forms don't. The descriptions of the forms that were already mentioned on the main page well of course be brief; the point is to show that this particular definition includes many forms of anarchism under its umbrella, but it is not the only definition of anarchism used. This seems like a fair solution...thoughts?--Blah99 03:21, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh, so it's just as often that anarchism means no government? I guess you agree with keeping anarcho-capitalism then. Regardless, you're not clarifying the issue; you've just pushed up the dispute. People will disagree about what constitutes hierarchical rulership. Does keeping people off my sofa when I'm not using it count? Anarcho-communists would say yes, individualist anarchists would say no. MrVoluntarist 00:29, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Even when it does refer to a lack of "government" it remains open-ended, since "left" anarchists maintain that capitalism is a system of governance, not in the rational-legal way you might be accustomed to but in the sense of the definition of government as "a group of people that rule a country or area". I'm not sure that individualist anarchists would deny your example as a form of hierarchy so much as consider it an example of an acceptable hierarchy. Sarge Baldy 01:39, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Ah, so not all anarchists oppose hierarchy. Btw, should I move what I posed on the mediation page to here? MrVoluntarist 01:43, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

As I've actually said elsewhere, I'm not opposed to "market" anarchists calling themselves anarchists. The problem is that it's actually a fight for the legitimate use of the term itself. Market anarchists consider themselves the "true" anarchists, just as left libertarians might consider themselves the "true" libertarians, and that's the only reason why they continue to pursue the term at all. Simply putting them together in a single article isn't feasible, because although they might use the same word they're not philosophies that are compatible with one another. If you'd like you can move things from the mediation page, but I've decided to only respond to comments that I feel are cool-headed. I'm also not very likely to respond to lists, because they break my concentration, and take me too long to generate a response. Sarge Baldy 02:29, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Of course anarcho-capitalism is not compatible some of the other anarchist philosophies. Like we've been trying to tell you, anarchism is not one monolithic movement. There is vast diversity and disagreement within it. That two strands may be inconsistent is no reason to remove one. Now, are you saying my post on the mediation board was not cool-headed? All I did was list facts. If you don't like it being revealed that you came into the topic ill-informed and without reading the archives, and that you told a falsehood regarding anarcho-capitalism's status on Google, maybe you shouldn't have done them? As a sysop, you have a special obligation not to do these kinds of things; don't turn around and try to take the high ground here. I'm sorry for making a long list and including 18 links (not including articles), but you were clearly wrong in so many ways that I had to organize them so that chance observers can better understand the dispute. However, I don't believe your excuses for why you won't respond. If this is such an important matter, and the truth is on your side, you'll take some time off from writing sociology an pataphysics articles to respond. As is stands, neither you nor anyone else is willing (or, most likely, able) to explain how the article is POV. That's certainly a shame, but it doesn't justify the neutrality warning. MrVoluntarist 02:46, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I think it is unfair that capitalists, nationalists, and primitivists are trying to alter this entry so that it is not objective, based on the history of anarchism from the past and present, but instead is a launching point for their propaganda, and they insert attacks on legitimate anarchist ideas. While I do think primitivism may marit mention, it is not a major force within anarchism, but is more of an attempt for former hippies afraid of technology to take over an existing idea based on working class movements. Also, primitivists are creating more and more labels that point to the same basic idea, so that they can "Fill up" the whole entry with the same thing, and crowd out everything else. Adding attacks on anarcho-synidcalism (just as the capitalists keep adding attacks on anarcho-communism) is not welcome here. this is not the place for the kind of debates that happen on sites like infoshop (which are not even happening because Chuck, a pro-primitivist, is also a censor, and does not allow ideas contrary to his own to be posted in an "anarchist" forum.) I should also add that capitalists already have a philosophy called CAPITALISM, they do not need to add labels like anarcho- or libertarian this or that because even when they do, it is exactly the same thing that Republicans believe in. In the case of anarchism, there always was a difference between it and marxism, because while marxists focus on working-class forced equality, anarchists focus on working class liberty. Radical Mallard Sat Sep 10 05:21:48 EDT 2005

There's currently a mediation going on. It was mentioned in, you know, the part of the discussion page you deleted. If you want to make major changes, here would be a good place to discuss them, rather than engage in an endless edit war. MrVoluntarist 16:49, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Mediation

I've requested mediatiation regarding this article again. Sarge Baldy 21:08, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

LOL! Do you realize how long the dispute betweem those that have been trying to limit that article to communist-based anarchism and those who want it to include all types has been going on? Go through through several years of talk archive for more information. Good luck! RJII 21:42, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I do. And did you know that for the vast majority of that time, this article has been "limited" to "left-wing" anarchism? Sarge Baldy 21:55, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Has it? I wasn't aware of that. That's unfortunate. RJII 01:03, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

This seems totally out of control. Wikipedia articles should be about fact, not how people felt about certain movements or ideas. If a large group of people called themselves anarchists, or were called anarchists widely in the press, and did something of historical note about it, then they should be included somewhere in the article. Whether or not something is "true" anarchism shouldn't enter into it, we're not here to judge. Geez Louise, folks! Jberkus 01:00, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

The issue isn't what or what isn't "true" anarchism, it's about having the article reflect more accurately what people generally use the term to mean, and, if the word is being used in two distinct ways, to separate accordingly (in the same way libertarian socialism is split from libertarianism, despite the former's contention that they are the "true" libertarians). Sarge Baldy 01:13, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

If you want the article to reflect how people "generally use the term," that's easy. Most people generally use the term to refer to any philosophy that is against the existence of government. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.2.38.145 (talk • contribs) 27 August 2005.

Well, I just find it highly ironic that Wikipedia, one of the most successful "anarchist" collaborations on the Internet, can't find consensus on an article on Anarchism. From reading some of the Talk archives, this is because a few people want to use this article as a form of historical revisionism, presumably to push forward a political agenda. Thank goodness this doesn't happen on articles like the Seven Years' War. 63.195.55.98 16:47, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe that it's ironic at all, rather it is exactly what one should expect. That is, it is entirely predictible that a highly anarchistic institution should attract passionate anarchists who struggle mightily in an entirely anarchistic fashion over what exactly anarchy is. This is no more ironic than if a bunch of pluralist democrats decided to vote on all of their edits and revisions. Irony would be a vigorous and passionate debate towards consensus on the talk page for fascism.--x.says 24.4.102.170 04:26, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Issue and Movement Anarchisms

The list of schools was getting really out of hand. A lot of the so-called schools were sub-branches of the main schools, or issue-oriented combinations like anarcho-feminism and green anarchism. So I fixed it. It used to be this way a few weeks ago, until someone changed it without discussion.--216.118.117.90 02:34, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Black Anarchism?

'Eurocentric'?

It seems to me that the claim that anarchism has been 'white centered' is simply historically innacurate. Almost all of the predominant anarchists of the first and second wave were russian, italian, and spanish - none of which would have been viewed as white at the time. Another strong faction, the jewish anarchists, were barely viewed as human! Indeed, anarchism in the US was viewed as an immigrant movement. Looking at a hundred and fifty year old movement, through today's racial lenses is dishonest.

Furthermore, three of the most succesful anarchist movements were in Korea, Japan, and South Africa, countries that even today wouldn't be considered white. There's also no lack of theorists from every continent; though it's no surprise that european anarchists texts have been preserved and are more accesable in english. It seem to me that the author has more of a grudge with contemporary anarchism, and is trying to back it up with sloppy historical claims. This is the bullshit line that neo-marxists peddle to back their 'anti-imperialist' racial politics, in an attempt to make middle-class white anarchist kids feel guilty.

Finally, can this be considered a seperate movement? Why is it called 'black anarchism' when APOC represents latino/a's, asians, pacific islanders, and other "non-whites" as well as anarchists of african decent? And if this is considered a distinct movement (which I'm ok with) whose anarchism can be said to root in racial identity, than certainly only people like Ashanti Alston who actively associate with it would be part of it, not someone like Sam Mbah, who is an anarcho-communist whom just happens to be black.

This section is incredibly sloppy, I've edited it some. Will finish later.

--Shevek

I agree with you 100%. "Black anarchism" here is a theoretical constuct used in the writings of a few black anarchists. I find the notion that it is a separate school of thought to be racist, but I've been overruled. :P --Tothebarricades 13:19, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Even if it were racist, that wouldn't preclude it from being anarchism. RJII 17:55, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps by your own definition of anarchism, which seems to be more closely related to most definitions of "anarchy". Sarge Baldy 20:25, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Also by the definition offered by all three encyclopedias listed in the external links. Anarchism is simply opposition to all forms of government in favor of voluntary relations. RJII 22:13, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

The phrase "all forms of government" you use would include to me any form of racial power structures, and not simply "legitimate" rational-legal government structures. Sarge Baldy 02:16, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

We went over this in the archives that you did read. If you want to expand the definition of government that far, it would also cover "worker's councils" and "community decision-making" that "true anarchists" support. Me, I like it when words have meaning. MrVoluntarist 02:33, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

"Racial power structures"? Black Anarchists oppose "racial power structures." What are you talking about? RJII 03:46, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Seeing as racism is a social relationship between two people (the opinions of just one person are bigotry, racism is bigotry applied), it seems unlikely that anyone would consent to being the object of racism. Thus racism is by defenition coercive, and non-anarchist. --Shevek

What does it mean to be the object of racism? Merriam-webster defines racism as "1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race 2: racial prejudice or discrimination." Surely a belief is not the act of engaging in coercion. And, choosing who one decides to associates with is surely not coercion either. On the other hand, forcefully expelling individuals from their own property is coercion. And, I haven't seen Black Anarchism advocate that. RJII 23:42, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

So, are you trying to argue that racists can't be anarchists? Read the current talk page and the article beginning. Bakunin and Proudhon were adamantly racist. Of course, you probably already knew that, so I don't even know why you're bringing this up. If you like, I can purge all references to Proudhon and Bakunin. Then you would be consistent. MrVoluntarist 00:17, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

No, that's not the point at all. National "anarchists" advocate more than just bigotry, they advocate coercion and hierarchy based on race, which is unanarchistic. And whoever told you that anarchism meant 'no government' is an idiot. The rejection of government is the outcome of anarchist principles, not the axiom. - Shevek

Calling for the extermination of the Jews and expulsion of non-Slavs from Slavic areas isn't coercion and hierarchy based on race? Btw, are you saying that most dictionaries and academics are idiots? MrVoluntarist 01:13, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Do you really trust dictionaries to comprehensively explain this topic? Also, note that dictionaries state that anarchism is in opposition to all forms of government, and that that word isn't in there by mistake. It is there to clarify that an inclusive rather than simplest possible definition of government shoud be used, whereas you continue to limit the meaning of the word to "rational-legal government" as per common usage. For example, one way to define government is "Administration or management of an organization, business, or institution." Sarge Baldy 01:35, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

So you can't run a business if you're an anarchist? Yeah right. And, what does it have to do with black anarchism? RJII 02:05, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Of course you can run a business if you're an anarchist. Just like you can pay your taxes if you're an anarchist. And it doesn't have anything to do with black anarchism, which as I've said I'm still neutral on. We've drifted off-topic, and I don't see that as a problem. Sarge Baldy 02:12, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

The famous individualist anarchist, Lysander Spooner, owned the American Letter Mail Company that competed with the U.S. Post Office. So, according to you he wasn't as anarchist. That's fine if you want to believe that, but just make sure you don't put that POV of yours into the article. Business is not government. RJII 02:28, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't see exactly where I said he's less anarchist. Individuals in fact hardly concern me, because it is impossible to expect anyone can be "100% anarchist", 100% authoritarian", "100% feminist", or anything else. If a dictionary states that anarchists are against any form of government, that business management is a form of government, then the only conclusions I can generate to satisfy anarcho-capitalism as a form of anarchism are: 1. anarcho-capitalism is against business management 2. the dictionary is inaccurate or poorly interpreted. If it's poorly interpreted, please explain how. Otherwise, please quit pretending that you don't have a POV, or that your point of view is somehow more "neutral" than anyone else's. Sarge Baldy 02:59, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Where is this dictionary that says "business management is a form of government?" RJII 03:14, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Let's get this straight. Anarcho-communists and syndicalists are not the only anarchists. Traditional individualist anarchists explicitly support free enterprise, wage labor, and a free market economy. So let's drop the notion right now that anarchists are opposed to business. Now, you may deny that individualist anarchists are anarchists, but that's your own personal POV and it doesn't count for anything as far as editing the article. RJII 03:19, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

More importantly, such an interpretation would mean most forms of anarchism on the current page, including and especially anarcho-communism and syndicalism, would have to go. Is that what you want? MrVoluntarist 02:24, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

How do you mean? Do anarcho-communists and syndicalists actively seek an eventual utopia you would qualify as a government? Even if a government body of some form is the means, it isn't the ends. The means are only the necessary tools to achieve the ends, and their simple utilization doesn't imply to me an active support of them. An anarchist might work, but out of a neccessity, rather than an actual support their employer. This does not make them pro-business or pro-government, and nor does an organized movement, which exists again simply for necessity. Sarge Baldy 02:59, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Syndicates have a government. Communes have a government. (Under this broad definition.) As for it being "okay" because it is a means to a utopia, no. Everyone wants a utopia where everyone can get whatever they want. That certain anarchists want that does not differentiate them in any way. And my claims have nothing to do with making compromises necessary to survive. The syndicalists and communists' desired system itself has government. Be consistent. MrVoluntarist 03:16, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

The problem with your line of argument is that you confuse the person for the idea. There aren't bakuninists, nor proudhonists. Bakunin had many authoritarian ideas, and proudhon many liberal ideas, but anarchism still takes from the cream of their writings. The fact that any one anarchist was racist doesn't mean much as far as the ideology is concerned.

Anarchism isn't a rejection of government. It's a rejection of coercion and hierarchy. Thus anarchists reject, just as fundamentally as government, patriarchy, and racism - the active form of bigotry. To say that anarchism is simply no government is simply innacurate, and ignores causality. No actual, literate anarchist would say that (not even a non-state capitalist).

My confusion with the supposed 'anarcho-capitalists', is that they claim to reject violence and coercion (basic, basic, libertarian theory) - thus making them anarchists - and yet they think that people will consent to being a wage slave. This obviously explains the absence of any working class anarcho-caps. It's an ideology for peope who don't work real jobs. - Shevek

Sorry, but the anti-hierarchy stuff only applies to anarcho-communists. Individualist anarchists never mention "hierarchy" and would not oppose "hierarchy" unless it's coerced upon someone. Not all anarchism is about egalitarianism. A lot of people come here assuming that there is only collectivist/communist-based anarchism and apparently you're one of them. RJII 05:16, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

What? Your train of thought only makes sense if you assume that 'anarchism=no government', making anti-statism the common denominator. But that isn't the case at all. Anarchists of every form have a lowest common denominator as a rejection of 'coercion' (or invasion if you follow Tucker). How exactly hierarchy can exist without coercion is baffling. How would the rich maintain their privelege without resorting to violence (without breaking the 'non agression principle'?). "Anarcho"-capitalism must be at a loss to explain why governments were created, if not as a necessity to protect their privelige.

Anarchism = no coercion. Plain and simple.

Now, if you can show me how privelege and private property (which means: land, factories, the air, the water... ie "the commons" - as opposed to personal posessions, ie. my house, my car, my bed, my blanket)can be maintained without coercion, other than simply wishing it so, than yes, you'd be an anarchist. As I assume you can't, which is why you try and peddle the nonsense that anarchism=no government, then hierarchy is non-anarchistic. This isn't to say that any number of schemes that aren't communistic can't be anarchist - mutualism is anarachistic (mainly), collectivism is, primitivism is, hell, even ativism is; simply that anarchism is by implication anti-hierarchical. - Shevek

RJII can probably handle the historical issues better than I, but I will say this: you're making an error in logic I see frequently in assuming away the need for coercion to enforce a certain property system - and yes, you are advocating a property system there. (Search for "meta-aggression" in the archives if you wish to see how this topic was handled before.) The problem with your position is this: yes, if everyone agrees that personal possessions are the only valid property, then sure, you won't need coercion to enforce it. But in the exact same fashion, if everyone agrees that neo-Lockean "sticky" private property is a moral system of property, then you won't need coercion to enforce that either! In reality, there exist people who oppose the former and the latter, so both systems require some coercion. The question is, which kinds of coercion are acceptable. Is it acceptable to take someone's stuff because he's not using it? Is it acceptable to prevent someone from taking something he needs to live? Both property systems result in types of coercion that are offensive to some. You're just assuming away problems with your philosophy. MrVoluntarist 02:30, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

You do present a seemingly more valid argument, but you are oversimplifying anarchism. Anarchism seeks to create a society that has no need for coercion, that doesn't mean that all anarchists are pacificts. Of course some amount of coercion is needed to create any system. The difference is though that anarcho-capitalism creates its own antithesis (and i'm not even a historical materialist, i think marx is full of shit). Private property is dependent on coercion. This isn't a theoretical argument, as much as historical. Police, crime, prisons, exist because inequality breads reaction - and claims of ownership in the face of poverty result in counter-claims and violence.

The smarter "anarcho"-caps get around this by agreeing in the need for police, as long as they are privately owned. How exactly this differs from a feudalist semi-state, and how police an opperate with non-agressions elludes me. The contradictions in a truely free-market are too unstable, and the level of coercion needed to maintain authority is unwieldy. This is precisely WHY the modern state isn't free-market capitalism. By incorporating alot of marxism, liberal state-capitalism attempts to stabilize laizze-faire capitalism into a sustainable system. Anarcho-caps seem to pretend that this whole period of human history simply didn't happen.

So yes, anarchism may require some level of initial coercion (without playing semantics since you are right, what you call coercion is my self defense, and vice-verca) but anarchists don't shy from that. Anti-state capitalism though is unsustainable. Either those with power will stick by thier principles (which is highley unlikely) and let unions form, which will ultimately expropriate the owners if unrestricted; or the rich will have to form organizations of joint coercion, which (again without playing semantics) is close enough to a government to nullify the anarchist signifier. I'm honestly interested to hear in how you would get around this problem - Shevek

Again, you show that you're not familiar with the other side of anarchism ..the individualists. Here is a quote from 19th century anarchist Victor Yarros: "Anarchism means no government, but it does not mean no laws and no coercion. This may seem paradoxical, but the paradox vanishes when the Anarchist definition of government is kept in view. Anarchists oppose government, not because they disbelieve in punishment of crime and resistance to aggression, but because they disbelieve in compulsory protection. Protection and taxation without consent is itself invasion; hence Anarchism favors a system of voluntary taxation and protection." RJII 01:39, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Okay, these boards aren't really for debating the merits of different philosophies, but I rarely turn down chances for this kind of discussion, so here goes -

First of all, that anarchists want a society without coercion differentiates them from nobody; everyone wants such a society. The question political philosophy attempts to address which kinds of coercion are acceptable so long as desires conflict. If we were in an anarchist world right now, someone would still try to take more than his fair share, and coercion would have to be used against them. So again, claiming that private property requires coercion gets you nowhere - your system does as well.

As for inequality engendering a reaction that requires a government to suppress, realize that again the same argument works against your system. First, recall that humans inherently have vastly different abilities to satisfy the desires of others - in other words, productivity varies greatly. Now either you can reward people in proportion to their productivity - meaning you sacrifice endorsement of egalitarianism - or you can reward people equally. Let's say, then, that you reward them equally. Setting aside whether this problem of "underpaying" people itself is theft - and there's much to be said there - people will start realizing that they can earn more by leaving the region and going to work for a capitalistic region. At that point you can say, "oh yeah? Well, in my vision of anarchism, there are no capitalistic places to flee to!" but realize what this implies. It implies that you have to get the overwhelming majority of the world to agree to anarchism to implement it, while anarcho-capitalism only requires that the majoriy in a small region accept it. In that respect, anarcho-capitalism allows for more community autonomy than tradiitonal anarchism.

So how do you keep people from fleeing? Wouldn't that require a government? (In fact, every place that has tried to implement a gift economy, has suffered massive flight.) Moreover, people within an anarchistic region would try to "circumvent" the official distribution scheme and trade directly with each other. Like in prisons, a currency system would develop and with it, people charging interest. (Note that they wouldn't need enforcers, just as the current credit system doesn't.)

As for anarcho-capitalists "not allowing" unions, that's false. Of course unions could form as long as they agreed to leave when their employers no longer wanted them. They could thus go on strike simply by refusing to show up for work. So that leads to the question: Why would anyone not revolt in the face of inequality? Well, realize that if the legal system treated everyone the same, and adhered to the principle "if the initial allocation of resources is just, and all exchanges are voluntary, the outcome in necessarily just", then I suspect people would respect the results of others' trades because not doing so would make the results of their own trades "fair game". In the extreme case, if people were really unwilling to respect large-scale possessions like a factory, those having them built could just embed them with explosives so that they could render it useless if it were taken over (after, of course, warning those inside so no one is injured).

But of course, this all just devolves into the realization that might makes right - if people are mostly unwilling to respect neo-Lockean sticky private property, it won't prevail; if people are mostly unwilling to respect possession, it won't prevail. As I've described above, however, socialist systems have the same potential for instability. MrVoluntarist 20:41, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

A modest proposal

I feel that we are listing too many minor schools of thought. Not just national anarchism, but some of the others I've never heard of outside of this page. I propose that we confine all "Schools of thought" that yield <1,000 google results to a small See also section for space-conserving and aesthetic reasons. The 1,000 mark is purely arbitrary but is probably a good benchmark for whether something is very notable or not. (If a school is known commonly by more than one name, we should add the results.)

This would affect the following schools:

• Small-a anarchism
• Spiritual anarchism
• National anarchism
• Technological anarchism
• Utopian anarchism

Ecological anarchism passes if we add the results for Green Anarchism (the more popular term). Post-left anarchy passes if we add Post-left anarchism. The rest pass outright.

A note to my detractors: this is not a back-hand attempt to remove national anarchism, which I will continue to do in any case. :) --Tothebarricades 13:34, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

As a more modest proposal, how about 200 hits. RJII 17:41, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

And that would accomplish nothing. Thank you for being such a helpful user. --Tothebarricades 22:37, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

I'm willing to compromise. How about 500? RJII 22:45, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Gee, I wonder where you got the idea to remove those ... [1]. Anyway, if you want to remove all non-notables, that's fine. Just one suggestion though. When keywords A and B refer to the same ideology, you should add them up, not by their independent search hits, but by the totals from searching for "A and not B" and ";B and not A", otherwise you'll inflate the total. Also, I don't see why you picked 1000. National anarchism is the highest ranked one under that. Kind of reveals an agenda.

Also, if you want to put them as "see alsos" you should put national anarchism on the list. If you don't want to, you'll have to explain a reason other than non-notability to exclude it, which so far you've been unable to do. MrVoluntarist 00:22, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I would include national anarchism there with a disclaimer. No agenda - my biggest beef with national anarchism's inclusion is it's lack of notability, and to be frank I've had the same problem with these others but was reluctant to take action due to a certain sympathy with their ideas. Notice how this would not affect anarcho-capitalism which I consider to be equally non-anarchist and equally flawed theoretically. I have regretfully conceded that anarcho-capitalism is notable and should be covered under the Schools section. But that is another story. Also: if you already suggested this (I'm guessing you did from the link) forgive me - I no longer have the patience to read everything on this talk page. --Tothebarricades 06:52, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

I mentioned those topics and their non-notability in a post that you responded to! The link above to it is no longer working. This one will though: [2]. See the third to last post, which apparently you ignored to pursue a personal attack. MrVoluntarist 00:39, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I agree on removing "anarchist" movements which are largely fictional. However, I don't think counting Google hits is a good way to do it; we need some research on whether the varietal actually had adherents (like, more than 10). Counting Google hits is going to mod up terms which are used by modern groups with web skills (even if it's only one person with 16 domains) over movements of historical significance. Of course, that's just my opinion. Jberkus 00:49, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Anarcho-Fascism & Fasco-Anarchism

There is no information relating to these two ideologies which have been around since the early 90s. There is not much information given that they are relatively new ideologies and controversial - however Anarchism and Fascism both have similar origins although they differe in their platform.

I think a lot of us would be interested to know in what possible context that claim could even begin to make sense.

Hm? I don't see that in the article. If you see anything promoting "anarcho-fascism" a.k.a "national anarchism" in this article just remove it immediately.

National anarchism an anarcho-fascism are different things. The former exists, the latter doesn't. MrVoluntarist 01:11, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

The latter certainly does exist, although it properly has no place in this article. Anarcho-fascism has about 950 google hits, just a few shy of the threshhold suggested on this page. I can name three distinct meanings for the term...but let me state again I am not advocating for its inclusion here. That said:

A. Anarcho-fascism is obviously a sometime euphemism or code for national anarchism, and one that is associated with neo-nazis and their recruitment efforts.

B. Anarcho-fascism is an academic term used to critique certain fictional societies which either promote anarchist ends through fascist means (eg, Project Mayhem from Fight Club) or vice versa (eg. the society of Starship Troopers).

C. Anarcho-fascism is a belief system held by a very small number of people (entirely separate from nationalism and naziism) like myself. Anarcho-fascism in this sense means believing that:

1. The State is intrinsically stable, strong, and self-sustaining in direct proportion to the citizens' ability, freedom and willingness to self-regulate and self-govern.

2. The State is entitled to absolute authority over any and all aspects of the citizens' lives, so long as it exercises that authority exclusively for the promotion of the citizens' ability, freedom and willingness to self-regulate and self-govern.

So perhaps it's the fringe of the fringe of the fringe, but anarcho-fascism does exist, at least a little bit more than, say, sincere Flying Spaghetti Monsterism. wasserperson 23:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Btw, is this another "if you include anarcho-capitalism, you have to include anarcho-fascism" troll? MrVoluntarist 01:11, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

The bug

Can an administrator with some technical knowledge fix this somehow? --Tothebarricades 08:58, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Administrators only have access to maintenance functions. You could try locating a developer, but it'd probably be easier to report the problem on this. Sarge Baldy 09:44, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I've reported this here, so we'll see if it finally gets dealt with. Sarge Baldy 01:09, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Rank hypocricy

Why is that libertarian socialists are not allowed a section on the 'libertarianism page', and yet anti-state capitalists cry out when they aren't given room under anarchism? Seems highely hypocritical to me. - Shevek

The claim, evidently, is that "libertarianism usually implies anti-socialism". Although with that attitude, it's a bit surprising when the same people object to the claim that "anarchism usually implies anti-capitalism". To argue that pro-capitalist anarchism is more widespread than anti-capitalist libertarianism seems like a joke to me as well, unless of course you live in the United States.

On the French Wikipedia, the article on libertarianism was redirected to anarchism after being considered synonymous; meanwhile the article on "Libertarian politics" makes no mention of capitalism, although does discuss its relationship to anarchist communism. The Italian article on anarchism only briefly mentions capitalism, so as simply to say that anarchists fight it in order to ensure egalitarian society. The German article on libertarianism discusses both, although seems to weight it more towards "left" libertarianism, suggesting it is the more common use. The German article on de:Anarchismus says that anarchism is a philosophy that opposes all hierarchy as oppressive, and that eliminates class differences. Anarcho-capitalism is mentioned twice, and hardly as a "major school" of anarchism. It is first described in brief (as a "so-called" anarchism), and later listed as being a "hybrid" form (along with anarcho-syndicalism and anarcha-feminism), a mix of capitalism and anarchism. Sarge Baldy 22:04, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

As an anarcho-capitalist, I would be fine with splitting the page into two parts: Anarchism and Anarchism (anti-government). Can't everyone agree that this makes sense, given that we have two different definitions of anarchism? One definition seems to be anti-hierarchy, and the other is anti-government. We can debate about which definition is more popular, but frankly, that seems like a waste of time. Let's just go ahead and split the page into two parts, and then we can decide later if the Anarchism page should be a disambiguation page, or if it should be the more common definition (and I don't really know or care what the more common definition is. I just know that the articles will be better if they acknowledge the fact that there are two definitions).

That being said, it is very POV to say that Anarcho-capitalism is a "so-called" anarchism or that it is a mix of capitalism and anarchism. Supporters of Anarcho-capitalism would say that you can have capitalism without government, and since anarchism is a lack of government, true capitalism is anarchism. Regardless of whether you agree with this POV or not, it should be presented from a NPOV on the Anarchism (anti-government) page. Anarcho-capitalism can be left off of the Anarchism (anti-hierarchy) page completely.

So, if anyone disagrees with me, please tell me why. I do not think we should have a page called Anarchism (pro-market), because "pro-market" is not part of the Anarchism (anti-government) definition, and it would mean that certain forms of anti-market Anarchism could not be referenced on that page, even though they are anti-government.

Looking through the discussion archives, it seems like we have way too many arguments about what Anarchism is. Why not simply have two pages, in order to indicate that there is a difference of opinion about the definition of Anarchism? Shevek, when you say, "Anarcho-capitalism must be at a loss to explain why governments were created, if not as a necessity to protect their privelige.", that is a perfect example of what we should not be discussing. Your opinion, as well as my opinion, on whether or not Anarcho-capitalism can explain why governments were created, is irrelevant. On Wikipedia, our job is to describe ideas, not to judge them (except in terms of notability, and Anarcho-capitalism clearly passes that test).--Blah99 02:39, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I'd say calling it "so-called" anarchism is strongly POV, I was just trying to express the attitudes people in Europe have towards both subjects so as to draw a parallel. I'm in agreement with you, since the whole problem is about two sides defining the same thing differently, or even interpreting the same definition differently. You can push and fight over what it means, but you can't exactly appease people that way. I'm willing to admit that I have a point of view. But it's a little hard to come to an agreement with someone who continually denies that they do. I for one appreciate your civility and willingness to actually attempt to work towards a solution. Sarge Baldy 03:17, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I think the article is pretty much NPOV as it is now. No other encyclopedia has multiple definitions of anarchism. Anarchism is the lack of all forms of government. The problem that seems to come up from time to time is people equating anarcho-communism with anarchism, when anarcho-communism is simply one form of anarchism. Apparently they're only aware of that form of anarchism, so they look at the tenets of anarcho-communism such as opposition to private property, uneven wealth distribution, etc and assume that a philosophy must have those views to be anarchism, when nothing could be further from the truth. Witness individualist anarchism, which is in direct contradiction with anarcho-communism by supporting private property, wages, and unequal wealth distribution. The problem comes down to a lack of exposure, on some editors' parts to anything but communist-based anarchism. The solution is not to split pages up, disambiguations, and other antics, but to educate --not all anarchism is about collectivism, cooperation, and egalitarianism. RJII 02:59, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I'd be careful about stating that the conflict is between "anarcho-communists" and people who support private property. You shouldn't presume that those who have a problem with anarcho-capitalism listed here are anarcho-communists. I for one am post-anarchist, meaning in fact that I reject every other philosophy listed here, even if I can identify with and support the attitude of most other groups. Sarge Baldy 03:22, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

That's not what I stated. I said that the conflict is based in a lack of knowledge. RJII 03:55, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I'd say the conflict is based in a lack of agreement, and that you're simply attempting to dismiss it by considering everyone who feels differently than you an anarcho-communist with a POV problem. Sarge Baldy 04:18, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

What do you mean libertarian socialists are not allowed a section on libertarianism? If you want a section, you put one in. RJII 01:51, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that's quite what was meant. You couldn't exactly just add a left libertarian section to that article in its current state, since it's already whittled its definition of libertarianism down to a pro-capitalist position, directly stating that the article is limited to pro-market classifications. In other words, the article would have to be reworked entirely to incorporate both points of view, which would make it an awful mess. Although that might give you a new perspective on the condition of this article, and would at least make for consistency, I'd much rather opt for a solution that leaves both sides content. Sarge Baldy 03:02, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I did put one in and it was deleted, very quickly. And the article isn't nearly as open for addition as Anarchism, since it leaves no room for amiguity. And what exactly is your proposal for a solution that would make both 'sides' content? Libertarianism for just capitalists, and anarchism for both? Again, rank hypocracy. - Shevek

No, my proposal is the same offered by blah99 above. The splitting of the anarchism article into those who define it as the abolishment of hierarchical structure, and those who see it as simply the abolishment of rational-legal government. This seems to me the key matter of the dispute. In this way the article would be the reverse of the libertarianism article, and no longer hypocritical. Sarge Baldy 05:59, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

There are two "balanced" solutions to this. Either Anarchism becomes solely for the libertarian left. Or Libertarianism adds a section mentioning how libertarian is synonymous with anarchism in most other countries. - shevek

I know, but I prefer this one, for a number of reasons. One is that some groups that wouldn't be denied as anarchists (namely post-anarchists and post-left anarchists) don't exactly fit well described as left libertarian (rejecting both socialism and capitalism). It also would mean two different articles in constant conflict, which I don't think would be resolved simply because of the removal of this issue of hypocrisy. With splitting there wouldn't be any need to worry about how the articles are balanced between competiting ideals. I believe both libertarianism and libertarian socialism are better articles for their split, because at least they're specific enough people can work on them without worrying so much about tipping the article over. It would mean both could expand with less editing friction (for instance, the anarchist (anti-state) article could include topics such as agorism), and neither would be recognized as the "true" anarchism, although they could still present arguments to that effect. Sarge Baldy 07:15, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

totally disputed

I have changed the POV header to totallydisputed. In its present state this article is not only POV but factually misleading (I believe intentionally so by the POV-pushers).

My problems: "National anarchism" doesn't exist as a philosophy. It is a trojan horse (or, if you will, a marketing device) for white supremacist/neo-nazi/fascist ideology in order to appeal to a younger, more politically progressive demographic. It is deceptive by its very nature and has no relation to anarchism. Historically fascism/nazism/racism has been the polar opposite of anarchism, which it is. This article is so muddy that the reader never is given a chance to understand this.

"Individualist anarchism" is a synonym for American libertarianism which already has a page. There is no reason to hijack this article to those ends as well except as an attempt at POV pushing. The fact that the subheading is continuously placed at the top of the section by RJII et al is evidence of the bad faith of the edits.

Until these problems are solved the totallydisputed tag should stay. --Bk0 18:20, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

"Individualist anarchism" is not a synonym for libertarianism; neither is anarcho-capitalism. Libertarianism encompasses both anarchist and minarchist factions, which differ on whether there should be no government at all or a minimalist one. *Dan* 18:51, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Classical individualist anarchism is not a synonym for libertarianism. However, libertarianism was synonymous with that in the late 19th century and the early to mid 20th century in America. Today, libertarianism is a "synonym" for the newer forms of individualist anarchism whose adherents have dropped the classical labor theory of value and adopted the subjective theory (e.g. anarcho-capitalism)..as most modern economists have. However, classical individualism is still popular. RJII 22:46, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

We've been over this a hundred times. Like Dan or Dtobias said, individualist anarchism is not libertarianism; I have no idea where you got that. I also don't know where you got that anarchism has been the opposite of racism. Like we've been repeatedly mentioning on the talk page, Proudhon and Bakunin were adamantly racist. If you want to hold your position, you need to wipe all references to Bakunin and Proudhon as well. Nor does your Trojan horse claim have merit. National anarchism is alive in multiple countries, independent of one another. Now that you know the truth, I'm sure you will modify the tag. MrVoluntarist 20:46, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

You are either deeply misinformed or lying. You are the only one making edits regarding "national anarchism" (hey, strikingly similar to "national socialism", huh? And has about as much to do with anarchism as nazism has to do with socialism). Your POV pushing and fascist vandalism of this page must cease for us to make any progress on this article. --Bk0 21:46, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

What are you talking about? My last edit on this article was regarding Edmund Burke. I don't think I've ever removed or inserted national anarchism; I've just talked about it on the talk page and failed to elicit rational justifications for excluding it. And how an I misinformed? Are you denying that Proudhon and Bakunin were anti-Semitic? MrVoluntarist 22:47, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

What are you talking about? On the National anarchism talk page I have just suggested that it be reworked as Anarcho-nationalism so that it is less focussed on Troy Southgate - who I have put back in the list of anarchists along with Georges Valois, Hubert Lagardelle , (both members of the Faisceau, the French Fascist Party) and Stewart Home, whose early experience with anarchism has fuelled his critique of it... Is "anarchism" such a fragile concept that it can only be protected by hiding some of its history? Harrypotter 23:46, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

All I can say is, fuck this article and everyone that ruined it, most notably the human slime above this comment.

There must be some way this issue can be resolved. The article isn't that bad, and anarchism is not that hard to define... it's just hard to get anarchists to agree on the definition. -- james

One could argue that intelligent design is merely a "marketing device", used by creationists to market their ideas as science. Should we censor their view? Or should we describe the controversy, as Evolutionism does? I, for one, am not afraid to present the views of my opponents in a fair way. I say, if the view of an opponent is moronic, I don't need to point that out to anyone or censor it; instead, I'll let their view speak for itself.--Blah99 19:46, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly that "intelligent design" is a marketing device. The difference here is that creationists—crucially—are not permitted (or have no interest in) defining what Darwinism means. They have their separate and rival theory of the origin of species and supporters of evolution have theirs; an analogy here would be anarchists and capitalists (or anarchists and fascists) with separate rival social and political theories. However in this case one of the sides is trying to redefine what anarchism is, distorting its history and diluting any meaningful discussion to the point of semantic hair splitting. Whether Proudhon held any allegedly anti-Semetic views is entirely irrelevant to any discussion of modern anarchism, Mr. "anarcho"-Nazi up above is merely trying to divert discussion and muddy arguments to the point of stalemate. --Bk0 20:23, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I see it as irrelevant as well. No one person can really be expected to fully represent a social philosophy or social movement. If Emma Goldman freaked out and gruesomely killed someone, or Leo Tolstoy stood accused of sexual molestation, I don't see how this would stand as an argument for anarcho-cannibalism or anarchist rapism as a form of anarchism. It would simply mean that they compromised their own values, and not even necessarily intentionally. Unless you can show that anti-semitism was a part of anarchist doctrine itself, I don't see how it's relevant. Sarge Baldy 21:04, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Proudhon definitely considered anti-Semitism an integral part of his philosophy, and there's no way you can claim it was unintentional. This wasn't a loaded accusation, or something he did in a moment of passion. It was something he really believed. Now if you want to claim that in most of his adherents, the racism has become taboo, that's fine. But some do claim to have philosophies decended from his views through a continuous line, and they are racist. You can't just wish them away. Would Proudhon say that your rejection of anti-Semitism and chauvanism was a distortion of his philosophy? MrVoluntarist 23:58, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not even arguing about that yet. The section that I removed doesn't even attempt to relate it to anarchist philosophy. And even if a prominent anarchist did integrate racist beliefs it into his writings, it isn't significantly relevant to anarchism as a whole unless a number of his followers adhered to that part of his writings. Otherwise they remain simply his own ideas, and belong on his own page. Sarge Baldy 00:26, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

The accusation is not that Creationists are trying to redefine Darwinism; the accusation is that they are trying to redefine science. Evolutionists and creationists could argue all day about what science is, and if ID is a scientific theory or not. They would go around in circles, just like us. The solution is not to find the right answer, but to find the right question. In other words, the question is not, "Should we present the controversy or not?" The question is, "On what page should we describe the controversy?"--Blah99 21:10, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, sure. I think it's relevant to his own article. You could probably dig up dirt on just about anyone calling themself an anarchist. But in a discussion of anarchist doctrine at large, it does seem inappropriate. Sarge Baldy 21:19, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh, sorry about the confusion, but I wasn't trying to argue that an anarchist having racist beliefs is relevant. Rather, I was arguing that National anarchism should be included if it meets the "notability" test. Whether it is a "marketing device" or not is irrelevant, just as the argument that "Intelligent Design isn't science" is not a valid reason for keeping it out of the appropriate page, which is Evolutionism. We can argue about what the appropriate page is, but to argue that National anarchism is a "marketing device" is inherently POV.--Blah99 21:53, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

OK, well I just went ahead and removed it then. I would agree that removing "National Anarchism" simply because it is perceived as a "marketing device" is a an obvious POV. Although that's not, of course, to say I consider it a form of anarchism either. Sarge Baldy 22:07, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, Emma Goldman's comrade, Alexander Berkman did attempt to assinate Henry Clay Frick, which was part of his anarchism - propaganda by the deed. It is not a matter of whether Proudhon 'allegedly' held antisemitic views, the fact is he did. It is not a matter of 'digging up dirt', he was proud of his nationalism. It is not that he is 'accused' of this or that crime, but rather that he held political views which were reactionary, and that he linked his understanding of the cause of liberty with his nationalism. Likewise it is not a matter of Bakunin getting caught secretly vandalising Jewish graves, but of mobilising anti-semtism against Marx. Similarly, Rudolf Rocker's racism appears precisely in his theoretical anarchist writings, such as Nationalism and Culture. Nowadays we have Bob Black - a man not adverse to using the term 'towel-head' as a term of abuse for Muslims - promoting Post-left anarchy and other anarchists adopting New right themes, such as Euromayday. Now if anarchists want to produce an anarchist encyclopedia, fine, but there is no reason why they should have a monopoly on defining anarchism on wikipedia. Personally, I have been a lifelong opponent of nazism, so I find the suggestion that fascists are trying to define anarchism here as somewhat bizarre (unless the person who described me "human slime" is of that ilk, of course). Looking at the Darwinism page, it of course includes a reference to Eugenics. Does this unsavoury connection invalidate Darwinism, or does it put in context which shows how reactionaries can take up arguments which others regard as proressive? (When I get the chance I hope to add some stuff of Psychological Darwinism).

What seems to be happening here is that some people want to create an uncritical account of anarchism because they are uncomfortable about certain aspects of anarchism both in the past and in the present, which they would like swept under the carpet. Save that for anarchist propoaganda sheets please.

Other items need to be changed i.e. "Some anarchists form black blocs at protests, in which members of the bloc wear black and cover their faces to avoid police identification and to create one large solid mass. Bloc members confront and defend other protesters from the police, set up barricades, and sometimes engage in the destruction of corporate property." This is very one-sided as sometimes black blocs initiate a fight with the police and then disappear, letting other people face the violence of the police (On occasions this maybe down to agent provocateurs}. Even within @narchist circles, the Black bloc is contentious. Also check the link to the National Autonomists of Germany on the National anarchism page. They also use the Black bloc!Harrypotter 22:53, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

If you're referring to the paragraph I removed, this was done because it specifically described the views of two individuals, and doesn't even attempt to relate itself to anarchism as a broader movement. I call it "digging up dirt" because it's dirt now; at the time I'm sure their opinions were quite a bit more acceptable. If you would like to argue that anarchism at large was anti-semitical at some point in its history, then it might be appropriate for this article. Otherwise it should be restricted to the pages of these anarchists individually. In the treatment of a history of anarchism, it is best to examine the values of the philosophy itself, rather than the values of individuals who claim to adhere to it. Sarge Baldy 23:31, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I've decided that I simply have to agree with Mr. Potter. If you look at the Disambiguation page, it says, "Do not disambiguate, or add a link to a disambiguation page, if there is no risk of confusion." If I go to the Anarchism page, and I find "National Anarchism", would I really be confused? National Anarchism alleges that it is a type of Anarchism. Similarly, if I went to a page called "List of Scientific Theories", I would expect to find "Intelligent Design" there, but perhaps in a sub-group called "Controversial Theories". The fact is, there's no mistake that National Anarchism is supposed to be a system of rules in which there is no government. Whether you believe that it actually is or not is ultimately irrelevant. Of course, using that logic, Libertarian and Libertarian Socialism should really be merged, because they both declare "liberty" to be their highest value, but they define "liberty" differently. You know what? I'm fine with merging those two pages as well.

I don't think there's anything wrong with displaying the opinion of many here that "National Anarchism" is not really anarchism, and we can call it controversial. But we should not split the Anarchism page into two pages, because, clearly, all of these theories claim to be based on the same Greek roots, and they all describe a political system that does not involve government, even though they define "government" differently. Can we honestly call the inclusion of controversial types of Anarchism confusing? If not, then I say let them be.--Blah99 23:32, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Edmund Burke, revisited

I didn't change the mention of Edmund Burke this time, because I wanted a little more discussion first.

Thanks for being one of the first people to discuss something RJII and I favor before removing it. That's how Wikipedia works. You don't like how something's portrayed, you iron out your differences on the talk page to see if there's a good reason to change it. MrVoluntarist 23:49, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Cut the preaching. The "an-cap side" has not been any better -- some would maintain worse, actually -- than the so-called "an-soc side" when it comes to discussion, conference, and resolution. --TelemachusSneezed 00:35, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

The problem: Burke anonymously writes an article that explicitly advocates the absense of government; upon discovery that he is the article's author, Burke dismisses said article as satire. Enter Murray Rothbard, et al. Rothbard maintains that Burke dismissed the article for political reasons. Ergo, Burke was an anarchist. Did I cover this well enough?

No. See below. MrVoluntarist 23:49, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

My opinion: if Burke dismissed article, so should history. Therefore, the mention of Edmund Burke in the "Modern Anarchism" section is inappropriate. He was always most aligned with "conservatism," and whatever anarchist tendencies Burke is purported to have had should be ignored.

MrVoluntarist justifies inclusion with the following:

(1) Burke wasn't advocating absence of government, but he did write the article.

Response: My point exactly; Burke never argued for absence of government except in this article, an article he publicly dismissed.

(2) Burke dismissed article for political reasons.

Response: All the worse for Edmund Burke. That's between him and "God, or Athena, as the case may be." He dismissed the article, so should we.

Plain and simple: no one possesses the mind of Edmund Burke in a jar. Anyone can analyze Burke's article till he's blue-in-the-face; it's still revisionism to put thoughts in the mind of a dead historical figure.

Responses? --TelemachusSneezed 21:21, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

There is no assertion that Burke was an anarchist. But, the essay he wrote was anarchism. If this article was called "anarchists," I would not allow the inclusion of him, but it's called "anarchism." I don't think it's proper to call him an anarchist, but obviously he did entertain the concept. And, I'm sure the essay had some influence. If it wasn't the first such essay I probably wouldn't include it in the article, but since it was the first, I think it's historically significant. RJII 21:42, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

First of all, you are leaving quite a bit out. That the essay advocated anarchism is relevant historically. The article never says he believed it throughout the rest of his life. Further, scholars other than Rothbard have noted that Burke's style in Vindication was identical to that used in his other serious works, which again casts doubts on his claim of satire.

But more importantly, other anarchists were influenced by the work. Godwin hailed Vindication as a precursor to his viewpoint. One of Warren's associates reprinted it in 1858 with comments in the margin, and Tucker praised and reprinted it in Liberty in 1885. I think that's more than enough to make it relevant to the history of anarchism.

And by the way, the Athena comment was a reference to your name, Telemachus. MrVoluntarist 23:49, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Response to MrVoluntarist and RJII

You two are splitting hairs. Observe:

"The essay is about Anarchism, so it doesn't matter if this is the one and only instance of Burke's advocation of Anarchist-related thought!"

"It doesn't matter if Burke disowned the writing; it still exists!"

"Godwin said it was a precursor to his viewpoints; Warren's associate reprinted it with comments; Tucker liked it and reprinted it. How could it not be an Anarchist writing?"

"People other than Rothbard have echoed his viewpoint on the serious nature of the writing!" (Please note that I already acknowledged the presence of other supporting voices besides Rothbard)

Does this list summarize your arguments well? When you add all this reasoning up, one finds a very weak case for inclusion of "Vindication..." in the history of Anarchism; allow me my own summary and you tell me whether or not it sounds silly:

"Burke, during a lifetime of defending modern conservatism -- and all the institutions that it brings, such as aristocracy and the rule of Man-made law -- decides one day to seriously give some thought to "natural society." He writes "Vindication..." with all the passion he can muster, but concedes that he must publish it under a pseudonym so as to protect his reputation. He is caught! and procedes to grudingly dismiss his own work as a satire of sorts. "Vindication..." falls into a well-of-despair... *snif*

Enter Murray Rothbard, et al: Burke wrote "Vindication..." so well, and it syncs perfectly with his writing style! He must have meant this writing, not as a jest, but as an honorable work! True, this would be the only writing in which he ever actually supported "natural society." And yes, he publicly disowned this writing. But people like Godwin, Warren, Tucker, and me have all liked it, and we're all Anarchists, right? So, this article must have played a note-worthy role in the history of Anarchism!"

I'll tell you how this reasoning stikes me:

"A group of closely associated individuals must come up with a way to historically legitimate their viewpoints; Moliari is a good source, so let's call him an Anarchist since he doesn't like public government. Here's Burke! probably the most influential figure in modern conservatism advocating something he calls "natural society!" Hmmm... this sounds an awful like Anarchism, chaps! Let's go with it... I'll write an article calling Burke the original Anarchist and you guys back me up with exactly the same reasoning."

I am being more cynical than is necessary, but the historical evidence -- this is what is important, mind you -- gives every indication of the following: a very intelligent man (please don't doubt my respect for Mr. Burke) testing his intellectual faculties -- honed by years of oratory and written debate -- by trying to put himself in the mind of his adversaries, and by writing a one-off that details ideas that go against his very nature. When he is found-out, he realizes how foolish he may have been and quickly dismisses his writing as a joke... because it was.

The only seemingly legitimate argument in your favor is the idea that Burke simply "grew-up and changed his mind" later in life. But what of this:

"The Fabrick of Superstition has in this our Age and Nation received much ruder Shocks than it had ever felt before; and through the Chinks and Breaches of our Prison, we see such Glimmerings of Light, and feel such refreshing Airs of Liberty, as daily raise our Ardor for more. The Miseries derived to Mankind from Superstition, under the Name of Religion, and of ecclesiastical Tyranny under the Name of Church Government, have been clearly and usefully exposed. We begin to think and to act from Reason and from Nature alone. This is true of several, but still is by far the Majority in the same old State of Blindness and Slavery; and much is it to be feared that we shall perpetually relapse, whilst the real productive Cause of all this superstitious Folly, enthusiastical Nonsense, and holy Tyranny, holds a reverend Place in the Estimation even of those who are otherwise enlightened."

Why would a man who holds Christianity to be so important in his life be willing to attack the foundations of organized religion with such vitriol, unless the vitriol itself was a jest? There are other examples, such as his brutal denouncement of aristocracy, but they're pointless to mention in the light of this one thing: Burke had to have completed two 180-degree turns in the periods before and after "Vindication..." Do you understand how improbable such a thing is, and without any notable physical manifestation of his inner conflict to be found in his life-history? Unlikely...

The clincher: I feel I've justfied my view that Burke actually did not intend for "Vindication..." to be a true example of his thoughts; and if so, the writing was created under false pretenses and should not hold a notable place in the history of Anarchism. If you insist on including said writing, then this article's standards will have been lowered to the point that all anyone influential has to say is "fuck da State, man" for a bit of noteworthiness. I feel this policy is far too liberal for an article that already has so much to detail, and that "Vindication..." serves only to distract from the actual historical progression of Anarchism.

That said, I am nevetheless willing to meet you folks half-way. You may have your mention of "Vindication...", but its proper place is in the "Precursors to Anarchism" section. It was Godwin who appears to have kicked-off the beginning of modern Anarchist thought, and this is the first figure who should be mentioned in the "Modern Anarchism" section. I'm done; resume bickering. --TelemachusSneezed 00:35, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

ADDENDUM: RJII says: "The claim is not that he's an anarchist. I personally don't think he was one. It is there because the essay itself advocated anarchism AND because it was influential on anarchism." Again, read my argument and consider my resolution. The writing was completed under false pretenses, illegitimizing its place in the history of Anarchism. Ergo... blah, blah, blah. --TelemachusSneezed 00:58, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I understand what your POV is. But it is the POV of noted individuals, including noted anarchists, that it is representative of anarchism. RJII 02:04, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

First, Telemachus, you're going to need to lay off the attitude. Mocking the views of other Wikipedians is not appropriate. If you believe they are in error, state why. You probably wouldn't like it if I gave you what you just gave us by saying "Oh! I'm such an idiot! I think that Burke's writing has nothing to do with anarchism! Yeah, who cares if anarchists cited it? I just care about winning arguments on the internet!" yet that is pretty much what you just did to us.

Second, it's pointless to debate whether Burke was "really" serious or not. Your views and my views matter not one lick on Wikipedia, so who presents the best argument is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether major scholars think it was satire. Some, based on comparisons to his later works, think it was not satire. This may be a minority view, but it is significant enough to merit mention. However, even if everyone agreed it was satire, it was an essay advocating the absence of government. Depending on how you define "modern", it was the first such essay. It was cited by Godwin, which gives it a continuous chain of influence to the present day, making it part of the modern history of anarchism, not a precoursor.

Finally, I like your finishing touch where you characterize us as "bickering" in contradistinction to your more "reasoned" views such as "it's okay to mock people you disagree with on Wikipedia". Grow up. MrVoluntarist 05:12, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Response to MrVoluntarist and RJII

First of all, I dig what both of you are saying, but your arguments indicate that the article wasn't all that influential. I quote:

"Godwin hailed [the writing] as a precursor to his viewpoint."

"One of Warren's associates reprinted [the writing]..."

"Tucker praised it and reprinted [the writing]..."

When you add it up: Godwin had already formed his own opinions; a friend (name, please?) of Warren liked it; Tucker wrote the equivalent of a positive "book review" for it. I'm just not seeing the step where "Vindication..." becomes "representative of Anarchism" simply because three people wrote some nice things about it. I'm minimizing, yes, but it's justified: I simply feel there is a need for economy in this article. Such goes for any piece of writing.

I concede, however, that I was originally far too hasty to delete mention of "Vindication..." While not feeling it is worth note in the context of this article, the writing might as well be noted for no other reason than completeness... with the following qualification: I put the mention of "Vindication..." in the "Precursors to Anarchism" section, because relative to other key writings -- those by Godwin, Proudhon, Tucker, etc... -- the essay is not worth all that much emphasis, especially if the author did not mean what he wrote. Someone originally had "Vindication..." mentioned before Godwin in the "Modern Anarchism" section, which would imply an "origin point." That was wrong, and I sought to change that. If you wish to debate this also, let me know.

Second, I was not attempting to mock the arguments that you two have put across. I apologize if my writing came off as such. The first step in my argument above was an attempt at summary and refutation, not mockery. The only ones that need take offense at my writing are the late Murray Rothbard and his associates due to my implications above (only half-seriously, mind you) that they formed some sort of conspiracy to put a conservative icon in the role of an anarchist.

The final phrase, "I'm done; resume bickering," was an unfortunate salutation because I didn't make clear that it was for the entire discussion group's benefit. If you'll notice, the only thing that has been vehemently argued about on this page lately is "national anarchism" and "fascist anarchism," two things that I feel are not worth discussion.

However, MrV., I take offense at your characterization of myself and my writing as having nothing more than masked disdain for everyone who doesn't share my opinions. I am also not writing to boost my ego -- although I must admit that, like everyone else on this board, I do get a certain satisfaction out of being able to "flex my muscles." Would you rather I simply not write, MrV.? I'm getting the impression that simply by voicing disagreement and presenting counter-arguments, I become "The Asshole." That would be unfortunate, because I enjoy writing.

Finally, yes MrV. I understood your reference to Athena. You're very clever... and I do not have an attitude problem. (*sticks tongue out*) --TelemachusSneezed 21:15, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

My opinion is that Burke, as a youngster when he wrote "Vindication," was really an anarchist. Later, after he got a cushy establishment job, he went over to the dark side.

I think Telemachus doesn't have the facts down when he writes, "Burke had to have completed two 180-degree turns in the periods before and after 'Vindication...'." Fact: Burke wrote "Vindication" when he was relatively young. He wrote "Vindication" before he wrote any of his "conservative" stuff. As far as I can tell, "Vindication" is his very first known writing.

MrVoluntarist's statement, "Burke anonymously writes an article that explicitly advocates the absense of government; upon discovery that he is the article's author, Burke dismisses said article as satire," is true but misleading - it ignores the timeline. Burke retracted much, much later when his "youthful" indiscretion was publicized, much as e.g. GW Bush publicly regretted his "youthful indiscretion" of coke-snorting. Anyone who was (however briefly) a commie after first reading "The Communist Manifesto" in high school can understand how opinions can change over time. - Hogeye

Beyond Repair

This article is beyond repair at this point. It has reached a point of consistent vandilism from a political perspective that is a vast minority within an already vast minority in one country (whom for some reason seem to have tons of time to bum around online). The ideas in this article are incompatible with the 'anarchism' in almost every other langugae. Here are some basic semantic issues that this article has to address, going to keep this short.

1) The first sentence defines anarchism as "no rulers". Then later on it's defined as opposition to government. These terms are not at all mutually exclusive. In many ways this article is blatantly hostile to the notion of "no rulers". The defenition of anarchism in this article is outright hostile to that of both the person who coined the term, and 99.999% of all people (historically) to call themselves anarchist. It isn't even an issue of a 'balanced' approach anymore. Should anarcho-capitalism be mentioned, sure. Should it be presented (and Tucker presented) as the dominant theme behind anarchist history and theory. No. Maybe some day, when there following gets out and does shit in the real world as opposed to internet vandalism.

2) Extreme POV. Calling Tucker "tolerant", and those who disagree "intollerant".. as one example out of a hundred.

3) Confusing the person for the idea. This isn't bakuninism or kropotkinism or tuckerism, it's anarchism. Thus modern anarchists accept some ideas of theirs, while rejecting others. Just because bakunin was anti-semetic doesn't mean anarchism is tolerant of anti-semetism (he was alot of other fucked up things to). I've raised this point before and no one has felt inclined to respond.

4) Deliberate confusion of the term individualist. Luigi Gaelleni (pardon my spelling), as one of the best known individualist anarchists, and Malatesta, as an anarcho-communist, represent the traditional tension between anarchocommunism/platformism and individualism. Claiming that individualism is capitalist simply because a handful of anarchists in ONE COUNTRY use that term is deliberately decietful. Again, 99% of all individuals who consider themselves anarcho-individualists (or anti-organizationalists) would also consider themselves anti-capitalist (historically). This is not even mentioned.

My proposition is that this article is mainly used to discuss anarchism, not as a ground of attack by a-caps. An honest look at historical material (i would know, i'm a historian) would show that 99% of all people who call themselves anarchist identify with the anticapitalist tradition. Should other positions be mentioned, sure. But let the article reflect the majority viewpoint historically, not the viewpoint of the people who are priveleged enough to bum around on wikipedia. The libertariainism article (which is 180dgs hostile to the article in other languages), and the anarcho-capitalism article already give justice to the other perspectives. It would seem that the real goal here is to choke the left anarchsit perspective - Shevek

I agree. --Bk0 13:46, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I think it's extremely clear from reading the article that most anarchists oppose capitalism. Every type of anarchism that's listed is indicated as opposing capitalism other than anarcho-capitalism (modern individualist anarchism). RJII 13:53, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

1) Er, if they're not at all mutually exclusive, that's ... good. Now, if you want to make the article about the beliefs of the majority of people that call themselves anarchists, fine, but that would mean making the article about riots and vandalism. I thought everyone here wanted to make this about philosophical anarchism, i.e., the people who have seriously thought about the issue and consider themselves anarchist. An ancaps do in fact do things in the real world - it just isn't in the form of destroying things.

2) I agree that's bad terminology, but the article already says so, mentioning that it can also be called "expansionism" or "evangelism" rather than "intolerance". So just go ahead and change it, it's no big deal.

3) Where have you raised this point and not gotten a response? Look, I'm sympathetic to Sarge's position that that should all go on the individual's page; however, a lot of people are trying to promote the idea that "true anarchists can't be racist" which is false, historically speaking. That this belief is so predominant is all the more reason to dispel it on the page. That's what Wikipedia is about: correcting misconceptions.

4) It's more than a handful. It includes Josiah Warren, Ezra Heywood, Joshua K. Ingalls, William B. Greene, Benjamin Tucker, Lysander Spooner, Stephen Pearl Andrews, John William Lloyd, Henry Bool, Steven T. Byington, Victor Yarros, Laurance Labadie, Robert Anton Wilson, Joe Peacott, James J. Martin, Kevin Carson, Larry Gambone, and Keith Preston. That's way more than the two individualist anarchists in Europe. The term capitalism is also confusing, since people use it in different ways; it's more reasonable to include the specific aspects of capitalism they opposed.

As for the rest: you only get that 99% by counting "chaos proponent" anarchists, which this article is not about. Moreover, the individualist anarchists were anti-capitalist in the sense of state capitalism. Ancapism does not infect the article, though I'd be sympathetic to limiting its mention to the schools section. MrVoluntarist 17:14, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Just a note that you forgot to mention the individualist anarchists William Godwin, Max Stirner, and Pierre-Joseph Proudhon. RJII 17:23, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I was refuting the claim that the American individualists were a small handful, so I was only listing Americans. But you're right, I should have compared them to three Europeans, rather than two. MrVoluntarist 23:55, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I misread above. RJII 00:19, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Again you are deliberately confusing terms. Anarcho capitalists is a subset (questionably) of anarcho-individualist. Not all individualists are a-caps though. To claim that proudhon was is preposterous. Mutualism may have involved a monetary system but it wasn't capitalism, in the same sense that ancient guilds weren't capitalist. Not all exchange economies are capitalism, to even claim so is historical revisionism. I'm also not sure what you mean by "chaos proponent" anarchists, which seems to be a useless term since if they promote chaos they can't be promoting anarchism. This seems to be a POV attack on people who promote self-defense/violence against state repression (which is my POV perspective on it), which would have no place in a NPOV article. I'm also shocked by your blatant class bias. The fact that a handful, or even dozens of middle-class intelectuals claimed that anarcho-capitalism was a good idea - can't even be compared to the mass syndicalist movements of millions of lower class folks. So maybe a few thousand people read Tucker's Liberty (accorda to Emma Goldman many anarcho-communists read him critically), anarchists groups like PLM, CNT, CGT, AIT, Mahknovchina (just to throw a few out of many) all had millions of members. Today anarchists/anti-authoritarian movements like the MST, Cipo-RFM, CGT-CNT, SLU (siberian labor union, i think this is the right acronym) all have thousands, hundreds of thousands, and in cases millions of members. Yet these aren't even mentioned, in favor of "intellectuals". Pure, blatant POV class bias. I would recomend reading the second half (the first is garbage) of "objectivity in liberal scholarship" by Noam Chomsky.- Shevek

Mutualism is not identical to capitalism, but most forms of it take many traits of capitalism (as well as socialism). One non-anarchist form of mutualism, Georgism, is basically pure capitalism, but structured so that the benefits of succeeding within it spill over to the poor. Mutualism is thus not anti-capitalist; it's anti-specific-aspects-of-capitalism, and the article needs to reflect as much.

Re chaos proponents - yes, by definition, someone promoting anarchy (in the sense of chaos) is an anarchist. My point all along is that this type of anarchism is not the focus of the article, so such individuals are not included in any tally. Of course, we could change the article so it does include them, but I thought the consensus was that we would focus on philosophical anarchism, which is not necessarily against order and civilization. Nor am I biased against, or even against resistance to state oppression (I do however, deem it usually impractical and counterproductive). But smashing the windows of small businesses (like in Seattle) does not a philosophical anarchist make.

Nor are your tallies of "millions" of anarchists accurate. For one, most of what you listed didn't have millions of members. (One of the largest - arguably - anarchist groups was IWW, which peaked at 100,000 at the height of the labor movement's popularity and is now at 1,000. That explicitly anarchists groups would number as you described is sipmly not accurate.) More importantly, most of those groups were not anarchist; indeed, most of them favored heavy governmental economic intervention. You're just falling into the trap of "everyone in the labor movement is an anarchist". They're not. Nor is every syndicalist an anarchist; there are statist forms of it as well. Your attempt to fold every member of every labor union into the left anarchist camp is grossly unjustified. It would be like me claiming every gun owner is anarcho-capitalist.

I also don't understand your charges of class bias. All I'm saying is, we can't say "these protestors oppose something which would benefit, among others, rich people. Ergo, every one of them has a philosophical objection to government and capitalism." MrVoluntarist 05:00, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The current CGT-CNT in spain has a membership of 3 million. The old CNT pre-civil war had a similiar membership. That's one country. There are like, what, three dozen a-caps in spain? And I didn't even mention the IWW, which you are right, isn't anarchist. Again a deliberate misrepresentation of what other people say. You are indeed a troll. - Shevek

First of all, I wasn't misrepresenting anything you said. You referred to anarchist groups in general, and, since people generally call the IWW an anarchist group (even though as you say, it's not), I assumed you were including that. Even if you weren't, it was relevant to my point about the massive overstating of the size of (left) anarchist groups. With that in mind, let's talk about the CGT-CNT. According to Wikipedia, this notable "3 million member" group doesn't exist; just the CGT and the CNT. As for membership, according to Wikipedia, the CGT has 60,000 members. CNT's size isn't mentioned, and I can't read Spanish. According to anarchosyndicalism.net, however, the current CNT has under 20,000. Now, the CGT claims it speaks for 2 million workers. Right. And the Ludwig von Mises Institue speaks for the 2 million silent ancaps in the US. Reading minds is fun!

Your claim of 3 million anarchists belonging to CGT and CNT together is absurd on its face. If there were that many, Spain would be anarchist today. If on the other hand, over 3 million people in Spain oppose capitalism but not the state, we would expect to see Spain having a strong socialist government. And in fact, that is what we see. Look, I don't mean to belittle you. I'm just as guilty of wishfully thinking there are more ancaps than there probably are. But that doesn't make it so. MrVoluntarist 00:10, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Again, you are obviously a troll and there is no point in even responding to you. Without presenting any evidence other than italicizing what you disagree with, you claim that the spanish CGT-CNT doesn't have 3 million members. And if it did have millions of anti-capitalists, how would that necessarily determine that the state wasn't capitalist. And how is Spain, as is, with private property, waged labor, and use value, socialist? Do you even know the first thing about socialism? Obviously not. Oh, and just as just saying the CGT doesn't haven't such and such membership doesn't make it so, neither does claiming to belitte anyone, without presenting any evidence, or even using language in any coherent way. -Shevek

I did present evidence - I gave authoritative sources on their actual members. That 3 million people might get the benefit of the CGT and CNT's negitiations does not mean they agree with the actual membership. Despite what you claim, most members of unions have no problem with government and capitalism in themselves, they just want different versions of them. And I think you're underestimating what 3 million people can accomplish. 3 million of Spain's 43 million population would be like ~22 million in the US, which I think is more than any one state save California. If there were really that many strong opponents of the state and capitalism, Spain would look MUCH different than it is today, even if those 3 million, as would be likely, didn't vote. If on the other hand, Spain only had 80,000 left anarchists (like, you know, the evidence indicates), that would be quite consistent with what we see today. As for whether Spain is socialist, apparently you're making the same fallacy many people make, that your personal, individual form of philosophy X is the only "real" form of philosophy X, and anything else isn't "true" X. Unfortunately, there are statist versions of socialism as well, which permit some degree of private property (just like pretty much any system does) and wage labor, but simply introduce some egalitarianism and state ownership. If Spain doesn't count as socialist, no nation on earth counts as capitalist except maybe Somalia.

By the way, thank you SO much for following RJII's advice for avoiding the bug. That makes it so much easier on the rest of us. MrVoluntarist 18:56, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Shevek - sorry to say there are far from 3 million members in the CNT - though that figure may have been correct around 1937. Also sad to say that in Spain the CNT and CGT (Note - not the same as the French CGT union, but a Spanish trade union confederation which split from the CNT post-Franco), don't get on too well. 80,000 is far more likely for the two combined - though it should be said that by no means all spanish anarchists are in the anarcho-syndicalist confederations.

That said, I think you can safely say that in Spain, and in Europe in general, you would have a very hard job to find anyone calling themselves an anarchist who would identify with the anarcho-capitalist views of persistent editors of this page. Both CNT and CGT members identify themselves as anarcho-syndicalist, but more generally as part of a tradition they would call "anarchist" or "libertarian". (Note - These two terms are effectively synonymous in Spain and, to my knowledge, the rest of Europe.) Actually I think the vast majority of european anarchists would never even have heard of anarcho-capitalism, or would regard it as a contradiction in terms. (I can't speak for other continents.)

I know nothing of North-american anarchism. if I took what I read on this page as my guide to US anarchist thinking, I would come away with the impression that anarcho-capitalism or some tendency of right-individualism (sorry, I am not well acquainted with this tradition, so forgive me if I am confusing my terminology) is at least a major tradition within US anarchism. If that is not the case, then I think the article is misleading in the importance it gives to 'right' anarchism even in a US context.

But even if it is true, this article is of course not meant to be about north-American, or even Anglophone, anarchism but about anarchism per se. At the very least, what we have here is an example of a US-bias that runs through English wikipedia. Though I think it's taken further here than on other pages I have seen.

That would be a charitable interpretation. After reading through this discussion page, I'm more inclined to think that what we have here is a conscious attempt at skewing the article to a particular POV. The main technique is to give disproportionate space and emphasis to fringe ideas, history and personalities.

What can you do? There are a couple of obviously articulate and well-educated people here with a very strong viewpoint to push, and they're willing and able to put in the time to do so. (Now I read to the bottom of the discussion page and see someone's making a serious attempt at a new approach to this.)

One other point - in my view the article actually gets it wrong from the start by kicking off with greek etymology. Anarchism, I would argue, is better viewed as a historical movement (or collection of movements and ideas) than a philosophical abstraction to be understood through analysing its name. What anarchists have ever positioned themselves 'based on its etymology'?

Though anyone can pick their favourite predecessors, anarchism as such started in the era of political and industrial revolutions beginning in the eighteenth century. An anarchist movement existed before anarchists, beginning with Proudhon, took the term flung at them by their enemies and claimed it for their own. (Prior to this anarchists would often describe themselves as libertarians.) It grew up with other movements of social change, in particular liberalism and socialism (Kropotkin called it the left wing of socialism in his definition for the encyclopaedia britannica); and found its most significant expression (in terms of support and influence) in conjunction with working class movements, most notably the tradition running from the first international to 20th century syndicalism.

This is the mainstream of anarchism as a historical movement and as a movement of ideas. Not to emphasise this is revisionism - but I think the revisionists are well aware of what they are up to.

So for the moment a 1910 edition of the encyclopaedia britannica has got wikipedia beat on at least one subject.

Bengalski 18:58, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

intro

Someone changed the intro to say "Thus anarchism, in the most generally understood sense of the term, refers to any political position or belief that is opposed to all forms of rule or social dominance." What is "social dominance"? RJII 00:25, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Basically domination (as described first in that disambig). To pull out a definition by Gordon Marshall, it means "Rule by coercion or noncoercive compliance. Individuals or groups may exercise power over others–domination– either by brute force or beacause that power is accepted as legitimate by those who are subject to it." He then goes into explaining Max Weber's classifications of domination (traditional, charismatic, rational-legal). Interpret that as you will. Sarge Baldy 01:00, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

If that's not original research, it's dangerously close. MrVoluntarist 01:05, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Why is that comment directed at me? Sarge Baldy 01:07, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Because it's intended for you. You seem to be patching together your own theory about what dominance means rather than simply referencing a mainstream account of what the common conception is. You shouldn't have to cite philosophers to define a term; you should only be citing them to provide arguments for viewpoints. But like I said, it might not count as original research, but if it doesn't, it's pretty close. MrVoluntarist 01:48, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

That was quoted from a sociological dictionary, which was sitting right next to me and seemed to me like a pretty good place to look. I don't understand your accusation. Sarge Baldy 02:57, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Look at your response to RJII. It looks like you're trying to piece together your own definition rather than using a popular one. If you can't state unambiguously what you're referring to by "social dominance" you should probably not include it. Saying it's hegemony, itself a loaded term, just pushes the problem up one step. MrVoluntarist 05:05, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I tried looking for a "popular definition". I couldn't find one. If you can, be my guest. Anyway, I hardly see what you're trying to argue. If you cared to look, I didn't add the term to the article. Sarge Baldy 05:23, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

The term is (or was, I haven't checked lately) in the article, and you support it being in the article. Whether you personally added it is immaterial to its justification. If you can't easily find a popular definition, the concept itself is probably fringe and does not warrant being used in a statement of fact on Wikipedia. MrVoluntarist 00:14, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I never even implied that I wanted the term in the article, whatever assumptions you might decide to make. I answered a question. If someone else had answered how I did, you wouldn't have thought twice about it. You can't accept the legitimacy of anything I have to say, simply because I said it. I can't make a simple comment without it having some sort of edge to you, it must be some weaselly attempt at working something in. I never argued it should remain, I never contested when it was removed. In all honesty I don't know if it belonged on the page or not. But at least now I know that there's no reason to continue reading what you have to say, because I can rest assured it's a mirror image of whatever I do. Sarge Baldy 01:00, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I am not singling you out for anything. When you, or anyone else, say things in error I have and will continue to correct you and anyone else who errs. Perhaps I was wrong in assuming you wanted the term "social dominance" or whatever in the article; it didn't make sense that you would enter a discussion arguing against an argument for exclusion, unless you supported its inclusion. But you're correct, that doesn't logically follow. I apologize. But please don't fall under the impression that my arguing against you is a way to "diss" you. The mediation currently going on is the best hope for finding some kind of consensus, so let's at least see if that's possible. MrVoluntarist 01:18, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, but I asked what "social dominance" was. You gave me a definition for "domination." I don't understand the "social" part, and "dominance" is kind of vague as well. How about if we just change "social dominance" to "domination" then? RJII 01:54, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Er, yeah and I guess on second thought that isn't quite specific enough. Social dominance is just another way of saying hegemony, except in a broader sense, and not simply limited to trade. Basically it's the ability of one segment of a population to express power over another. "Dominance" alone is a bit vague. Sarge Baldy 02:57, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

It looks like you're trying to piece together your own definition rather than using a popular one.

Hm. And what "popular definition" of anarchism is? :-)--XaViER 16:56, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I think we need to differentiate between what is theoretically true of anarchism and how it manifests in practice - thus the bit in the first paragraph can cope with members of the FAI entering the Catalan government in 1936.Harrypotter 09:35, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Call for advocates

Currently, a mediation regarding what should be the scope of this page is underway. The main advocate of the traditional/left-wing/socialist anarchist position, Sarge Baldy, has recently (it appears) withdrawn from mediation. Someone willing to advocate for that position in his stead is therefore needed. Requirements:

1. Must be familiar with the archives (i.e., not claim that individualist anarchists aren't real anarchists).
2. Must be somewhat familiar with the literature on the topic (such as the Anarchist FAQ).
3. Must be capable of representing the opinions of those who wish to see the role of anarcho-capitalism on the anarchism page diminished.

If this describes you, please report here and identify yourself. MrVoluntarist 00:26, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

The difference is, that as anarcho-capitalism is primarly a movement to feudalize wealth, its followers are primarly upper-middle class, or just plain wealthy - and thus have endless hours to argue online. Most anarchists are either students or employed in menial jobs (like me!) and have no time to argue endlessly online with people who appear not to do honest work. - Shevek

No, it's followers are not primarily upper-middle class (at least, no more than socialist anarchists) or wealthy. It would be getting much more talk if we had wealthy supporters. Contrary to your presuppositions, most wealthy people do not want anarcho-capitalism - that would mean sacrificing a great deal of their net worth from government subsidies. Nor do ancaps have endless hours to argue online - it is the socialists that dominate these pages, until they start losing arguments. And ancaps are actually the ones taking the more menial jobs. We're the ones undercutting the unions for wages and getting called "scabs" in return. "Not doing honest work" indeed. MrVoluntarist 05:19, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

He's right, most ancaps aren't exactly wealthy. They're just middle-class Americans deluded with such ideas as the possibility of rags-to-riches, psychological egoism, free will, and Sartre's "infinite freedom". Basically they figure the "best" "naturally" rise to the top, and don't believe in social constraints in any form. Supply and demand -- so simple! They're actually -as hard as it might be to believe- well-intentioned. And in fact, government, particularly the American government, does serve primary as a tool for capitalism. But that's just it, they don't want Keynesian economics, they want classic capitalism, which is so simple, so "natural" it's easy to rally around. That you end up with the storyline of Jennifer Government doesn't even faze them- that's what they truly believe freedom is. / 63.162.72.145 07:04, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Funny, I just thought they were anarchists who dropped the labor theory of value and adopted the subjective theory of value. RJII 07:18, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

badstart

I haven't read all the debate on this page and haven't the time to but this statement is pretty inappropriate to put in the introduction:

"While anarchism is primarily viewed as a negative " ... (- opposition to compulsory authority)

It's a somewhat controversial statement anyway and a huge generalization which depending on how a question regarding the subject was posed to people could result in a different answer. I think that it needs to be put lower down the article and reworded and backed up. I don't think sweeping generalizations like this are particlarly educational or helpful myself.

I'm not sure what your complaint is but it looks like you're taking the term "negative" to mean a bad thing. If so, that's not it's used. A negative view is one that says how things should NOT be. A positive view would be how things SHOULD be. But, it's probably not a good choice of wording due to this kind of confusion. RJII 06:43, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I've only glanced over the intro material, but I have to say I'm surprised that there's no "anti-hierarchies" reference. "Anti-State/Government/whatever" are just specific manifestations of practical opposition to power-oriented hierarchies. Where's the PRIOR, sweeping, philosophical commitment to a "natural," non-hierarchical order?

Very odd.

PopeBambi

Max_rspct's deletions

Max, why are you deleting the entire anarcho-capitalism section? Let me guess. You don't feel that anarcho-capitalism is "true anarchism." Keep your POV to yourself. This article needs to stay NPOV and not make such judgements. I can find sources for every kind of anarchism on this page that says each kind is not real anarchism. Just note that it's the POV of people that it's not real anarchism, like is mentioned for each of the other schools of thought, and that should be enough. RJII 04:16, 14 September 2005 (UTC) note, this was an error on my part. Max did not delete the section, but merely the photo of Rothbard. RJII 16:18, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Uh, why is it "NPOV" to judge that it is a form of anarchism, and "POV" that it isn't? Clearly that's a matter in dispute. It's your POV that it is, because you consider anarchism a philosophy built off simply terminating systems of government. It's the POV of Max and a number of other contributors that anarchism is any philosophies designed to terminate social hierarchies. Neither POV is "neutral", however delusional people might be on the topic. It's understandable that you feel your POV is the "open-minded" one because you opt for a meaning reflecting a broader group of philosophies. But of course you're also limiting the definition of anarchism to your own perception so as to conveniently include philosophies you like to consider anarchism, so don't pretend you don't come across as close-minded to a lot of people yourself. All edits are POV. / 63.162.72.90 04:53, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

My apologies to Max. He did not delete the section. He deleted the photo out of the section. RJII 16:18, 14 September 2005 (UTC) Anyway, Max, you you also deleted the photo of Proudhon. Why? RJII 16:18, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

That's right I didn't! I am not sure having pics of the main 'players' in the history of anarchism neccessarily helps the article. especially as so many bods have been involved in anarchism. Perhaps they should be just left in the biographies. Other types of pics may better for the article. -max rspct 00:44, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Template Issues

Not many people are posting there, and I feel it's relevant.

Please begin deliberation, for I feel this issue is actively hindering the use of the template.

Lockeownzj00 09:49, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Should we just delete this article and just start over?

The article is so full of factual error and is so biased that I think we should just start over. Delete the article, and write it again--Exir Kamalabadi^{Feel free to criticize me} 12:10, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I was thinking about this myself. There's a lot of structural issues that I think are terribly problematic, like how this article is divided into "schools" rather than individual issues, making everything appear much more divisive than it really is. Short of a rewrite this article is pretty hopeless, and I don't know if even that would help. Sarge Baldy 19:59, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Name one factual error and one bias. Feel free to discuss them on the mediation page. MrVoluntarist 23:37, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Is this another case where someone is flabbergasted to find out that many anarchists support private property and a market economy? They don't teach you that in collidge do they? RJII 23:50, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

It is a case where people are flabbergasted that limited possessions which cannot earn you any money whatsoever are presented as equal to capitalist property. Funkybeat 02:14, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't see where it does that. It just uses language people are familiar with to refer to things. The average person (you know, those unwashed masses Wikipedia is intended for) doesn't make the nitpicky, unclear possession/property distinction that traditional anarchists do. What Proudhon, Tucker, Spooner, etc. supported would be referenced by ordinary people as a form of property. Nor is your characterization of the individualists' position even accurate. They supported markets. Markets are relationships in which you make money by selling things you produced with the intent of exchange rather than personal use. They clearly did not limit their support to "limited possessions which cannot earn you any money whatsoever". MrVoluntarist 03:13, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

"Private property" does not mean "capitalist property" ..whatever that is. Private property just means that which is owned by an individual, as opposed to being owned by a government or a community in collective. Tucker refers to it as "private property"; Spooner refers to it as "private property." Anarcho-capitalists also believe in private property --individual ownership of things. Whether you like it or not, this is significant similarity between classical individualist anarchism and modern individualist anarchism (anarcho-capitalism). Anarcho-communists oppose private property. And, whether you like it or not, that's a significant difference. This article is abundantly clear on the question of profit in regards to classical individualism and anarcho-capitalism. From your statements on the mediation page, you seem to think that if classical individualists oppose profit that they oppose private property. That's an error in your reasoning, apparently due to the fact that you just don't know what private property is. Classical individualsts and anarcho-capitalists both favor private property. Spooner explains what is meant by private property: "...the principle of individual property... says that each man has an absolute dominion, as against all other men, over the products and acquisitions of his own labor." Anarcho-capitalists believe the same thing. RJII 04:12, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Except that Individualist Anarchists believe that you should only own what you could put into direct use and nothing more. For example, you can own enough land, if you are a farmer, to farm yourself and you can only own the tools you can use yourself. Capitalists don't know this restriction and promote that one should be able to own property that one does not actually use him or herself or that he did not produce himself. THIS is the distinction that firmly separates Individualist Anarchists and these capitalists. --Jazz Remington 23:14, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

That holds for land, but not for the produce of labor. Classical individualist support a right to own all' the produce of one's labor and accumulate it if one wishes. They do not believe that others should have a right to take your produce from you without your consent just because you're not using it. Land itself is another story, as it's not the product of labor --but even then, that holds for most of the classical individualists, rather than all of them. For example, Josiah Warren and Stephen Pearl Andrews supported ownership, purchase, and sale, of unused land. Anarcho-capitalists such as Murray Rothbard argue that one can't come to own unowned land unless they occupy or use it: "Any attempt to claim a new resource that someone does not use would have to be considered invasive of the property right of whoever the first user will turn out to be." So the difference between the classical individualist and modern individualists (anarcho-capitalists) on land is not that clear cut, but on the produce of labor it's the same. RJII 00:03, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Jazz Remington, I seriously don't know where you're getting this. Of course individualist anarchists believe you have the right to make tools you have no possible use for and exclude them from people who are unwilling to pay. In other words, they support a market in tools. Do you not know what a market is? Like I said above, in a market - even a barter market - people produce things they have no personal use for but know that other people might have a use for, and demand that they be paid for things they have no intention or even ability of using. Think about a butcher, a baker, a candlestick-maker on the market. They produce more carved meat, bread, and candles than they could use in a lifetime. They (as market participants) only give them to people who are able to pay. Individualists are 100% cool with that. Please, learn what individualists actually support before arguing for the insertion of errors into the anarchism article. MrVoluntarist 00:33, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Right. Individuals don't have to let others take or use the tools and machines they've built when they're not using them --because they were built through labor --they're considered private property. Otherwise, you would be talking about something like communism, rather than individualism. RJII 01:26, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Claiming that "anarcho"-capitalists are similar to individualist anarchists on the basis of support for "private property" is tenuous at best. Individualist anarchists support private property only in the sense of "possession determines ownership". If someone else possesses it, you don't own it. This is functionally equivalent to the communist anarchist position on possession. Chris Acheson 06:47, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I am not arguing for errors of any kind to be placed in this article. If I were, I would support "anarcho-"capitalism! I was arguing that there IS a distinction between Individualist anarchist property rights and capitalist. Individualists are against rent, interest, and profit. Capitalists are not. That is the main distinction between the two that proves they are not the same. --Jazz Remington 20:18, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

What do rent, interest, and profit have to do with property rights? That doesn't have to do limiting property rights on things; it has to do with which things may be property at all. That which is produced by labor is private property; that which is not, should not be property. For most of the classical individualists, if government stops protecting that which shouldn't be regarded as property (land), then rent, interest, and profit would not be possible, due to increased competition in the market. That is not a limitation on property rights, but on what may be property --if you can't own land, then, logic necessitiates that, you can't rent it out. If government is not protecting banking monopoly, then, due to competition, you won't be able to lend out your capital for much, if any, interest. (Though if you do need some capital for a project, you can borrow some at the local mutual bank from other owners of capital with no interest due above that which is necessary for transaction costs, etc. And, this is only made possible by compeition of the proliferation of banks since it would no longer be necessary to get a charter to start one). That's the classical individualist position. RJII 21:03, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Jazz, I'm tired of this. Why don't you define for me what you think a "market" is and we'll go from there (if you're going to ignore my analysis of markets). MrVoluntarist 02:59, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Max_rspct's blanking

Max, why are you blanking out large portions of this article? Stop your vandalism. RJII 23:16, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not Max rspct. I'm a concerned reader. The current state of this article is, quite frankly, crap. It was decent when all treatment of "anarcho"-capitalism was confined to one section of the article. That's all it is warranted, really. If readers want to know more about the subject, there's an entire article about it. I hear that it's quite good, too--it was featured on Wikipedia's main page not too long ago.

Currently, this article treats anarcho-capitalism as a factional view of the philosophy of anarchism, which it is not. It is a factional view of classical liberalism. Anarchism is based on opposition to hierarchy/rulership/power-inequality (the literal, etymological definition of "anarchy"). Classical liberalism is based on minimization of government. The fact that your particular faction sometimes self-identifies as "anarchist" confuses the issue. They are not part of the movement that is typically and traditionally refered to as "the anarchist movement", so disambiguation is necessary.

I noticed the sorry state of this article more than a week ago, and I've been aware of your participation for quite a while. At first I thought you were just persistent, well-meaning, and misinformed. It wasn't until today (well, the 22nd) that I noticed the link to "luciferia"[3] in the "opposing views" section, which (according to the edit history[4]) you added. I'm beginning to strongly suspect bad faith on your part. Honestly, what possible purpose could the inclusion of that link serve, other than to damage the credibility of those who disagree with you and to push your own political agenda?

The version of the article that I've been reverting to, while probably not the best in the entire edit history, is a good deal better than the current version. If you'd prefer not to participate in a revert war, I'm entirely willing to compromise on this issue. A disambiguation page would suffice. I'd even agree to have a section of the anarchism article dedicated to explaining the ambiguity surrounding the use of the words "anarchism" and "anarchist" as they pertain to anarcho-capitalism. Just let me know. Chris Acheson 08:19, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about. I don't do much editing in this article in regard to anarcho-capitalism. Most of my edits have been in regard to classic individualist anarchism. As far as putting up the Luciferia site, I felt it was necessary to put up evidence that some think individualist anarchism is not real anarchism. That site says explicitly "Individualist anarchism is not anarchism." If you have a better one, feel free to put it up. It seems almost everyone recognizes individualist anarchism as anarchism. I don't have any agenda other than presenting each kind of anarchism accurately. I've also contributed to other sections, such as anarcho-communism, anarcho-syndicalism, black anarchism, and national anarchism. RJII 14:01, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I ain't blanked the page RJII YOU LIAR! I suspect you are an NSA or CIA vandal. We have been putting up with these 'american tradition' edits for some time now. Ben Tucker and a couple of others does not constitute "individualist anarchism" Real anarchism in america has little to do with these 19th century right-wing libertarians. -max rspct 10:29, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

So there's your POV ...no such thing as individualist anarchism. Guess what, "real anarchism" is not necessarily what you think it is. Everybody thinks their form of anarchism is real anarchism. So, stop your POV pushing, and allow the article be NPOV by presenting every form of anarchism. Are you sure you're not from the Luciferia site? That's the only site I've been able to find that says "Individualist anarchism is not anarchism." As far as you blanking, I'm not lying. This sure looks like blanking vandalism to me: 'http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anarchism&diff=23760914&oldid=23749417] SoRJII 14:11, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Ahem,, of course i never said there wasn't an individualist aspect or strand in anarchism. This is anarchism. The problem with your edits is that you ascribe and extend 19th cent right-wing libertarian ideology on to 20th/21st century anarchism - a ridiculous, revisionist (the dark sort) POV crusade. And when your edits are not accepted you create new articles such as anarcho-capitalism vs anarchism, American individualist anarchism that are POV essays -max rspct 17:35, 23 September 2005 (UTC) In fact RJII's edits seem very similar to User:Wheeler's edits over Classical definition of a republic/Classical republicanism and others - e.g he has the ability to contribute... But ascribes out-of-date and inaccurate definitions on to well established traditions (wheeler used to say a republic should be defined using the Roman Republic etc as the source defintion ... RJII is doing that with 19th cent liberalism/libertarianism grafted on to Anarchism) .but he's doing it in the wrong article. -max rspct 18:04, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not "grafting" anything onto "anarchism." Individualism is an essential anarchist philosophy. There is no "anarchism" in the sense of a unified movement or philosophy. It's a set of diverse philosophies that all happen to have the commonality of opposing the state and favoring of what they believe to be voluntary relations. You're stuck in this mentality that "anarchism" is synonymous with anarcho-communism. But's that's wrong. Individualism versus collectivism is an eternal conflict in anarchism. It's not going away. Your attempt to censor the individualist side is just symptomatic of that conflict. But, as an editor of Wikipedia, I would hope you would be able to rise above your POV and allow all schools of thought that consider themselves anarchist to be be represented in the article. You are POV-pushing by your censorship. RJII 19:30, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Accusation of "fake accounts"

An anonymous IP used the edit comment:

(Revert from Dtobias and RJ11's anonymous and fake accounts used purely for POV vandalism.)

If this is attempting to state or imply that my account is "anonymous" or "fake" or "used purely for POV vandalism", then this is total bullshit. I've always used the same account, with a username based on my real-life name, and have used that account for a variety of edits of which only a small fraction have anything to do with the current "POV war" over anarchism; and I don't consider any to be vandalism. *Dan T.* 16:19, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I'd also like to note that I've never used a "fake account" and have only used this account in editing this article. I resent the slander from 172.144.97.190. I won't go so far as to say my username is based on my legal name, though. We have a right to anonymity on Wikipedia. 172.144.97.190 has some nerve to come down on others for being anonymous. Is 172.144.97.190 his real name? RJII 16:39, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

532.401.21.431 is my real name. =( MrVoluntarist 12:18, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Mainstream Anarchism/Fringe Anarchism

If possible, could split the Anarchism article into two sections: one for mainstream anarchism and one for fringe groups which claim to be anarchist, but fail to meet the definition put foward by mainstream anarchists; this would include christian anarchism, anarcho-capitalism, anarcho-primitivism, and national anarchism. ON the section for fringe groups, we could not only discribe the general tenents of their ideology, but also offer the arguments put forward in favor of their classification as anarchist and against their classification as such.

I just don't think that these reactionary and authoritarian movements with a few thousand adherents should be associated with mainstream social anarchism and classified as a type of anarchism. I don't understand on what grounds groups that advocate theism, capitalism, genocide, or racism are represented in the article about Anarchism, which stands in direct opposition to all these things. 68.89.240.80 20:31, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

That is one idea. Or at leat it should say at the top that apart from some fringe groups anarchists are against all forms of opression. // Liftarn

What is "mainstream anarchism"? I would think anarcho-capitalism is more mainstream than anarcho-communism. Let's to a Google check: Anarcho-communism: 32,000 hits. Anarcho-capitalism: 115,000 hits. What is this mythical "mainstream anarchism"? RJII 20:42, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

"Anarcho"-capitalism is clearly a fringe group. I think your google test is flawed. "Anarcho-capitalism" about 115,000, "anarchism" about 1,570,000. Searching on both "anarchism" and "socialism" gives about 476,000. // Liftarn

Anarchist communism gets 390,000 hits -max rspct 11:16, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

No, it gets ~40,000 hits. Try adding quotes so you only get links for that concept rather than anything with both "anarchist" and "communism. MrVoluntarist 12:17, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Call it classical anarchism then.Anarcho-capitalists already have the entire libertarianism article, why do they need to infringe into ours, especially when their ideology is a contradiction in terms? The term "anarchy" means more than simply "no government," it means "no rule" . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy_%28word%29 . Clearly, any form of capitalism involves rule, hierarchy, and authority of some kind. The same thing can be said of Christian, primitivist, and national anarchism.

What do you mean anarcho-capitalism involves rule? Basic to anarcho-capitalism is the non-aggression axiom. That's the anti-thesis of rule. RJII 21:06, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

If one group of people is in controls of all material resources, and can deny the rest of the population access to subsistence, isn't this a form of rule, of domination, or authoritarianism? Furthermore, what's to stop a corporation, for instance, from hiring its own mercenaries to put down worker revolts, instead of going through the state's police and military apparatuses? Anyway...I still think that there should be a section on Classical Anarchism and another section for those groups whose status as anarchist is disputed.

And communists will use violence to keep capitalists from hiring away members of the commune or taking "more than they need" (as determined by a central bureacracy). We've been over this hundreds of times. MrVoluntarist 09:16, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Libertarianism is not the same thing as anarcho-capitalism; libertarianism encompasses minarchist ideologies as well, which don't call for abolition of the state, only its minimization. And if you feel that capitalism can't exist without being authoritarian, I feel the same about collectivism; how can you stamp out individualism without some form of coercion? *Dan T.* 23:55, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

No one wants to stamp out individualism, social-anarchism is the highest form of individualism. How can a person truly persue his (or her) own individual desires if he does not have his subsistence garunteed? If a society can't garuntee subsistence to all its members, how will any one of them move beyond the Pavlovian existence of today into a truly meaningful life?

Um, most people today and historically don't have subsistence guaranteed, yet they seem to truly pursue their individual desires and live truly meaningful lives. They acquire the subsistence through labor and trade, and move on. Just to clarify, I'm not saying this is necessarily good or ideal, just that your sweeping statement about how unless you get free food, housing, etc. you can't have a meaningful life, is false. MrVoluntarist 20:09, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

When property is owned in disconnect by individuals, it is more individualistic than when it is owned in collective. That's why philosophies that support private property are called "individualist anarchism." It's quite conceivable that a philosophy that seeks to abolish private property can be perceived as seeking to "stamp out individualism." Individualist anarchists certainly think that. RJII 17:12, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Anyway, you didn't address my comments about capitalism as an essentially oppressive system.

He and I addressed different aspects separately: that people regard socialism and communism as essentially oppressive systems also, which stamp out individualism and do things many people more strongly object to, like only allow access to what you "need" (as determined by a central bureacracy). MrVoluntarist 20:09, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Property and alledged collectivist vs individualist tendancies

Most property and wealth in the capitalist world has been gained by landlordism, usury and wage labour. If "American Tradition Anarchists" are so firmly in favour of private property as you say, how can they be against the above ...re:

"The American tradition of individualist anarchism is firmly in support of individual sovereignty, private property, and a free market economy; though they oppose employers deducting profit from wages, the charging of interest, and most oppose the buying, selling, and renting of uninhabited or unused land."

Do tell!! max rspct-16:15, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Because having private property doesn't mean you have to profit from the labor of others. Having a market economy doesn't mean you have to exchange goods produced by disparate amounts of labor. You can use "labor notes" to have a market economy without profit. RJII 13:19, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Did you read the first line I wrote above? Most property and wealth in the capitalist world has been gained by landlordism, usury and wage labour. <<e.g The net wealth of the 10 richest billionaires is $133 billion, more than 1.5 times the total national income of the least developed countries (UNDP1999)>>. To define capitalism as profit-making only is very narrow and encyclopediac indeed. And free market does not equate with reciprocity. Unless your handfull 19th century right-wing libertarians/anarcho-capitalists are against social hierarchy it would be misleading and innaccurate to term them anarchists max rspct 16:21, 27 September 2005 (UTC) addenddum: For example.. one of your american individualist anarchists (i could use any of them), Spooner doesn't oppose interest? How can he be anywhere near an anarchist?? -max rspct 16:28, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

It's simple. If you oppose the existence of government and support voluntary relations between people, you're an anarchist. If you volunteer to pay interest, and another person volunteers to lend for interest, that's a voluntary transaction. Spooner is widely recognized as an anarchist --you can't change that. You, and a few others, keep trying to insist that to be an anarchist you have to be an anarcho-communist or a derivative. It looks to me due to a lack of exposure to anything BUT. And, a free market does indeed require "reciprocity"; that's what a market is --a place where you trade one thing for another. RJII 17:06, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Wrong: 'Voluntary relationships' = anarchism Wrong: reciprocity = 'free market' Again (as albabuth hints at below) you are trying to apply 19th cent liberalism/right-wing liberarianism onto a movement/philosophy that has moved at least a century on. -max rspct 10:41, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

If there is no trade, there is no market. I'm not trying to apply individualist anarchism onto anarcho-communism. Individualist anarchism is an independent movement that has existed longer that anarcho-communism. RJII 13:08, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

One of the fundamental hiccups to our ongoing debate about "what anarchism is" is the fact that anarchism is not a static entity. Concepts, parties, ideologies, and common knowlege changes over history, even within the span of single lifetime. The contributions that writers like Spooner have made to "anarchist thinking" were influential, even if contemporary anarchists judging someone like Spooner in a modern context would not call him an anarchist. Spooner was an anarchist for his day. Our 21st century understanding of economics is so far from spooner's 18th century ideas that direct comparison is untenable.

So, Spooner's ideas and writings need to be acknowledged as influential in the history of anarchist thought, even if they are incompatiable with contemporary anarchist ideas (at least, the large majority of them). However, just as a calculator in the 18th century meant a person who did arithmetic with a quill for a living and not a java app you can download for your cell phone, his significance is measured by precisely how he influenced anarchist thought, not simply by what he wrote. Tracing ideas through history makes more sense to me. And that, my friends, can only come about through scholarly research. The research material we have available to us on the web is insufficient. It is the resource of the lazy and ill-intentioned. The library beckons us to enter, find a biography on Spooner, and faithfully cite it for purposes of writing a good article. Harken thou unto the Dewey decimal system! --albamuth 05:19, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

No need to go to the library for information on Spooner; I only have to walk over to my own bookshelf, and I have. Youre wrong that Spooner woulnd't be considered an anarchist today; this is today, and he's widely regarded to be an anarchist --as are all the individualists. As far as moving into "21st century understanding of economics" it looks like only the anarcho-capitalists have done that --apparently not many economists still adhere to the labor theory of value. RJII 13:10, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Also, Benjamin Tucker supports a right to lend for interest though he thought it to be unethical, believing that a right to contract is the more fundamental right: "In defending the right to take usury, we do not defend the right of usury" ("right" in the latter clause referring to moral rectitude). I suppose you're going to say he's not an anarchist either because he allows interest taking? The thing one has to understand about the individualists is that everything in their proposed world is permissible if it's contracted --including profit. RJII 13:31, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I say that Spooner was an anarchist, but if he were alive today not only would his thoughts be outdated, they would be pretty far from what anarchists generally talk about. Tucker supports the right to lend for interest because he is not a totalitarian, as are all anarchists. If someone wants to borrow money at high interest rates, that's their right. It's not like anarchists are going around bombing TRW and all the other credit-reporting agencies, like in Fight Club. I understand the point that everything is permissable in a individualist anarchists' world, so long as it's voluntary for all parties involved (we're still in agreement about that part, right?). But that's not unique to the individualists, that goes for all anarchists today. In fact, I think plenty of liberals and conservatives would agree to the maxim. So it's a red herring. --albamuth 03:39, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

"Free-markets" vs. "capitalism"

In the "Modern Anarchism" section there appears the following:

According to anti-capitalist anarchists, such standpoints would put Proudhon and other individualist anarchists at odds with modern capitalism, even though Proudhon and other individualist anarchists were vigorous proponents of the free market system.

I'd like to delete this phrase -- and rephrase what I think was the author's point -- as I believe it creates a false dichotomy. We really need to settle on the issue of "economic reality" vs. "economic tool." A "free-market" by itself is simply an emergent property of transactions between consenting parties -- might I add, an inherently anarchistic social property. "Capitalism," in the general sense, is simply the private ownership of "capital" by a party.

My argument -- an argument I have seen posited by many others on this discussion page, either explicitly or implicitly -- is that "free-markets" and "capitalism" are not mutually inclusive; that is, one does not necessarily imply the other in either direction. Hence the existence of what I've seen referred to as "state capitalism." It can be argued fairly that capitalism is more conducive to the existence of free-market social properties, but that's as far as one can go: the property-ownership rules of "modern capitalism" -- see excerpt above -- may in fact by unconducive to free-market properties.

I find the rhetoric as demonstrated above to be dishonest. I'm going to delete it now, and if anybody would like to see it remain, please revert; however, back up your actions with arguments.

PS: Can we learn to use the "carriage return" button a little more often? That first paragraph in "Modern Anarchism" was downright unreadable.

Ciao. --TelemachusSneezed 21:43, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you. That was a problematic sentence. I disagree that capitalism is the private ownership of capital. The individualist anarchists support private ownership of capital. I think what makes a system capitalist is that profit is involved, in addition to private ownership of capital. But, you are right that "free market" and capitalism are not synonymous. A free market can be any system of trade that's devoid of coercion --capitalism or mutualism (the economic system of the labor theory individualists). RJII 00:18, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Capitalism is free from coercion? I disagree. The Mutual aid of Kropotkin et al ... is much more notable than mutualism (The mutualism article is mostly written by RJII). Why are you trying to replace the former with the latter RJII (and don't harp on about anarcho-communism being separate from anarchism as much as anarcho-capitalsim .. as this your warped postmodern thinking all over again) -max rspct 10:59, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate you trying to credit me for writing most of the Mutualism article, but I did not do so. RJII 13:13, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Well U started the article Mutualism (economic theory), and at least 80% of the edits are by you. I suppose your talking about wordcount?- max rspct13:46, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I created the article. It's quite possible that 80% of the edits by me since I'm a perfectionist and fine tune my edits a lot, but I definitely did not write most of the material in that article. I'd say maybe 30%-40% at the most. RJII 13:54, 29 September 2005 (UTC)