Talk:Anarchism/Archive 47

Archive 40

←

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

Archive 48

Archive 49

Archive 50

Anarcho-capitalism

This is getting very tedious. Anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron. Anarchists have already debunked anarcho-capitalism as being a contradiction. You cannot have capitalism without the existence of the state. I will also add once again that no anarchist anthology that I know of includes articles by or about anarcho-capitalists. No anarchist bookstore that I've ever been into has contained any anarcho-capitalist books. Anarcho-capitalism is a nonsensical belief system promoted by a handful of people who don't understand anarchism OR capitalism. Chuck0 23:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

There are plenty of academic sources that discuss anarcho-capitalism, positive and negative. And ancap works are readily available from many on-line bookstores. Intangible 20:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Chuck0. Having read a large number of books about anachism and by anarchist theorists, I've never come across the conflation of capitalist property systems with anarchism. It is a fringe view, rejected by the vast majority of self described anarchists as being incompatible with the philosophy. Mostlyharmless 04:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Yet your opinion is irrelevant. I could provide for a counter-argument, but that would not mean a thing as well. Might I suggest reading up on Wikipedia policy. Intangible 06:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

You've said here before that you can't have capitalism without the existence of the state. I've asked you before how you are defining capitalism, but didn't answer. How are you defining it? And how about anarcho-capitalists that call themselves "market anarchists"? Is market anarchism possible without a state? Is your dispute simply terminological?Anarcho-capitalism 16:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Isn't this discussion a little pointless? Surely whether or not anarcho-capitalism is anarchist or not is all a matter of definition. As I would define anarchism, it doesn't include anarcho-capitalism, but what is the consensus definition? josy shewell brockway 21:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

anarchism and tradition

By the logic of Libertatia, above, any anarchist that isn't of the mutualist variety is not a real anarchist because he or she broke that original tradition. This would include the communist anarchists, the individualists, the collectivists, the Chrsitian anarchists, the anarcho-syndicalists, etc. I guess since Libertatia would probably not claim this then he just disproved his own argument. Anarcho-capitalism is right. No anarchist has to follow any tradition to claim that he is an anarchist. SnowShoes ^{talk here} 22:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, no, actually. . . There is a difference, made at least a bit explicit above, between taking a position in a tradition and being a "traditionalist." In any event, I'm hoping we can move on beyond this particular aporia, which needn't prevent continuing with the anarchism pages, assuming you're intersted in that. Libertatia 22:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I am interested in that. And, sorry, all that just occurred to me while reading some of the dialogue above. No offense meant. SnowShoes ^{talk here} 22:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Why hello thewolfstar. decide to plague us with your ridiculous presence once again? at least you consistent. Blockader 17:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Careful, she might censor you.[1] And yes, I lurk. :*-( --AaronS

The non-mutualist versions of anarchism (like communist anarchism) continued the general critique of mutualism in new directions. They did not deny its basic critique of capitalism and property but rather developed them. Unlike "anarcho"-capitalism which bases itself on property concepts which Proudhon explicitly refuted in "What is Property?" BlackFlag 08:16, 01 December 2006 (UTC)

To add to what BlackFlag said, Communist and Collectivist Anarchists such as Kropotkin and Bakunin were heavily influenced by Proudhon. Mutualist and Individualist (non-capitalist) Anarchism have more in common with social anarchism than they have differences. Full Shunyata 00:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how you can say that. Individualist anarchism is for private property. Communist anarchism is anti-private property. Individualist anarchism is for money. Communist anarchism is not. Communist anarchism is not. Individualist anarchism is for markets, anarcho-communism is not. Individaulist anarchism is for private police, armies, and courts. Communist anarchism is not.Anarcho-capitalism 02:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The thing with Anarchism is, (and a lot of "An"-Caps don't seem to be getting through their heads), that anarchism is a philosophy of totality. Not simply a poltiical philosophy. Anarchism is a philosophy that is opposed to hierarchy, authoritarianism, exploitation, coercion, and inequality in all areas of life. Political, economic, social, religious, cultural, organizationl, military, etc. It's not a simple opposition to the State but not an opposition to other types of authority, hierarchy and inequality. That's why many Anarchists get into arguments with An-Caps on this board because they are simply opposed to the State but are not opposed to most of the things that every other school of Anarchism (including Individualism and Mutualism) is opposed to. Being anti-State is not enough to make one an Anarchist any more than being dark-skinned is enough to make one a Black person. Either one of two things would have to happen: 1) Anarcho-Capitalists are going to have to share more traits with every other school of Anarchism than they already do if they want to be a non-controversial school of Anarchist thought; or 2) Anarchism will have to be radically redefined from the way it has been defined for the past 200+ to simply being an opposition to the State. Full Shunyata 00:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Censorship

Is article protection. Why do you sheep put up with it? Reportersue 04:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Why do you even start writting something like this? It doesnt make any sense. Might be you got the greatest idea on how to not have it protected? Thought not! Its not like youre anymore in control just caus youre writting that line. See i can write it too: Is article protection. Why do you sheep put up with it? --Fjulle 17:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Definitional Concerns in Anarchist Theory

I took Libertatia's suggestion and started the page (stub). Definitional concerns in anarchist theory Jacob Haller 08:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Protection is a great solution

I think this is a great solution. Just lock down the article and throw away the key. This way nobody has to worry about. There hasn't been any edit warring in days. The old saying "God grant us the serenity to accept those things we cannot change..." comes to mind.Anarcho-capitalism 19:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

If thats your way of making things better then god help us! --Fjulle 00:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

talk, and grammar, and spelling

Us blackhands can sure sit around and figure everything out from every angle, but it takes commitment to the cause to go out and hoe a field, burn an SUV, or run a spellcheck on a page. Resonanteye 00:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Which I would really like to do. There are some typos, grammatical awkwardness, and also enough run-on sentences to stall Sacco and Vanzetti's legal defense fund. If the edit wars could halt, at least long enough for a copyedit, this article might improve. I know those who are invested in this subject are very verbal and capable of debating well and long, but the page itself needs some minor attentions that have nothing to do with ideology. Resonanteye

Isnt it possible to protect just parts of the article instead of all of it? That would make that needed spelling check possible! --Fjulle 19:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

You could try to contact the responsible admin with the changes you want to make. Intangible 19:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm working on a big typo/grammar edit now. as far as re-organizing, that's a bit more than I would want to take on. It needs some better structure, though, just for clarity. Remember that the majority of folks who will read this will have no idea what significance some of these debates have. They just want to find out something about anarchism. I'll edit up tomorrow, after my day off. But I've got it in wordpad now, so...wish me luck. Resonanteye 11:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Good luck :) --Fjulle 13:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I showed up to respond to the {{editprotected}} request, but couldn't find what you wanted an admin to change. If you have a specific typo to fix, say what and where, and replace the template. If you have 20 typos to fix, make a fixed copy of the page in your user space, link to it here, and replace the template. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Almost through, sorry it's been so long but the difficulty of the dense text in addition to solstice celebrations kept me running slowly--- Resonanteye 22:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Just like that

Well, we're unprotected again, and no closer to a real solution to our persistent problems. There is obviously some support for the restructuring I've proposed, but no consensus. My thought is that all parties, including our readers, are best served by an end, to the extent it is possible, to all of the working at cross-purposes that we have been doing. I would like to see well done and accurate pages on Molinari as much as on Proudhon, Rothbard as much as Kropotkin or de Cleyre, etc. I'd like to see concise "criticism" sections throughout the anarchism pages. The rules of Wikipedia are not exactly an aid in creating solid, scholarly pages on subjects like anarchism which have not received all that much serious published attention. We need, I think, to adopt at least some of what I have proposed above to give ourselves and our readers a fighting chance at getting really high quality information. fwiw. Libertatia 20:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I avoid editting on this article because of the ongoing conflict but, for what it's worth, I'd support your proposal. - N1h1l 00:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Anarcho-Capitalism/Right-Anarchism

At this point we really have to ask why anarcho-capitalism et al is folded into the article because of the gulf demonstrated by edit wars and comments. The problem is that anarcho-capitalism and other forms of right-anarchism are the only branches of anarchism with no strong historical commonalities. In other words, you have global left/postleft-anarchism on one hand, and you have a set of largely American political philosophies on the other. I can't see any way in which both of them could or should be a part of any detailed article without misleading the reader. And given the tone of the discussion and certain edits, it seems clear to me that the inclusion of right-anarchism in the core anarchism article is the result of an activist agenda in action.

This means that any edit has to refrain from somehow questioning the anarchist part of the right-anarchist designation, while denying an agenda whose intent is less to inform than to popularize and create the illusion of a broad, global political philosophy. AFAIAC, that means a short article on anarchism proper pointing to detailed, broad treatments of left and right-anarchism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shootingdice (talk • contribs).

And what? Youre obviously having your own activist agenda, to make sure right-anarchism is left forgotten and that your lovely left/postleft-anarchism is recognized as THE anarchism. You make me sick with your appeal to anarchism and to censorship at the same time! Anarcho-capitalism is presented under individualist anarchism, and critizied as well there! What you are running for sounds like control over the existence of a minority, a minority thats clearly just that, instead of developing, controlling your thoughts and getting at their philosophy by arguing against their arguments ... Oh and did i forget, do it somewhere else than Wikipedia! It doesnt belong here! --Fjulle 13:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Fjulle, "Anarcho"-Capitalism is listed under the Individalist Anarchism banner and criticized there as well because Anarcho-capitalists are the ones who claimed they are part of that tradition. Individualist Anarchists did not invite them under that banner, An-caps put themselves under it to give their philosophy an air of legitimacy as an Anarchist philosophy. That's why many an-caps on this board are fighting so hard to ride the coattails of that tradition, it's the only thing that gives them any ties to Anarchism other than the name of their tradition. Personally I think "Anarcho-Capitalists" are just Neoliberals who want to privatize the State functions along with everything else in the economy and so call themselves "Anarchists" simply because they claim to be against the State. But that's just me and I'm not here to push that POV on the article pages. I just wish others would do the same and stop pushing pro-capitalist and pro-an-cap POVs on pages. Full Shunyata 00:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

You don't speak for anarcho-capitalists. I care nothing about the "tradition." I don't want to be a part of the "tradition." I don't need to be part of a tradition to be an anarchist. I don't seek "legitimacy" from "anarcho"-commmunists. I don't care whether they think I'm a real anarchist or not, because I don't think they are real anarchists. But, the link between 19th century individualists anarchism is obvious. They are both "market anarchists." Both support the security functions of the state to be privatized. That's the definition of market anarchism. "According to market anarchism, all the fundamental institutions necessary for the market to function - money, police protection, and even justice - would themselves be for sale on the market." (Lavoie, Don. Democracy, Markets, and the Legal Order: Notes on the Nature of Politics in a Radically Liberal Society. Published in Liberalism and the Economic Order, by G. Tyler Miller. Cambridge University Press, 1993. p. 115)Anarcho-capitalism 03:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

"You don't speak for anarcho-capitalists." I know. Just like you don't speak for Tuckerites, Spoonerites and Mutualits. "I care nothing about the "tradition." I don't want to be a part of the "tradition."" I don't quite believe you here. If you don't care anything about tradition, why do you refuse to define socialism out of the "common" or "traditional" understanding as "state ownership"? Why are you unwilling to part from tradition or majority opinion (you being such an 'individalist' and all) on what "socialism" is? Why do you care so much about whether or not mutualists and individualists oppose the "past/traditional" or "current" definition of capitalism? "I don't seek "legitimacy" from "anarcho"-commmunists." Anarcho-Communists are not the only anarchists opposed to "Anarcho"-capitalism. If you haven't gotten that through your head yet, then you are very ignorant on Anarchist issues. Your whole thing about anyone who opposed "Anarcho"-Capitalism must be a communist anarchist or at least a social anarchist sounds very McCarthyite of you. Believe you me that I have Individualist and Mutualist Anarchists friends who are more opposed to "anarcho"-capitalism than I am. This isn't just a "communist" thing. "But, the link between 19th century individualists anarchism is obvious. They are both "market anarchists." And no one has ever denied such. But to be a market anarchist is not equivalent to supporting capitalism. Being a market system is not synonymous with being a capitalist system just as having a planned system is not synonymous with being a state socialist system. I've never argued that Individualists (non-capitalist) and Mutualists don't believe in markets. What I have argued is whether or not belief in markets makes them capitalists. I argue "No" because they have many differences with anarcho-capitalism (aside from the LTV, which some mutualists and individualists don't believe in) that are significant enough to make them non-capitalist or socialist. One being their belief in workers' self-management. And I know many who would agree although I'm sure you could pick some Individualist Anarchists who are more friendly towards "Anarcho"-capitlalism who would argue otherwise. Full Shunyata 02:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

You don't know how market anarchism is defined, obviously. Market anarchism is defined as a philosophy that supports the market itself providing police, armies, etc to protect the market. Modern individualists (anarcho-capitalists) and 19th century individualists who were confused by the labor theory of value both favor this. That's why they're both market anarchists. That's all it takes to be a market anarchism - to believe that the security functions of the state should be replaced with private institutions and private funding. Pro-capitalism or anti-capitalism has nothing to do with it.Anarcho-capitalism 02:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

"You don't know how market anarchism is defined, obviously." I like how when someone disagrees with you, you resort to snide remarks like "You don't know [insert X], obviously." As if you are the ultimate authority on all subjects and anything that disagrees with your narrow definitions is therefore, hitherto incorrect. I am an active and very well-educated Anarchist and I am completely familiar with what market anarchism is. I have 'Market Anarchist' friends in real life. "Market anarchism is defined as a philosophy that supports the market itself providing police, armies, etc to protect the market." Depends on who you talk to. I don't hear my Individualist and Mutualist friends saying stuff like that. The people I usually hear talking about such issues are Randites and Rothbarians. "Modern individualists (anarcho-capitalists)" So anti-capitalist Individualists today are less modern? Even as a non-Individualist Anarchist, I find the fact that you use "modern individualism" as a synonym for the capitalist school of anarchism to be very insulting. It's like equating being a social anarchist with being an anarcho-communist. "who were confused by the labor theory of value both favor this" Ha, you just can't accept that there is an anti-capitalist/non-capitalist branch of Individualism (which is arguably older), can you? The Individualist dissent against capitalism is far deeper than a petty LTV. Not all Individualists and Mutualists believe in the LTV. One of the key things that seperates them from capitalism, as I said before, is their belief in workers' self-management. But you are so deep into redefining those schools to include them under the banner of "anarcho-capitalism" that you don't really seem to know what they believe outside of your convenient revisions and selective quotes from Spooner and Labadie. "That's why they're both market anarchists. That's all it takes to be a market anarchism - to believe that the security functions of the state should be replaced with private institutions and private funding." I know, and I've never disagreed with this. Market Anarchism is a very vague term that includes different and sometimes contradictory schools. However, the definition of 'private property' is an issue of disagreement between "An"-caps and Individualists and Mutualists. "An"-caps define things like combs up to large businesses as "property" where as Indies and Mutualists define "property" as 'means of production' pretty much (similar to Marxists whom you despise). "An"-caps have no problem with one-man management or propertyless workers who don't own or have any control over their workplace where as Indies and Mutualists do have a problem with such. "Pro-capitalism or anti-capitalism has nothing to do with it." Support for the market is not enough to make one a capitalist. There are socialist forms of the market system just as there are non-laissez faire forms of capitalism such as Keynesianism and Fascism. You argue with anarchists on this discussion page who are Individualists (I suspect User:Libertatia is one) who obviously are not capitalists in any meaningful sense of the word. Perhaps instead of trying to lecture me, a very well-read and dedicated Anarchist (and one who fully supports "Anarchism Without Adjectives") on what market anarchism is, you should go meet and talk with some outside of selective texts and academia essays. I have non-cap Individualist and Mutualist friends (both casual and organizational) in real life and at infoshop meetings (in person) and online forums. Most of them are no more capitalism-friendly than I. Full Shunyata 09:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

To add to that, I also found this point from User:Anarcho-capitalism to be rather damning, "Market anarchism is defined as a philosophy that supports the market itself providing police, armies, etc to protect the market." That says it all right there. Mr. "Anarcho-capitalism" is not opposed to the functions of the State. He simply wants them to be privatized and carried out by private institutions. His "anarchism" amounts to simply being opposed to the State (but rejecting almost every other cornerstone of anarhcist philosophy such as egalitarianism) because he thinks the State carries out functions that private institutiions on the market should be doing instead. As long as private firms are the ones owning police and court systems throwing people in jail and waging army wars, and not that nasty old State, it's all good. That reminds me of an old anarchist proverb, "From the point of view of a worker, it doesn't matter whether the force oppressing them is a capitalist hammer or called the 'Hammer of the People' (state socialism). Oppression is oppression." Anarchists know, and "an"-caps need to get this idea through their head, that the State, like the market, is an ACTIVITY, not an ENTITY. Just because you don't call something a "state" does not make it any less so as long as it carries out the activities of a State. If it walks like a duck, if it talks like a duck, if it looks like a duck.........

Just for good measure, let's take a look at what privatized police forces owned by "the market" (actually private firms, not the market system as whole) do in reality as opposed to "anarcho-capitalist" theory:

http://mediafilter.org/caq/CAQ54p.police.html

Yeah, as long as private companies run the police isntead of the nasty ole State, everything is gonna be alright...Full Shunyata 16:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

"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." (Victor Yarros) "[Anarchism] does not exclude prisons, officials, military, or other symbols of force. It merely demands that non-invasive men shall not be made the victims of such force. Anarchism is not the reign of love, but the reign of justice. It does not signify the abolition of force-symbols but the application of force to real invaders." (Benjamin Tucker) Some of what the State does is good (non-aggressive functions, such as protecting property and body from criminals,) some of what the State does it bad (aggression, including theft of property). Completely privatize what the State does that is good. That's market anarchism. "Anarcho"-communism provides no mechanism to protect people from criminals. But of course, that's because "anarcho"-communism is a philosophy of criminality itself. It's the anarcho-communists that the individualists need to be protected from, as well as from the State.Anarcho-capitalism 18:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

""Anarchism means no government but it does not mean no laws and no coercion." I never said that Anarchism meas no laws. All anarchist societies had laws. But, Anarchism DOES mean an end to coercion. Coercion is the bitter mote of inequality and hierarchy which create authoritarianism. The basis of the State is coercion (specifically protection and governance). You should also know that we anarchists don't give a damn about dictionary definitions. The dictionary is not "academic" anywhere beyond the 7th grade, so I sure as hell won't confine myself to dictionary definitions. "Completely privatize what the State does that is good. That's market anarchism." Well, that's part of a specific market "anarchist" ideology called 'Anarcho-capitalism'. In Individualist and Mutualist Anarchism, militaries and police are different. They are owned by worker-owned cooperatives (and we can assume the workers at cooperatives live in the communties of the forces they own). But anyway, thank you for admitting what your 'anarchism' is all about. It's not "anarchism" at all, it's simply a form of Neoliberalism that wishes to privatize the State functions but doesn't fundamentallly disagree with them. You confirmed my beliefs that you and those like you are not Anarchists. You are simply Neoliberals who want to hand the State over to private capitalists. This is a perfect time to quote Donald Rooum. "There are self-styled "anarcho-capitalists" (not to be confused with anarchists of any persuasion), who want the state abolished as a regulator of capitalism, and government handed over to capitalists." --Donald Rooum "Anarcho"-communism provides no mechanism to protect people from criminals." You don't know jack about anarcho-communism, so you should really keep quiet about it until you learn more about it. Anarcho-communists believe in community-owned police and voluntary militaries rather than State or private militaries. Read up on the Ukranian anarchist military. "It's the anarcho-communists that the individualists need to be protected from, as well as from the State." Haha, more of your paranoid McCarthyism. Of course "anarcho"-capitalists need to protect themselves against worker revolutions. Bosses should be afraid of the workers they make money off of by selling the products of labor of their employees. That's why, when it comes to property, "anarhco"-capitalists are no different from state-enforced capitalists or Fascists. The only difference is who owns the militaries. Fascists use the State and 'an'-caps use privately-hired goons. That's it. I think it's apparent for all here to see that you are most definitely NOT an Anarchist. Unless anarchism can be reduced to the dictionary definition of simply being "anti-state" (although you are not anti-state, you just want to privatize it). But thanks again for breaking down and admitting your true motives. I appreciate it. Your strand of "anarchism" is simply an ideology that seeks to protect the privileges of management. For all your anti-Communist ranting, you are essentially not much different than Lenin when it comes to workplace organization. He too believed in one-man management in which workers are required to give themselves to their bosses. You can fool some people some of the time but not all the time. Full Shunyata 00:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

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." (Victor Yarros) Coercion is perfectly compatible with anarchism. It's aggressive coercion that is not. Defensive coercion is fine. "Anarcho"-communism is an aggressive philosophy that seeks to deprive individuals of the product of their labor and trade through aggressive coercion. Market anarchism seeks to protect non-thieves from "anarcho"-communists and the state. "One of the tests of any reform movement with regard to personal liberty is this: Will the movement prohibit or abolish private property? If it does, it is an enemy of liberty. For one of the most important criteria of freedom is the right to private property in the products of ones labor. State Socialists, Communists, Syndicalists and Communist-Anarchists deny private property." (Clarence Lee Swartz) Anarcho-capitalism 01:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

"Anarchism means no government but it does not mean no laws and no coercion. This may seem paradoxical" Please stop arguing against a point I never made. I said that Anarchism means no state government, no coercion but still the existence of laws. The only part of your statement that I argued against was the coercion part. Coercion is the basis of hierarchy and statism. Coercion would cause some people to have to limit their freedom and submit to the will of other people. Thus, creating the basis for hierarchy and the State to arise again. As for the whole taxation thing, you are burrying yourself deeper and deeper showing how you are in no form an "anarchist". NO school of Anarchism (not even Individualist and Mutualist anarchism) call for taxes. Taxes are the income of the STATE. If taxes are being paid, that means they are being paid to a state-like entity. Like I said, the State is an ACTIVITY, not an ENTITY. You can call it a "private defense association" or whatever, but if it still acts like the state (collecting taxes, working at the behest of an elite group or individual above the people, etc.) IT'S A DAMN STATE. No matter what you call it. Just like you can put bunny ears on a dog and claim it's a rabbit, but it's still a damn dog. ""Anarcho"-communism is an aggressive philosophy that seeks to deprive individuals of the product of their labor and trade through aggressive coercion." I think you have it the other way around. "Anarcho"-capitalists are the ones who argue that if workers don't own their tools, they have no right to the product of labor. They have no problem with propertyless workers giving their liberty and products of labor to a private property-owner to be sold on the market. Anarcho-communists are against the idea of labor altogether. We don't believe in ownership, we believe in usership. Things should be controlled by whoever is using them at the time or by whoever things are being produced for. We don't believe in submitting our liberty to private capitalists, we like our individual freedom just fine, thank you. I don't want to give up my freedom to become a worker drone or become someone else's boss. "Market anarchism seeks to protect non-thieves from "anarcho"-communists and the state." Stop lumping "market anarchism" together. We've already established that 'market anarchism' is a vague term with various and contradictory philosophies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Anarchism#What_is_.22Market_Anarchism.3F.22). And we've also established the difference between Anarcho-Capitalism and Anarcho-Socialism. You sound plum ignorant and I'm sure many anarchists on this board are laughing at you. You argue with 'market anarchists' all the time here (like User:Libertatia and User:PhilLiberty) who are obviously not capitalists of any sort. Socialist Market Anarchism seeks to give control of the market to workers. "Anarcho"-capitalists are pro-management property thieves who want to hoard property and force the propertyless to work it for them so they can make money from their employees. Then protect the stolen property with their own private totalitarian state forces. "State Socialists, Communists, Syndicalists and Communist-Anarchists deny private property." We only oppose private ownership of things that are used for public production (such as means of production). We are not opposed to private ownership of things that people use to produce for themselves. In fact, we are opposed to all forms of ownership as a mythology. We believe in usage or possession (which can be social possession or private possession). I'm sorry, repeating "Anarcho"-capitalist propaganda will not save you from the fact that your ideology (or at least your particular brand of "Anarcho"-capitalism) is not anarchism and is quite authoritarian (if not totalitarian). You can repeat the same lines over and over until you turn blue in the face. It won't make them any more true. Quite frankly you're just making yourself look like a programmed robot. Full Shunyata 01:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

"Voluntary taxation" is simply a way of speaking - it's not to imply that it's actual taxation. All it means is that instead of being taxed to protect our bodies and property, we voluntarily pay people to protect us. That's market anarchism. As far as the rest of your rant, I don't really feel like reading it. I only read a sentence or two when you reply to me because you're writings are frankly a big incoherent mess. So you're better off not even replying unless it's only a sentence or two. Just a word of advice so you don't waste your time.Anarcho-capitalism 03:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

"Voluntary taxation" is simply a way of speaking - it's not to imply that it's actual taxation. All it means is that instead of being taxed to protect our bodies and property, we voluntarily pay people to protect us." In other words a *dramatic music* STATE. That's exactly the same MO of state goverments. Which is one of the main reasons I'm very wary of "anarcho-capitalism". An-caps disagree with about 3/4 of the cornerstones of every other anarchist philosophy (such as non-coercion, egalitarianism, etc.) and have a reputatoin of being some of the most prominent defenders of Management against Labor. "That's market anarchism." That's one particular market 'anarchist' philosophy ("anarcho"-capitalism). The same can't be said for all market anarchist philosophies. Just like all social anarchist philosophies do not reject the concept of ownership like anarcho-communists do (anarcho-communism is the only social anarchist philosophy that rejects the concept of ownership). You shouldn't lump all market anarchist theories together just like you shouldn't lump all social anarchist theories together as "anarcho-communism". The anarchist world is bigger than that. Some market anarchist philosophies are market socialism while others are market capitalist. Some social anarchist theories are socialist while others are communist (yes, there is a difference). Some social anarchist theories even accept the market, there is a more recent form of anarchism that is a melding of Mutualism and Parecon. "So you're better off not even replying unless it's only a sentence or two. Just a word of advice so you don't waste your time." Yes, at times my writings can seem frantic lately because I'm in the middle of writing essays right now. Full Shunyata 04:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

No, support of private defense is not "just one particular market anarchist philsophy." It's all market anarchist philosophy, by definition. By definition, market anarchists support privately funded defense of person and property - what you're erroneously calling a state. A state taxes. If I ask you for money to protect you and your property, I'm not a state. If you don't want to purchase my services, fine - you just won't receive them then. Benjamin Tucker explained: ""[D]efense is a service like any other service; that it is labor both useful and desired, and therefore an economic commodity subject to the law of supply and demand; that in a free market this commodity would be furnished at the cost of production; that, competition prevailing, patronage would go to those who furnished the best article at the lowest price; that the production and sale of this commodity are now monopolized by the State; and that the State, like almost all monopolists, charges exorbitant prices." If you want to call voluntarily funded defense a "state" that's up to you. But it's not proper terminology. You need to realize that there is a difference between a business and a state.Anarcho-capitalism 06:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

And theres differences as well, important ones, and the article pt. des a great job at that! Its in oeverybodys interesset to get all the different scenarios when trying to reach an idea about a better society, that means the ideas you dont agree with as well. --Fjulle 13:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

When speaking about market anarchism id like to remove the many from the sentence "Most individualists are market anarchists.[citation needed]Most individualists are market anarchists." since it is not a quote ... any objections? --Fjulle 13:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

That's fine. I put that in because I thought it was obvious. I could be wrong though.Anarcho-capitalism 22:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

No need to jump to assumptions. How are they appealing to anarchism? What indication is there that the user above is an anarchist? If anything the above user seems to be trying to look at the article from a broader perspective. Personal attacks are highly unnecessary. Owen 20:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Theres a need to turn personal attacks around an right back, cauz if its done well nothing has come out of it! That was what i was trying to do, to use his own retorics against himself(or herself) ... --Fjulle 13:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

What is "Market Anarchism?"

"Market Anarchism" doesn't mean "Anarcho-Capitalism." On the face of it, "Market Anarchism" would include all anarchist systems with primarily market economies, as opposed to anarchist systems with primarily gift economies, primarily communist economies, Parecon, etc. That would exclude anarcho-communism, not really categorize collectivism, and include early mutualism, later mutualism, geoanarchism, agorism, etc. The proponents of these models are often opponents of capitalism. Jacob Haller 02:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Market Anarchism is a vague category that includes all anarchist schools of thought that believe the market should be the economic system of anarchism. "Market Anarchism" spans all the way form 'Anarcho'-Capitalism to Anarcho-Socialism such as Individualist and Mutualist Anarchism. Some would even argue that Parecon, which is basically a modernized 21st century form of Collectivist Anarchism, is a type of market system. The thing is, there is no uniform agreement on what a market system should be like, so it can range from a capitalist market controlled by private owners, to a socialist market where independent propertied producers [laborers/workers] merge together to form employee-owned cooperative companies. If there is an article on market anarchism, it should include the various anarchist market philosophies. Some of them support capitalism, like "Anarcho"-Capitalists, Agorists and such. Others, such as Indies, Mutualists and some Green Anarchists, are opposed to capitalism and could be considered a stateless form of "market socialists". Capitalism does not have a monopoly (no pun intended) on the market system. Full Shunyata 02:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Add to that that there is some diversity in the definition of "capitalism" among an-caps. Libertatia 03:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that too. The definition of "capitalism" among 'an'-caps is obviously very different than the Agorist or Randite definition of "capitalism". Full Shunyata 16:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Definition anarcho-capitalists use is just the normal everyday commonly-accepted mainstream definition: "an economic system characterized by private or corporation ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision rather than by state control, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly in a free market." (Merriam-Webster, unabridged) It's the definition pretty much everybody uses today, including Randians.Anarcho-capitalism 18:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Still using the dictionary, I see. Jeez man, only on Wikipedia. Nowhere else in any place of academia would a dictionary be accepted as "scholarly research". Only on Wikipedia would someone think they could get away using sources that wouldn't even be accepted by an 8th grade teacher. *shaking head* Full Shunyata 02:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary Third International Unabridged Dictionary is a superb scholarly source.Anarcho-capitalism 03:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Ha. I tried to use that dictionary as a source for a 10th grade article I wrote. It was automatically rejected by teacher who straight up told me that dictionaries are not considered valid sources after middle school. Last year a person in my college used it as a source several times and their report was automatically downgraded. If you think dictionaries or encyclopedias count as "scholarly sources" anywhere in the academic world, you are sorely mistaken. Even now in college they are viewed as the scholarly equivalent of a Geocities or Angelfire website. Full Shunyata 04:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

What better source for a definition than one of the most respected dictionaries in the world? Anyway, all I did was point out that that was the definition of capitalism that anarcho-capitalists and most everyone else accepts. I wasn't providing as a source for the article anyway, so I don't know what your problem is. I was just mentioning that we anarcho-capitalists use the mainstream definition of capitalism and as an example of such a definition I gave the definition from one of the most widely consulted dictionaries in the world. If a definition from that dictionary is not commonly accepted, then I don't know what is.Anarcho-capitalism 05:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, most capitalists do not believe that capitalism can be done without a State. And there isn't a consensus amongst capitalists on how exactly to achieve a "free market", let alone a "perfect market". Capitalists can range from European social democrats and Christian democrats to Keynesians, Neoliberals, Neoconservatives, Libertarians and 'Anarcho'-Capitalists. I don't think they all have the same view of capitalism. Just like Marxists and Mutualists don't have the same concept of socialism and Marxist-Leninists and Anarcho-Communists don't have the same concept of communism. Full Shunyata 05:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

But capitalism is defined as a non-statist system. The means of production are owned privately, as opposed to by the state. And pricing, distribution, production is determined by the private sector rather than by the state. Most think you need a state (an entity that taxes) to protect people and their property. Individualists (market anarchists to be precise) think it can be done by the private sector. But, the definition is the same. It's a private system, as opposed to a state system.Anarcho-capitalism 05:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

A quick comment: it depends on your definition of "state." Even Merriam-Webster, which you seem to prefer as your chief academic resource, is ambiguous on the matter. Anarcho-capitalists attempt to slip by this by claiming that states, by definition, must tax. But, clearly, this is not a necessary part of the definition. If one were to employ your dictionary standard, then we have several definitions that do note bode well for anarcho-capitalists: "a body of persons constituting a special class in a society," "a politically organized body of people usually occupying a definite territory; especially : one that is sovereign," and so on. Most scholars, I would say, would call a "state" any institution whose monopoly on violence is widely regarded as legitimate. Any of these definitions would include the property owner. Thus, any system of ownership probably immediately implies the existence of some kind of state. Of course, a dictionary would not tell you that, because that's not what a dictionary is for. --AaronS 19:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

And non-static systems cant work in relation with static systems? But today theres both capitalist companies and states all in one big mess, together. Id say thats a very much different definition on non-statism as an attribute to capitalism than the one your giving us, right? How come it is false, if you are right? If you add this line: ", which cannot function properly in relation with static systems." you got you view of capitalism, what, in your perspective, is the right definition. This is how wikipedia is supposed to function right? --Fjulle 23:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Labor for Labor, Value for Value

I think the following passage (in the Ancap section) should be removed. The most obvious reading is false, though less obvious readings are true. By putting "labor for labor" next to "value for value" this suggests that "labor for labor" contradicts "value for value." AFAIK, "labor for labor" simply means trading labor for labor, regardless of different amounts, just as "goods for goods" simply means trading goods for goods, regardless of different kinds. It can be extended to other barter as well as independent-currency trades. AFAIK, "value for value," depends on the sense of value, which may mean anything from immediate utility to replacement cost. I suspect most non-communist anarchists and non-communist libertarians (from collectivists though whomever) would support both "labor for labor" and "value for value" in some sense of each term. Jacob Haller 06:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

"Whereas Tucker believed trade should take place on the basis of "labor for labor," anarcho-capitalists see nothing wrong with trading "value for value.""

I agree it's unclear, so I went ahead and removed it.Anarcho-capitalism 17:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks. There's definitely some differences between different traditions here so if you can find better words that might help. Jacob Haller 21:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

voluntary and compulsary communism

If the "utopian communism" to which Proudhon was objecting is in some sense "voluntary," it is not so in the same sense that the "voluntary communism" of the anarchist communists is supposed to be. That is, it is hard to interpret Cabet's communism as libertarian, which is what Tucker means when he draws the line. Wording needs work, but the distinction also needs to be made. Libertatia 02:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

In What Is Property?, where he makes one of the criticisms of "communism," he lists a range of projects all anarchists would consider "authoritarian" (and all, of course, pre-anarchist-communism.) Tucker refers to Proudhon's statement about the "religion of poverty and slavery." Any idea where that was originally? Libertatia 02:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I've tried to be NPOV in editing this section. I certainly don't have any personal axe to grind for communism. Vision Thing has raised some questions about the terms "libertarian communist" and "anarchist communist," and cited a a Wikipedia definition that makes the latter a subset of the former, with council communism one of the forms of the former not included in the latter. Fair enough. But that doesn't change the sense of the Carson quote, which suggests that the members of the broader category will have to cooperate in the "panarchy" he sees emerging eventually. Libertatia 23:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that both the communism and capitalism sections are improved as of late. Congrats, Blockader 18:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you provide Tucker's quote from Liberty, which you have used to support the claim: "Most schools of anarchism have recognized a distinction between libertarian and authoritarian forms of communism, and consistently oppose the latter."? I'm aware that Tucker made a distinction between compulsory and voluntary communism, but he defined compulsory form of communism as the one that opposes private property. I think that that excludes most, if not all, anarcho-communists. -- Vision Thing -- 20:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I've scanned the piece (on another machine) and should be able to post it tomorrow. But I think you've misconstrued the issue for Tucker. There's no libertarian argument against opposition, nor against genuinely voluntary community of property, beyond the fact that it seems like a bad idea to some of us more market-inclined types. Those who have said that they would enforce a ban on private property are the compulsary communists. Tucker makes the connection between "compulsory communism" and "statecraft" explicit, and refers to Bismarck as his exemplar of compulsary communism. His counter-example is William Harrison Riley, who wrote, in the same issue, of a communism in which the "right to secede" would be recognized. Speculation about what percentage of contemporary anarchist communists recognize that right is OR, but most of them that I know explicitly acknowledge it. There aren't many Johann Mosts left around. More OR, but something to consider anyway: the "compulsary communism" most threatening in Tucker's time was probably Edward Bellamy's Nationalism or similar schemes. Anyway, I'll try to get the Riley piece scanned and post both online. Libertatia 21:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

From this it follows that Tucker excluded not just Most, but also Kropotkin and Emma Goldman from ranks of anarchist. Am I misreading something? -- Vision Thing -- 21:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

From the same source: "As for the believers in voluntary Communism (of whom there are precious few), they are of necessity believers in the liberty to hold private property, for to pool one's possessions with those of others is nothing more or less than an exercise of proprietorship." Tucker is playing semantic games here, saying that all voluntary association is support for "private property." We can follow his argument, but we wouldn't all accept his terms. We know that "private property" is a loaded term. You have to make a guess what point Tucker thinks he's scoring here. Did Kropotkin refuse the "right to secede" or just the term "private property"? In any event, this nicely shows that Tucker, even when he was most frustrated with the communists, nevertheless maintained the voluntary communism category in his thinking. What a formula: voluntary communism is the exercise of private property rights. I think we call that "flame-bait" now. Libertatia 21:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Private property can mean two things: property owned by the individual or property owned by anyone but the state (the latter meaning is common in popular usage). The physical belongings of corporations are collectively owned, but they're considered private property too in the latter sense. So, Tucker seems to be switching his definition of the term late in life to the sense of all that is owned but not owned by the state.Anarcho-capitalism 22:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I think Tucker is actually following a fairly conventional line here. If I have complete control over my property, then I can combine it voluntarily with yours just as legitimately as I can destroy it (or use and abuse it in any other way.) The problem is that there are lots of understandings of "property" or "possession" quite different from Tucker's under which a genuinely voluntary communism could occur, including the denial of "property" in any form. He wants to be able to claim that anyone who is really an anarchist simply can't oppose "private property." But he doesn't prove his point. The argument is interesting. Just yesterday, I was asking a non-anarchist communist how production and distribution decisions got made, without recourse to central authority, without using some sort of "market." But I acknowledged that I was allowing the notion of "market" a lot of breadth. Libertatia 23:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

That makes more sense. I think that's in line with what he was saying. But I don't see any logical possibility of voluntary communism because they claim that the world's resources are owned by everyone in common. That's a basic premise of communism. If that's the case, then there is no right to private property because you would be stealing from humanity. I see no compatibility with individualism; they're in fundamental contradiction. The individualist conception is that the world's resources are not owned in common by everyone. Therefore, to take them as private property is not stealing. The only "voluntary communism" compatible with individualist anarchism would be a situation, like Tucker says, where a group of people pool their resources and at the same time acknowlege or allow a right to private property. They would have to allow a right of private property in order for them to allow us individualists to practice our system. So, truly voluntary communism has to acknowledge a right to private property. And, that's odd, because that would make them not communists. Any anarcho-communists who denies a right to private property cannot be a "voluntary communist." I don't know if this is exactly Tucker's point, but I think he would agree with me. Anarcho-capitalism 18:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The only thing necessary to voluntary communism is a right to secede, hopefully with pre-arranged conditions. This should be true according to almost any set of beliefs about property. If you believe in an absolute right to property, then it's clear that you can do anything with it, including pool it with others' property. In fact, the consistent propertarian may, somewhat ironically, have the easiest time justifying voluntary communism. For those who do not accept the justifications for that absolute sort of property, the associated problems don't become any more or less thorny in a community-of-property situation. Someone who doesn't believe there is any justification for "private property" can still enter into voluntary relations with others, who may or may not agree in that regard, as long as the right to secede is acknowledged. (As you know from earlier exchanges, I remain unconvinced by the standard justifications for absolute property, and find myself much closer to Proudhon's concern with the "aims" of the property relation. So I don't "believe in private property" in the sense that you do, but it doesn't make me a communist, nor does it prevent me from entering any sort of voluntary association—nor would it necessarily make much difference in our interactions. You might never know.) Anyway, Tucker, like Bakunin in the other quote, is most concerned with state communism. Libertatia 18:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

See me response below in regard to communism. If there is a right to cecede then there is the right to private property.Anarcho-capitalism 19:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

As far as your support for "possession" that's not compatible with anarcho-capitalism at all; the two systems apparently cannot coexist. That says that if I'm not using something I purchased, or acquired through my labor, then you can come along take it and I would have no right to stop you. Would a you allow someone in your system to cecede, to choose to prevent others from taking the product of his labor and trade whether he's using it or not? If so, then you're not different from an anarcho-capitalist because as anarcho-capitalists recognizes a right for you and a group of others to practice such a system voluntarily. But, I don't think the reverse is true at all. Tucker, for example, did not accept a right of people to defend land they're worked for or purchased if they were not using it. That's why anarcho-capitalist is more anarchistic. Anarcho-capitalists will allow you, as well as communists to cede, but the reverse is not true. "Anarcho-capitalism" is in some ways a misnomer, because it's not at all saying that everything has to be capitalist. It just says that individuals have the right to practice free-market capitalism if they wish.Anarcho-capitalism 19:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Tucker is in some sense simply not making a lot of sense. You and BlackFlag and I could decide to pool our resources with the right to secede from our "commune" made explicit. We would have, I suspect, three very different senses of what "rights to property" actually exist, but these would not in any way prevent us from entering the arrangement and successfully coexisting as long as it served our interests. If this is, as Tucker claimed, necessarily support for "private property," then it expands the notion to include understandings most advocates would disavow. Libertatia 22:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Tucker is making sense. If anarcho-communists acknowlege a right to cecede from an anarcho-communist system, to establish private property including in the means of production, then they acknowledge a right to private property. But, whowever heard of an "anarcho"-communist acknowledge that individuals do have such a right to private property? If there is such a creature, can he legitimately call himself a communist? I don't think so. Individualist anarchists (including anarcho-capitalists) acknowledge a right to commmunist and individualist property as long as it was acquired without coercion or fraud. Individualists acknowlege a right to "voluntary communism" if there is such a thing, but "anarcho"-communists do not acknowledge a right to voluntary private ownership of the means of production. Who is the real anarchist? It's the individualist. Anarcho-capitalism 19:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

You seem to assume that communists are the sort of "creature" who will always force their beliefs on others. You also assume a much more uniform understanding of "property rights" among individualists than actually exists or has existed. All anarchists worthy of the name recognize rights to voluntary association. If you want to go play proprietor over there, in a non-invasive way, why would any anarchist object? Acknowledging your "right" to do any number of things, some of them foolish, doesn't imply any special sanction for those things. Libertatia 19:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok then, find me an "anarcho"-communist that acknowledges a right to private ownership of the means of production, a right to trade labor for wages," and a right profit. There is no such thing as an anarcho-communists that acknolwedges a right to these things. If any anarcho-communists acknowledges a right to cecede from an anarcho-communist system then he naturally acknowleges a right to free market capitalism.Anarcho-capitalism 19:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

You're the one who is always quick to claim that anarchism entails nothing but opposition to government. Now you seem to believe that "real anarchists" have to adopt your theory of property (and associated) "rights." If, "after the revolution," there are conflicts between communities with different property standards, I'm guessing anarcho-capitalists will be as likely to engage in invasive behavior as anarcho-communists. The rest of us have already come to terms to some extent with the fact that property "rights" are really just widely accepted standards. Tucker quite correctly recognizes that voluntary communism is possible, and then redefines "belief in private property" in a way that strict propertarians like yourself should find woefully inadequate, in order to score points against political enemies. It's a clever rhetorical move, but it's an absolutely horrible argument. Sometimes Tucker the Controversialist and Sectarian tripped up Tucker the Clear Thinker. Libertatia 21:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's get something straight. Anarchism is any philosophy that opposes the state, as far as what this article can claim is anarchism. That's my point with that. I am saying that not my or anyone else's POV should be pushed as to what is or isn't anarchism in the article. It's my personal belief that only anarcho-capitalism is true anarchism. "Anarcho"-communism and mutualism (in that it doesn't allow people to protect purchased land and houses from being taken when they're not using them) are authoritarian in my opinion. I am not going to assert my personal belief on what is or isn't real anarchism in the article. Ok then. Tucker does correctl reoganize that voluntary communism is "possible," but like he says there are few if any such voluntary communists. "Anarcho"-communists are actually not voluntary communists. They deny a right to private property. They deny that there is a right to private ownership of the means of production, for example. That means that there is no right for a group of people to "cecede" and partition out formerlly collectively owned means of production into private ownership. A right to cecede would be an acknowlegement of the right to free market capitalism.Anarcho-capitalism 21:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's a flame-bait. I agree with that line of thought – only kind of communism which is acceptable to people concerned with liberty is the one which is created by people who are willing to share their property with others. In anarcho-capitalist society such form of communism would be completely legitimate. -- Vision Thing -- 11:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about the delay in posting this. Here's the Tucker piece:

Two Kinds of Communism.

We do not believe in communism in the economic sense of the word. To us it seems, for many reasons, an impossible and undesirable form of society. Proudhon described it accurately as well as epigrammatically when he called it the "religion of poverty." But it is not our special business to antagonize the voluntary communism vigorously pictured by W. H. Riley in another column. He, and those of his friends who agree with him, may attempt any associative experiment they please; Liberty will look on with interest and report results.

It is compulsory communism of the Bismarckian stamp that we combat. It is the needle-gun socialism of Ferdinand Lassalle that we oppose. Statecraft is our enemy, whether it be that advocated by Jay Gould in the New York "Tribune," or that advocated by our good friend, W. G. H. Smart, in a note printed elsewhere in this journal,—a note, by the way, so good-humored, so straightforward, so utterly void of the circumlocution too frequently characteristic of Mr. Smart's newspaper articles, that we publish it with great pleasure. Space is lacking to meet his points now. Nevertheless, on misapprehension should be corrected immediately. We do not believe that any one can "stand alone." We do wish "social ties and guarantees." We wish all there are. We believe in human solidarity. We believe that the members of society are interdependent. We would preserve these interdependencies untrammelled and inviolate. But we have faith in the sufficiency of natural forces. Motives and good impulses aside, we have no sort of sympathy with those multitudinous groups of so-called socialists, of all colors, stripes, and propensities, with each its little scheme for bursting the bonds by which nature unites us and tying men and women together anew with artificial chains. None of them, whatever they may claim, believe in the unity of the race. All its members, in their opinion, need to be cemented into unity, and for this purpose each has his patent glue. They wish a manufactured solidarity; we are satisfied with the solidarity inherent in the universe. When Mr. Smart has whipped the Universe, "body, soul, and breeches," Liberty too will throw up the sponge.

And here's the Harrison piece he refers to:

Communism vs. Commercialism

The only society in which the rights of individuals will be respected will be a communistic society, in which the partnership will always be voluntary. Where the right to secede is not recognized—in a family, a state, or a federation of states—there exists subjection, slavery.

All the frenzied babble about the rights of majorities to govern other than themselves must cease. Between kingcraft and communism there is no logical or permanent abiding-place. The rights of all individuals must be recognized as equal, or, sooner or later, we must submit to the “divine rights of kings”—supreme thieves.

Already, in these states, we have an upper ten and an upper ten thousand—virtually ten kings and ten thousand peers of the realm—whose wealth is stolen from the people by the vilest monopolies, usurpations; usuries; and this devilish aristocracy is not despised, but admired. To-day this aristocracy is more powerful and more vicious than that of Britain, and the vox populi is now really less effective in the United States than it is in the United Kingdom.

Commercialism is organized discord. Communism is organized harmony. Commercialism is compulsory conflict. Communism is voluntary concert.

Wm. Harrison Riley

Hope that's useful. Libertatia 23:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. That can be used as a source that Tucker differentiated voluntary and compulsory communism. But besides that what else does it say? He doesn't speak in the name of all individualist anarchists, as it can be seen in the note 108. Also how it can be used as a source for most anarchist traditions? According to Larry Gamobne in Proudhon and Anarchism, Proudhon classified communism as a "Regime of Authority", and my impression is that Proudhon opposed both voluntary and compulsory kinds of communism. As for Bakunin, I'm not completely clear on his stance, but I haven't managed to find some text where he supports voluntary communism. -- Vision Thing -- 19:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The question is not one of "support," or even of belief in the practicability of voluntary communism, but merely a question of whether or not two forms of communism, different in their intents, is recognized. Making a distinction between, say, Kropotkin and Marx is a basic tenet of pretty much all "social anarchism" currently. Bakunin's criticisms of anarchist communists are not the same as his criticisms of Marx. Etc. We need the clarification in order to differentiate between state and non-state forms. Bismark, Bellamy and Gronlund are as much on the individualists' minds as Most. Libertatia 20:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, but then current sentence is insufficient and misleading, at least in the second part. -- Vision Thing -- 21:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The second part was completely correct. You'll be hard pressed to find any anarchist of whatever stripe, not opposing authoritarian communism. You may believe that voluntary communism is impossible, and, thus, that, say, Kropotkin supported "authoritarian communism," but that's an imposition of POV. Libertatia 22:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the second part was correct, but it was misleading because it implied that most anarchist schools don't oppose voluntary communism. Anyway, I think that it is obvious that all schools of anarchism oppose authoritarian forms of communism. It's just that they don't always agree on definition of "authoritarian". -- Vision Thing -- 23:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

On the use of dictionaries

1. Dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive. They describe how words are commonly used, not how they should be used, or which words should be used. Ex: the OED insists upon the etymologically correct "-ize" suffix, but the majority of British English writers use the "-ise" suffix, not incorrectly (or, in the States, Webster's insists on "e-mail" where "email" is common and correct enough).
2. Dictionaries are incapable, by definition, of explaining even slightly complex systems of thought.
3. Dictionaries, by necessity and nature, are conservative (in the general sense).
4. For these reasons, dictionaries are not good academic resources. They are, at best, grammatical resources. The definitions that they provide are ironically far from definitive; in terms of giving the meaning of a concept, they should be used lightly. Ex: a dictionary is better at defining "to walk" than it is at defining "to be." Just ask Martin Heidegger.
5. No serious scholar uses a dictionary for research, unless one is a linguist. And we know that the best, most cunning linguists rarely refer to Webster.

Enjoy this note. Really, these points are evident to anybody with a secondary school diploma, which is why I was surprised to see an actual discussion occurring here on the use of dictionaries as scholarly sources. Next time someone says, "Anarchy is X or Y because Dictionary Z defines it as such," kindly point them here. I'll now return to lurking. --AaronS 19:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your point 1, it doesn't matter how words "should be used," whatever that means. What matters on Wikipedia is how words are used, whether you believe them to be used wrongly or not (besides, how words are commonly used is by default the "correct" usage because meaning of words is determined by consensus). And, yes, serious scholars do use dictionaries for research. There is nothing unscholarly at all with referencing a definition from a well-respected dictionary.Anarcho-capitalism 19:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I can assure you that dictionaries are almost never used for academic research, unless that research is linguistic in nature. Certainly, they are hardly ever used in any sort of discussion of systems of thought. Real research in philosophy and theory requires tomes. As for how words "should be used," the concept really isn't a difficult one. There are many reasons (historical, academic, political, etc.) for believing that a word should be used in one way and not another. The examples that I provided, which showed that dictionaries are not prescriptive, are clear enough. Also, you'll note that my contention is not with the referencing of dictionaries. Dictionaries exist for reference. I simply take issue with the argument that a dictionary is a sufficient or definitive reference in the explication of any even remotely complicated theoretical framework.

While an interesting theory, I think that many philosophers of language would disagree with you that the meaning of words is determined by consensus. That subject is quite unresolved, even at the beginning of the twenty-first century. --AaronS 20:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I can assure you that dictionaries are often referenced in academic research that is not related to linguistics. Almost no one (you're an obvious exception) would disagree with me that the meaning of words are determined by consensus usage. Meanings of words change over time, and what causes them to change is the changing ways in which they are used. Dictionaries employ researchers to determine how the world is using a term and adjust definitions accordingly. Definitions of words are not static. They evolve.Anarcho-capitalism 21:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

A-C, a simple contradiction is a poor argument. Dictionaries are very rarely referenced in academic research that is not related to linguistics. I know this from experience, because I am very much involved in actual academic research (far from what passes for research here on Wikipedia). Outside of linguistics, they are usually referenced only insofar as a word's etymology is pertinent to a discussion, or if it provides an interesting insight.

Arguments and conclusions regarding any idea beyond the class including simple concepts like "to walk" or "to ingest" are almost never made on the basis of a dictionary definition. Unless it were a very special case, any such attempt would not be taken seriously. Again, I ask you to find a dictionary definition that adequately explains the meaning of "to be." If you do, you might want to present your amazing ontological findings to a philosophical journal. You'll be famous.

Moreover, your appeal to majority opinion is fallacious. I am not the one making claims about what the meanings of words are; you are. Your claim that they are based on majority opinion (a claim, which, ironically, you simply back up with majority opinion, apparently unaware of the logical fallacy involved) ignores both linguistics, semiology, and the philosophy of language. For that reason, it can be easily refuted with a very simple example: the majority thinks that Word X means F, but the minority thinks that Word X means G; both are correct.

What is important to remember, however, is that we are not talking about words. That is why it is almost always preposterous to bring a dictionary to the discussion, thump on it, and then proclaim victory. If you cannot understand this, then I feel sorry for the people here who have to work with you: this is a discussion about concepts, systems of thought, theories, philosophies, ideologies, and so on. It requires books, volumes and volumes of books. Dictionaries might provide interesting insights here and there, but, ninety-nine times out of one hundred, they are an inappropriate tool for this discussion. --AaronS 23:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

You're wrong. I've been involved in academic research and I know that reputable dictionaries are often referenced. Also, you don't know how meanings of words come about. They come about by usage. Meanings of words are not static. Meanings of words change as people change the way the use any particular word. Lexical researchers, those who work for dictionaries, conduct research to determine how educated people are using a word. That's why dictionaries are a great tool to see how a word is commonly being used. And, how a word is commonly being used, is by default the correct definition(s). There is no way that a word "should" be used other than the one or more ways in which it is commonly used. And, these ways change over time.Anarcho-capitalism 00:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Goodness, in all my years of education, and in all of my reading, I've actually never seen a dictionary referenced. At least I do not have the audacity, however, to claim that they are never referenced. You, on the other hand, actually claim that they often are? Inconceivable. I suggest that you re-read what I wrote. You'll see that I was actually arguing against any static, fixed, or "definitive" definition. So, I'm not quite sure whose argument you are refuting. If you're just going to ignore my arguments and attack straw men (e.g. that I am saying that words should be used in a certain way, that I believe that meanings are static, etc. -- all ridiculous positions that I never espoused) then go ahead and entertain yourself. My point is that there is no "correct" definition of words that signify complex ideas. Again, I'll repeat, please find me a dictionary that adequately explains the meaning of "to be." Like "to be," "anarchism," "capitalism," "socialism," etc. are far too complex to rely on mere dictionary definitions. If you want to write a scholarly article on the meaning of "to descend," go right ahead. You can use all of the dictionaries that you want; but, I doubt that many will care to read it. If you're going to write a scholarly article on "anarchism," a dictionary is not the proper tool. It may be used to make interesting etymological notes or provide a few fun insights with regard to certain words, but it is not sufficient. Far from it, friend. That's all that I have to say on the matter. I don't really see the point in attempting to explain something to somebody so obstinately ideological as you are. --AaronS 03:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

You must not read much research then, because dictionary definitions are often referenced. It's important to know how a term is commonly used. Dictionaries, especially well-respected ones, such as the OED and the Merriam-Webster International Unabridged dictionary are superb sources.Anarcho-capitalism 03:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

One of my concentrations was political theory. Dictionaries? Nowhere to be found. Please. Give it up. --AaronS 03:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Then you must not have read the papers thoroughly enough. Citing dictionaries is very common.Anarcho-capitalism 04:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalism, sometimes I think you argue just for the sake of argument, to piss people off. For you must know better than to suggest that dictionaries are often referenced in academic research. I mean, dictionaries are usually unsuitable references even in secondary school essays! If you don't believe Aaron, why don't you just flip through any peer-reviewed, scholarly journal and count the number of times a dictionary is referenced. -- WGee 04:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

You're wrong. Dictionaries are great sources for the common meanings of words. There is nothing unscholarly about citing them, and there is certainly no Wikipedia policy against citing them.Anarcho-capitalism 04:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Dictionaries are not sufficient for complex ideas though. Oh, and guess what, anarchism is one of them. Just for fun, I'll tell you about the funny experience I had with dictionaries today. I tutor ESL students at my college. Anyway, I was checking someone's work and they had to write a sentence. She said "I'm hungry and classmates are replete." First off, she should have said "my classmates" or something. Anyways, I asked her where she got the word replete from since it's not a very common word. Guess where she got it? Her freakin English-Russian dictionary. It says that is the proper English word to use for whatever "full" is in Russian. And as I just suggested, "full" is of course the proper term to use in that sentence. Yeah, replete is technically correct, but who the hell uses it? Dictionaries have serious problems expressing complex ideas. I can't say I've done research as of yet so I can't say how common dictionaries are, but I seriously doubt that they are used often for anything but cursory information. And although I've taken two (and after next semester, three) philosophy classes I've yet to talk about the philosophy of language, so I can't say for sure how words are truly defined. Actually Aaron, do you have any good introductions to that topic because it sounds interesting? Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 05:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit conflict] Right now, Wikipedia has no coherent policy regarding reliable sources; so you are correct to say that there is no policy or guideline that prohibits or restricts referencing to dictionaries. But if you are truly concerned with writing a high-quality, reputable encyclopedia, then you will follow the basic conventions of academic research, which strongly discourage (if not prohibit) the use of dictionaries as references in the social sciences and humanities. If you are truly concerned with the quality of this encyclopedia, you will focus on what you can and should do to make it better rather than on what you prohibited from doing. -- WGee 05:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

That's not true. The conventions of academic research definitely do not discourage the use of well-respected dictionaries as references for the meanings of terms. Dictionaires such as the OED and Merriam-Webster Interational are excellent scholary sources. The definitions are well-researched and peer reviewed.Anarcho-capitalism 06:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The OED is a fine scholarly source if you're interested in changes of meanings of words over time. I don't think I've ever seen a dictionary used in a scholarly article to simply give the definition of a word, and with good reason - dictionary definitions aren't normative. Could you point us to an example? VoluntarySlave 07:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

It's very common for dictionary definitions to be cited. I come across it all the time when I read papers. Look at all these: [2] Anarcho-capitalism 07:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

But in none of the article on the first page, at least, is the dictionary definition used as the basis of an argument. Either it's just a rhetorical technique, a starting point for discussion (and a hoary cliché, too), or, more commonly, the dictionary definition is quoted in order to be criticized. "An absolute definition of urban is elusive" [3] (and the article goes on to explain the authors' own definition); "Webster's Dictionary defines race as "any of the major biological divisions of mankind, distinguished by color and texture of hair, color of skin and eyes, stature, bodily proportions, etc." But are the crucial differences among human beings really those of superficial appearance?" [4] (leaving aside specialized dictionaries, which are a different matter; I'd be happy to use definitions from, say, a dictionary of political science in the article). VoluntarySlave 08:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Yep. There was another one where the google teaser is The Merriam–Webster dictionary defines a gradient as “a graded difference in physiologic activity along an axis”,but the definition does not reveal the[...] The rest is cut off, and unfortunately the link is dead. Still, it sounds like they were about to rip Merriam-Webster a new one. Also, two of the ones on the front page are from specialized dictionaries. As VolunarySlave points out, this is a (highly cliched) rhetorical technique, and I've even been told not to use it in writing classes because it is cliched. It isn't being used as a source for research. Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 08:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Criticizing a dictionary definition is something we're not at liberty to do, unless the criticism is sourced. In other words, Wikipedia is not the place for original research. We can cite dictionary definitions and it's perfectly legitimate if we do. There is nothing unscholarly about it.Anarcho-capitalism 12:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Id recomend you go read some Quine and perhaps Wittgenstein on the use of definitions, especially Quine. First of if a definition in a dictionary is to be called necesarylly the right or true definition of a term it has to be analytic, also a term used frequently in philosophy. If you dont know it that means it has to be known before experience, and that impossible with a dictionary definition. Such a one is dependent on experience, and therefore cannot possible be necesarily true. My experience with the philosophy of language has led me to believe that Quines rejection of analyticity is not something to just outright believe, but that doesnt mean his arguments isnt sound. At least his thinking around dictionary definitions and analyticity which demands a non-cirkular definition of synonymi to be justified is relevant to this discussion. Id gladly write a resume of this, but i guess it would be better if you read his work: From a logical point of view, especially chapter II (Two dogmas of empiricism). It is a classic, and a text anybody who wants to discuss definition should read! Just think about it: If you want a contemporary view on the possibility of defining a term in such a way that the definition is the true one, and therefore necesarily the only one, you have to read the classics first! And anarcho-capitalism: You should read this one! Itll give you a good introduction into the problems of dictionary definitions, and therefore of the problems of using consensus definitions in scholarly work. --Fjulle 13:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Also you might just read the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictionary_definition even tough its a stub it puts you in a problematic position if you want the dictionary definition to be the only one. Why because if those definitions are a product of usage, and we know that usage is unstable and ever changing, these definitions will be unstable and ever changing. Therefore it is not possible to labl it the most precise or the best possible definition. Any other definition will, actually, do just as well, and thats not what we want with wikipedia right? You must admit that the definitions made by those who have written and got their stuff published about anarchism is at least just as relevant! --Fjulle 14:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, as Fjulle suggested, it might do you well to read some Quine or Wittgenstein. For diversity's sake, you might as well throw in Derrida, too. Charlatanism is no substitute for an argument, by the way. The articles that you cite, as I and others have already pointed out, cite dictionaries either as a stylistic cliché, or define relatively simple ideas ("gradient," "condensable," "usable"). Furthermore, as I and others have already noted, the dictionary definitions never form the basis of an argument or inform any conclusion. So far, your only counterargument has been "No, you are wrong." You can repeat that all you want, my friend, but unfortunately, it doesn't change very much. This discussion has already gone on long enough, and more or less demonstrates the ridiculousness of so much of Wikipedia. When so many people have to explain as simple a concept as this to a stubborn ideologue such as yourself, and so little progress is made, it doesn't really bode well for the project. I wanted to see if anybody would actually dispute my claim regarding dictionaries, and I'm not at all surprised by who did. --AaronS 14:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Dictionaries are quite an acceptable source on Wikipedia. There is nothing unscholarly about citing them. They have their place as sources of information for Wikipedia. Thank you for participating.Anarcho-capitalism 14:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Hahaha. This is too funny.

"All you are doing is repeating "No, you're wrong"."

"No, you're wrong."

"But I'm correct. All the evidence agrees with me, even the evidence you yourself provided. You have not provided an argument with any sort of compelling nature - all you are doing is repeating "No, you're wrong"."

"No, you're wrong."

Please, Anarcho-capitalism, show us exactly where Wikipedia:Citing sources says that dictionaries are acceptable sources. Or any Wikipedia policy or guideline anywhere does, in fact. As soon as you do, we will gladly concede, but until then, we will be scholarly and not use a short dictionary entry to define a complex philosophical concept.

And, as an addendum, if you insist on using a dictionary definition, you should use the OED as serious linguists and etymologists do. Merriam-Webster is not a "superb scholarly source" unless you're in primary school or working solely in the field of American colloquial etymology. Of course, no dictionary is a scholarly source for political or philosophical concepts beyond the preteen years, but at least try to retain some dignity and cite the dictionary which is more respected and used worldwide by serious researchers. -Switch ^t 15:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but the burden is on you to show that there is a policy against citing well-respected dictionaries such as the OED and Merriam-Webster Third New International Dictionary. Those definitions in those dictionaries are very well researched and peer reviewed. They're very acceptable to be cited in scholarly articles. And, there is no policy against citing them on Wikipedia.Anarcho-capitalism 15:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

No mate, I'm afraid not. You are claiming, contrary to the knowledge of every other contributor here, that dictionaries are acceptable as scholarly sources. You fail to provide evidence. Dictionary definitions are simply not acceptable as scholarly sources (outside of etymology). There's no policy against it; this is because using a dictionary as a source for any reason other than etymology is absurd. You can bring it up at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources if you'd like. -Switch ^t 17:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no policy against citing a dictionary for the definition of a word. There's nothing wrong with, and there's nothing unscholarly about it. It's absurd to propose there is something wrong with it. That's what dictionaries are for.Anarcho-capitalism 20:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

By all means, there are places for citing tertiary sources in scholarly works. But to use tertiary sources preferentially to build up another tertiary sources is to assure a kind of garbage in, garbage out process. Dictionaries do not determine meaning. Like all non-primary materials, they attempt to document meanings, however approximately. It is abundantly clear that dictionary definitions are not adequate to organizing these encyclopedia entries, and the existing Wikipedia policies certainly do not elevate dictionary definitions above conflicting primary and secondary sources, any more than scholarly standards do. Concretely, when primary and secondary sources show that words like "capitalism" and "socialism" have been used in a variety of ways, it is not possible to use a tertiary source to determine the correct definition. This is in no way contrary to Wikipedia policies, as the diversity of definitions in current (and historical) use is uncontroversially apparent. Appeals to what "most people" belief, or a majority rules philosophy of meaning, are necessarily POV OR. In any event, none of the problems supposedly solved by the appeal to dictionary authority as particularly difficult to address in a serious, scholarly manner. Why cut corners, unless it is to pursue an agenda? Libertatia 20:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Right, dictionaries do not determine meaning. They conduct research and report it. Meaning of words are determined by how people are using those words. The rest of what you're saying I agree with. If I'm going to cite a dictionary, I'm going to cite it to show the popular consensus meanings of the term. I wouldn't cite a dictionary definition to claim that that is the only meaning.Anarcho-capitalism 20:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

OK. But the way most people use a word is still not normative and, more importantly, it may not be particularly conscious. We need to make the issues here explicit without engaging in a lot of editorializing. For example, it is almost certainly the case that what most people have meant when they said "anarchist" or "socialist" was fairly thoroughly uninformed. That majoritarian meaning cannot be our guideline. This is particularly true in a case, such as this, where we are discussing the meaning of explicitly oppositional movements. Libertatia 21:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

You are ridiculous A-C. You aren't providing any evidence of your viewpoint, only stating that those who disagree are wrong. that doesn't fly. we certianly never used dictionary definitions in history school, though i can't recall anyone ever saying not to, it was just common sense for someone doing scholarly historical research/writing. i don't believe i've ever seen a dictionary cited in a scholarly work pertaining to history or politics. High school students certianly might start of with a "The dictionary defines blank as..." but no serious writer would be so trite. citing a dictionary definition in order to contradict it (as some of your examples did) obviously does not reinforce your point. Even fjulle, who generally seems pro-ancap, disagrees with you. did you ever cite a dictionary in a college course pertaining to political theory or some other humanities course? i wager not. Blockader 18:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what fjulle agrees or disagrees with, but what does him being an ancap have to do with any of this? This has nothing to do with ancap. If you've never seen a dictionary cited in a scholarly work then you haven't seen much scholarly work. It's common practice to cite dictionaries when you want to point out meanings of a term.Anarcho-capitalism 20:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

And even if it was about ancap my disagreement or not with the totality of ancap theory isnt important. --Fjulle 15:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

My point was that even someone who generally has agreed with mr. ancap here on many issues disagrees with him on this. and, yes, that is relevant. it shows (to some degree) that this is not a partisan issue. your other assertions in your reply to me are ludicrous and i will not respond to them other than to say that. Blockader 16:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The enlightened comments of others have instilled a bit of hope within me. Thanks. --AaronS 18:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be much disagreement about the dynamic and plural nature of language, although, having acknowledged these two characteristics, it's hard to support the majority-makes-true-meaning argument that seems to be advanced here. The main bone of contention seems to be whether or not dictionaries "define" definitively enough to "trump" obvious counter-definitions in the primary and secondary sources. Are dictionary definitions normative? Dictionaries are tertiary sources, meaning they are one step further removed from actual primary source usages than secondary sources, which already involve some degree of interpretation and simplification. Dictionaries necessarily have a majoritarian bias, and are useful to the extent that they are used with that bias in mind. I'm actually fond of using dictionary definitions as starting point, anchors or foils in scholarly arguments, but such definitions inevitable ask questions, rather than answering them. (Come to think of it, my last two published works were at least partially about the problems of inapt definitions getting in the way of serious scholarship.) Wikipedia has no specific policy about tertiary sources, but its other policies suggest that unambiguous primary source material still has greater weight than secondary material. Surely, the same would be true of the relationship between primary and secondary sources vs. sources like dictionaries. It is, in fact, unambiguously clear that there is now, and consistently has been, considerably more diversity in the usage of key terms than the dictionaries (including very good ones) suggest. Libertatia 19:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes dictionaries have a majoritarian bias, and that's what good about them. The researchers find out how most educated people are using a term and report the definition. As far as proper meanings of words, it's comparable to pronounciation. If enough people start pronouncing a word "wrong," it eventually becomes a correct pronounciation. What words refer to is no different. What socialism or capitalism means today, it might not have meant yesterday. Dictionaries are great sources to show what the popular meaning(s) of a term are. And again, the OED and the Merriam-Webster Third New Internation are the best researched and peer-reviewed. Then, of course there are specialized dictionaries of philosophy and dictionaries of economics, etc, which can also be great sources. It's consistent with the Wikipedia mission against original research that we do as little of our own interpretation as possible, so secondary and tertiary sources are great when what is being said in a primary source may not be so clear. We definitely should not be synthesizing our own definitions here. As far as your claim that "its other policies suggest that unambiguous primary source material still has greater weight than secondary material," that's not true. In fact, the policy WP:V says "Although most articles should rely predominantly on secondary sources, there are rare occasions when they may rely entirely on primary sources (for example, current events or Braunfeld v. Brown). An article or section of an article that relies on a primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Contributors drawing on entirely primary sources should be careful to comply with both conditions."Anarcho-capitalism 20:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality Tag?

Is this tag neccesary? I think the article has reached a point of being about as neutral as possible and the person who added the tag did not state a specific reason for doing so on the discussion page, which is a general wiki practice. the tag detracts from a generally stable (right now) and informative article. any thoughts? Blockader 18:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's remove it for now, with a note: if you are to re-add it, please adress your concerns in a more specific way, on the Talk:Anarchism page. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 23:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with removal. -- Vision Thing -- 11:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Democracy

I think it might to good to add a "Democracy" section to the issues section. Individualist anarchists oppose democracy. But anarcho-communists like Murray Bookchin support it. He critizes individualist anarchists for opposing democracy and says "majority rule" is consistent with anarchism. Anarcho-capitalism 19:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Heh. Do you really want to add yet another word darn near as many meanings as "love" to the mix? Libertatia 21:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, what is democracy? Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 21:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I think your statement that, "Individualist anarchists oppose democracy. But anarcho-communists ...support it" over polarizes the issue. i understood that proponents of democracy existed in both the individualist and collectivist camps of anarchism. certianly not all social anarchists give democracy unflinching support. our collective, for example, is committed to the consensus process rather than the voting process. while this might be good topic for a subart (Anarchism and Democracy) i don't think the article needs expanding on that point. Blockader 16:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

There's not any individualist anarchists that support democracy. That's fundamental to individualism. The community has no authority over the individual. If the vote or "consensus" is 1,000,000 to one that an individual will be deprived of a part of the product of his labor to give it to someone who is believed to need it more and that person is the only one who disagrees, then it is illegitimate to deprive him of it.Anarcho-capitalism 18:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

What argument are you trying to make? Which "democracy" are you talking about? There's not even a question, this time, of a modern standard definition. The term is simply used in too many ways to be meaningful without clarification. "Opposition to democracy" can lead to insistence on consensus, as it does in some collectivist anarchist circles, but I'm guessing that's not where you are headed. Libertatia 20:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

"Majority rule," like I noted in the section. Bookchin speficially refers to "majority rule" as being compatible with anarchism. He argues against having a requirement for 100% consensus. And, the source about individualism specifically refers to majority rule as well. Anarcho-capitalism 20:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The section in question now reads: For individualist anarchists, "the system of democracy, of majority decision, is held null and void. Any impingement upon the natural rights of the person is unjust and a symbol of majority tyranny."[114]Anarcho-communist Murray Bookchin criticizes individualist anarchists for opposing democracy[115], and says "majority rule" is consistent with anarchism.[116]. It's short, informative, NPOV, and well sourced. Let's leave it at that - not only would it bring about an edit war, it would also make the article even large. There is no article on Anarchism and Democracy, though - that needs writing. Hell, large parts of Robert A. Dahl's Democracy and Its Critics deal with that very subject. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 21:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

article is completely in an ideological vacuum

I added a section on actual anarchies throughout history. According to the lead paragraph of the article: Other than being opposed to the state "there is no single defining position that all anarchists hold, and those considered anarchists at best share a certain family resemblance." (oxford philosophy companion) Statelessness accurately described Somalia, so I added a mention of that.--Urthogie 20:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Still, this is an article on anarchism, as ideology and social movement, not on the consequences of a disfunctional state, such as Somalia. The material you added is not appropriate. Libertatia 22:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

In analyzing an ideology we also analyze the instrumentality of it. In the case of the idea of democracies we would examine democracies. In the case of anarchism, anarchies.--Urthogie 22:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

And the situation in some place like Somalia, where there is, of course, government (governments, actually), is in no way an instrumentality of the anarchism discussed elsewhere on the page. Libertatia 22:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

According to the BBC, which is sourced in the text I added, it had no state government in the time before the ICU. Do you disagree with this report? If so, why? (remember, Other than being opposed to the state, "there is no single defining position that all anarchists hold, and those considered anarchists at best share a certain family resemblance." [Source: Oxford Philosophy Companion, in the lead paragraph of this page]) Statelessness is therefore what matters, and defines anarchies.--Urthogie 22:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Dude. I've had my two reverts. The difference between anarchy as a state of affairs and anarchism as a class of political projects ought to be sufficiently clear. But if you want to game unconnected material into the article, then I guess you'll go that, eh? Libertatia 22:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I won't report your for 3RR if you revert again, and I won't try to game anyone here. I'm convinced my logical argument will change your mind. First off, I understand the difference between "anarchy" and "anarchism", you know. We went over this. Anarchy is important for the analysis of instrumental arguments concerning anarchism. It's an obvious fact that encyclopedia articles on the idea of Democracy cover the ancient Greeks and the modern Americans (even though neither is a pure democracy, they're both useful for analyzing instrumental arguments).--Urthogie 23:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that you simply don't have a logical argument, unless you accept the very insufficient definition of anarchism imposed on us by Wikipedia's structure and a few aggressive partisans. Actual and specific ideologies of anarchism have almost never been limited to the absence of a state as a sufficient condition of "anarchy" in the political sense. Even most of our anarcho-capitalist associates would not accept that definition, except in circumstances such as those we face on Wikipedia. Assume that Somalia was indeed "stateless," and treat it as an "instrumentality of anarchism." What do you get? At best, you get something related to "Anarchism as defined in dictionaries and other sources too abstract to be much practical use." That is, you get an "instrumentality" of something inconsequential—and if you try to make this an example of the consequences of "anarchism," you simply have to falsify nearly every actual anarchism and in the process skip over every actual "instrumentality" (every experiment, every cooperative colony and equity village, etc.) This is bad history. In accepting a definition of "anarchism" that almost nobody actually holds, it is you who abstracts the article from real ideologies and real histories. Libertatia 23:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

If you for some obscure reason have to include Somalia in an anarchism-related article, do it on Anarchy, not Anarchism. There is a difference: the first is a stateless state of affairs OR an anarchist society, the latter is an ideology/philosophy/movement. I'm with Libertatia here. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 23:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi. There is no consensus among anarchists, according to the Oxford Philosophy Companion, of what an anarchist society is. So how can you claim that Somalia wasn't an anarchist society, when you're not even working with any definition whatsoever?--Urthogie 23:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, you have to work with some common sense. Do you seriously think you could encounter any anarchist hailing the Somalian state as an anarchist society - be it an anarcho-capitalist, anarcho-communist or anarcho-primitivist? And even if we ignore that, this article is still WAY too large. Put it into Anarchy instead! (Also, please see Wikipedia:Use common sense.) Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 23:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

No, you don't find anarchists talking about this, you know why? For the same reason that advocates of complete state control refuse to celebrate genocidal dictatorships. The fact that noone talks about supporting an anarchy doesn't make it dissapear in a poof of logic, as you would suggest. Secondly, the article being too large is a ridiculous argument. This is a huge article because it involves theorists debating the theoretical questions ad infinitum without any reference to the material facts (aside from the coverage of the social movements). I'm trying to add the material facts, and I'm reverted because anarchists don't support (with good reason) the anarchy of Somalia-- which was anarchy, according to the Oxford Companion of Philosophy, as well as several other sources.--Urthogie 23:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

When you raise "material facts" about things no anarchist supports, and blatantly ignore the material facts of anarchist history, and when you are obviously on some sort of ideological campaign to make somebody "face facts," you aren't going to get very far. It appears that your knowledge of anarchism does not stretch beyond the Oxford Philosophy Companion. With that much, of course, you can quite possibly impose your POV on the article, but you will only be obscuring the actual facts about the plight of stateless people in a state-dominated world. You will, imho, be giving real aid and comfort to those who would like to blame anarchists for the failures of the state. Libertatia 23:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Having given up on logic and reason, you resort to the political argument that I'm pushing an anti-anarchist POV. That's ridiculous. You're reverting me because of the plight of stateless people, which somehow allows you to bypass Wikipedia policy and not operate based on secondary sources and NPOV. If my POV is making people "face facts" I graciously accept that. The actual facts will emerge when Wikipedia policy is truly applied, and the groupthink here ends.--Urthogie 23:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Ahem. I've given you plenty of logical and reasonable arguments against the inclusion of your off-topic sections. As a bonus, I've noted that you're confusing the issue in rather unfortunate ways. I haven't heard anything coherent in response, aside from an appeal to the dubious authority of the Oxford Philosophy Companion. Which particular anarchist ideologues advocated mere statelessness as the goal of anarchism? Are you, btw, at all familiar with the actual discussions of anarchists regarding Somalia? I'm reverting you because you added a complete non sequitor to an article already fraught with problems. I'm annoyed with you because you certainly seem to be engaged in a little political misdirection here. Or perhaps you really know absolutely nothing about anarchism, in which case the article, troubled as it is, ought to be some help. Or perhaps, some way and somehow, you really can't tell the difference between "mutual aid and voluntary association" and a civil war taking place in a state-governmental interregnum. (Just read the addition: "Groupthink" here. That's tasty.) Libertatia 23:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The dubious authority of the Oxford Philosophy Companion? If only you were a respected authority on the subject, then we could quote you saying that as per wikipedia policy. Too bad. What anarchist "ideologues" say about the shit anarchy that was Somalia has nothing to do with whether Somalia was an anarchy. By the normative, and the non-normative definition, Somalia was truly an anarchy.--Urthogie 00:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Uh. Right. One might also want to dispute your statement on Somalia being "stateless": while there is (was) clearly no de facto central authority, other points might hinder it from qualifying as "stateless". Our own Wikipedia article states that de facto authority resides in the hands of the governments for the unrecognized entities of Somaliland, Puntland, the Supreme Islamic Courts Council (SICC) and the weak, but United Nations-recognized, interim Transitional Federal Government (TFG) in Baidoa, and the CIA World Factbook labels the nation Somalia as no permanent national government; transitional, parliamentary federal government and following the breakdown of the central government, most regions have reverted to local forms of conflict resolution, either secular, traditional Somali customary law, or Shari'a (Islamic) law with a provision for appeal of all sentences. While this obviously shows Somalia is without a central authority, it is not stateless: A state is a set of institutions that possesses the exclusive legitimate authority to make the rules that govern the people in one or more societies, having internal and external sovereignty over a definite territory (from State). Do we understand each other now? Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 23:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

LOL, you didn't even read m edits, did you. It said before the Islamic Courts it was an Anarchy. Thanks for ignoring the whole force of my point. ROFL. I suppose it's now time for you to move on to a different argument against my edits, so as to fillibuster until some group consensus emerges against me? Or, there's maybe a 5% chance that you'll actually realize you made a mistake, and apologize. Doubt it, though, even with Wikipedia:Assume good faith.--Urthogie 00:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

If you are already anticipating a "group consensus emerging against" you, why bother? If there is a clear consensus (which you apparently expect), then there is hardly no point in fighting it. Furthermore, yes, indeed: you said that before the Islamic Courts it was an anarchy. You might however also want to read the second part of my edit. However, as you do apparently agree it is only a matter of time before a "group consensus has emerged" - I won't stuff this over-used talk page further in this discussion. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 00:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Anarchy discussion (continued)

First off, I want to thank you for a clearly reasoned reply. Now I'll address each of your points.--Urthogie 01:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't be condescending. You've received clearly reasoned replies before. Libertatia 19:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I am the author of published work on anarchism, but not, alas, on its relation to Somalia. We can grant to you that Somalia was, prior to the ICU an "anarchy" in a couple of senses that Wikipedia rules acknowledge. You have not, however, provided any source that shows the relevance of this "anarchy" to any of the actual anarchist traditions. Libertatia 19:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Failed anarchies inform the anarchist tradition what to avoid, do they not? They are the basis for the need of consensus reasoning and other systems suggested by anarchist views, right? So clearly the instrumental implications of failed anarchies do effect anarchist ideology. In fact, anarchists spend a lot of their time explaining why an anarchist society would not fall apart. They could detail which processes would have prevented Somalia from falling into chaos after the government fell.--Urthogie 01:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

No one here shows any signs of granting you that the "anarchies" in places like Somalia had anything to do with the articles you are tampering with. It's like you looked at "football" (soccer) and "American football," and took the word of some expert when he said "football is a funny game; nobody can agree on the rules and some of the balls have pointy ends and some don't. All we can really say is that 'football is played on grass (or artificial grass)'." Somalia is an example of a failed government. You cannot have a "failed anarchy" where no "anarchy" (in the sense of a collectivity based in anarchist principles) was attempted. You might be able to find a primitivist or two who think the "project of anarchism" ought to be simply the removal of the state. In that case, we would still cite undue weight against the sort of treatment you are attempting. I have already said that any careful attention to actual "failed anarchies" would be welcome. But you're apparently not interested in that. Libertatia 19:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

In insisting on a very open definition of anarchism, our an-cap cousins have given you an opening to include this "connection," but that still doesn't mean that there is any actual resemblence between anarchism and pre-ICU Somalia.

I agree-- no serious form of anarchism, except some sort of anarchistic nihilism (e.g The War Nerd Gary Brecher holds such a view on African anarchy) would value the anarchy in Somalia. However, all serious forms of anarchy must also defend against the criticism that their ideas, in conjunction with human nature, will lead to the same "unintended" anarchies that have happened throughout history. Remember: history will never perfectly match the men of words, it will never match perfectly the ideas behind the mass movement-- that's life, that's reality. The history also raises questions of human nature for anarchism to address- why do humans descend into chaotic anarchy if human nature tends toward justice and truth? I surely can't answer these questions, but maybe the anarchists in the articles could. I truly look forward to it.--Urthogie 01:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, bother. "Human nature," eh? "Tending towards justice and truth"? If you don't actually know anything about anarchist theory, could you please, please, please just go away and not introduce all of these misunderstandings into a process that is already close to impossible? I'm serious. This is not personal, but you really haven't any idea what the ideas of the "anarchist ideologues" have been. Libertatia 19:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Greek democracy was in at least some senses a movement, or at least a consciously evolved experiment. The analogues within anarchist history would be Warren's equity villages, the Home community, some parts of Spain during the Civil War there (and so on.)

Greek democracy was not a pure democracy. No democratic theorist would propose a purely Greek model today, because it eventually lost control. And yet, we still consider the Greek democracy, despite its failures, as indicative of some of the instrumental challenges that democracy faces. Any serious article on any serious political philosophy should consider history in such a way-- it shouldn't require small, perfect movements-- it should also look at the big events in history in the context of the idea.--Urthogie 01:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Greek democracy was, however, part of the tradition and development of democracy. Subsequent approaches to the question of democracy reference the Greek model. Somalia is only related to anarchism because it can be described by the other (non-anarchistic) sense of the word "anarchy." As for "small, perfect movement," you are protesting against something no one is advocating. This entry is currently stretched so wide that it is unmanageable. In part, it is this fact which has prevented more treatment of both practical experiments and their failures. The article is gradually improving in that regard, although I suspect you may set us back in that regard with your non sequitors. Libertatia 19:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

There are plenty of cautionary tales to be told based on those, and if you wanted to tell those stories, you would find only the usual haggling over facts and sources standing in your way. Since you want to introduce off-topic material, the resistance is understandably somewhat different. Wikipedia, after all, values consistency in its articles. It's hard on readers when the subject of the article changes completely in mid-stream.

Inconsistency is expected. The article needs to address it, and organize itself around new information, not be anal about it and leave out any new subjects, to the point of sacrificing valuable contributions.--Urthogie 01:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

So you actually intend to impose a completely different subject in the midst of the article? Libertatia 19:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Why anyone would want to impose that sort of incoherence on the article escapes me, unless it is in the service of some POV crusade. Libertatia 00:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not here on a crusade, I'm here to present my view and defend it as logical and reasonable, I guarantee you that.--Urthogie 01:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

It looks like you're attempting to reshape the anarchy entry to be more open to your interventions, even as we speak. Pardon me if I find the assumption of good faith difficult. Libertatia 19:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Somalia was not an anarchy because there was government. The fact that the government wasn't large and organised in the manner which most are, and hence not recognised by established states, does not change the matter. Were people governed? Yes, absolutely, by various competing groups. That means there was compulsory government, which means there was a state, which means Somalia was not an anarchy in the sense used by anarchists. -Switch ^t 03:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Do parents govern their kids? Yes. Hence the flaw in this logic.--Urthogie 03:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

There's no flaw. Somalia simply did not meet the definition of anarchy as given here. Either dispute that, or give up-Switch ^t 03:36, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

You're right, I kind of did ignore your point, sorry about that. Here's a specific reply: the definition is statelessness, not "no control/no mini-groups." In somalia, those groups of guys with guns weren't governments, they were guys who went around getting what they could, not staying in one place telling people what to do (governance).--Urthogie 03:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The state is compulsory government. Those guys with guns were governments as defined. in that article. This is a terminological issue, but by the definitions Wikipedia uses, Somalia had states, and thus by definition was not an anarchy. -Switch ^t 04:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Not as simple as you would have it. They weren't governments at all. They were roaming gangs, and therefore not associated with some religious or national group. And they weren't compulsory, because it depended if they came to your village. Neither element of the state is there.--Urthogie 04:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Roaming gangs aren't compulsary and aren't territorial? They ask everyone's permission before invading and respect anyone's choice not to be invaded? News to me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jacob Haller (talk • contribs) 21:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC).

Oh, don't be silly. You may as well say that the US isn't a state, because it depends whether you live there. The US could at any time sell or buy any piece of land, and could invade a lot of land too. If the US buys Australia, can I claim that their government is not compulsory because the land it governs isn't static?

A government is a body that has the authority to make and the power to enforce laws within a civil, corporate, religious, academic, or other organization or group.

The roaming gangs were bodies with the (self-granted) authority to make and the power to enforce laws within a group. Therefore, they were governments. They were not a government in the most common use of the term, but they were a government. Their government was compulsory because one could not opt to forgo their governance without (probably severe) consequences. Therefore, they were a compulsory government, and therefore, they were a state. There is no ideological conflict here, this is just logical argument. Switch ^t 08:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Your inclusion of somalia as an example of anarchy is an example of original research and thus does not belong on wikipedia. write an academicically researched and peer reviewed book on your ideas and then it can be considered if it held up to scholarly scrutiny. all of which seems doubtful. Blockader 21:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

devoting my energies to Anarchy

It's a waste of your time and mine for me to try to add anything on this big article without a consensus reached on anarchy. Wasn't pragmatic of me. When a concensus is reached at anarchy, we'll know how to attempt to proceed here.--Urthogie 23:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

In the present meanings of words say no goverment not says muchs about anarchism, in a contemporary definition it should clarifies is oppossed to any kind of social control (there are types of authority that are not explicit hierchicals -prejudges, patriarch or racism- and hierarchy (the typical opposition of anarchism to any forma of ruler).

--Nihilo 01 00:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)