Talk:Anarchism/Archive 53

This is an archive of past discussions about Anarchism. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 50

Archive 51

Archive 52

→

Outrageous: No Noam Chomsky & Howard Zinn Mention

Why is there no mention of Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn, two currentlyliving anarchists who are far more prominent in American circles than John Zerzan or Murray Rothbard, yet the primitivists and capitalists get to inject their own ideas here, but we don't get to have Chomsky or Zinn pictured here. I say this is really unfair, and rather ridiculous. there shoudl not even be a section for primitivism or "anarcho" capitalism. The proponents of those two ideas have violated pretty much every rule of Wikipedia to get their stuff put here, and mislead the public.--Radical_Mallard (talk) 2:05PM, 20 July 2008

Haven't checked the main entry lately for Chomsky references, but he is usually included on various Wikipedia pages on anarchism. Leaving Howard Zinn out makes sense, as he hasn't significantly contributed anything to anarchism or the anarchist movement. Zinn qualifies as an "outlier" anarchist, a person who is either in the closet about their anarchism or has one foot in anarchism and one foot somewhere else. I've heard Zinn in person call himself an anarchist, but that doesn't mean that he should be featured here. Chuck0 (talk) 05:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Zinn is one of the most prominent anarchist academics and has said quite a bit on the subject. His People's History of the United States has been very influential, and while it's usually not explicitly promoted as an anarchist book, it is--according to Zinn--guided by an anti-hierarchical view of history. It is surprising that we don't mention him. I agree with Mallard that this should be corrected. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 14:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

1999 WTO PRotest

Why is there no mention of the 1999 WTO riot/protest in Seattle, the bulk of which was organized and driven by anarchists, in this entire article? That's a recent milestone in anarchist organizing history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.174.11.24 (talk) 19:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that the protest where it was proven in the end that the police were using agent provocoteurs, and the anarchists were mostly peaceful until assaulted by police? Productplacer (talk) 07:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you are totally misinformed. The police did not using agent provocateurs during the 1999 anti-WTO protests in Seattle. Real life anarchists were involved in all facets of the protests, including the famous black bloc, the lockdowns on the streets, with Indymedia, with Food Not Bombs, the labor march and many other things. Chuck0 (talk) 05:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

I think The article about the First Red Scare contains important information which is worth to be mentioned. Furthermore, there were a lot of contraversial actions in the past which relate to Anarchism. (e.g. terrorist actions)

First_Red_Scare#Anarchist_actions —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zslevi (talk • contribs) 23:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I've just noticed that there's an article which targets this issue: Anarchism_and_violence

Although I think it should be addressed in the article text as well. --Zslevi (talk) 23:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I'ssa dead horse; gettit!

I've just made a small, but possibly quite controversial, edit to the article. During the time in which people kept adding things like "most anarchists are opposed to capitalism and hence anarcho-capitalism too", there was lots of controversy over the statement's accuracy; the citations were always partisan sources. I have found, in a source already cited, the Oxford's assertion that anarchists are indeed usually anti-capitalist. The source was first included to emphasise the variety of anarchism, and was opposed (by infinity0, I think) on the basis that it suggested that capitalism was not a controversial issue normally and historically opposed by anarchists. This was included, of course, by an RJII sock, now banned. I believe RJII's socks have all left and the ancap editors currently here are all reasonable people, a much better arrangement.
I have included the edit, but in the interest of cooperation and collaboration, I am raising it here for discussion. For the sake of completeness, I support the inclusion of a single sentence, and maybe greater detail in an appropriate section. ~ Switch (✉✍☺☒) 12:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it needs to be recognised and stated that much of the disparity between each side regarding the legitimacy of Anarcho-Capitalism in the eyes of more classical Anarchists is the difference between terminological use, definition and connotation. --121.220.149.129 (talk) 01:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I must disagree that RJII socks have left. The whole article is postmodernly skewed and ignorant of the fact that historically anarchism as an active movement/phenomena (not just as a philosphophy) has been overwelmingly non-capitalistic. The membership figures of the FAI and CNT and revolutionary events in civil war Spain speak for themselves. Although the article did need more info on anarchism in USA this has only been put in as attempted support of right-wing libertarian evangelists of the Rothbard sort. This has often backfired e.g with Ben Tucker. --maxrspct ping me 19:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The RJII sock-puppet is back. for all we know he is that guy from Silicon Valley, James Donald, who has helped turn USENET into a joke and now he's up to his old tricks here. His account he's using now is: Operation_Spooner -Radical Mallard, July 20, 2008, 2:11 PM

Well, almost all anarchists are anti-capitalist. If you want to be precise. If you look at the tendencies closest to anarcho-capitalism, like mutualism, you'll find that pro-market anarchists are also anti-capitalists. The number of pro-capitalist anarcho-capitalists in the world probably number less than a 100 people. They tend to be noisy on the Internet, so it looks like there are a bunch of them out there. But if you look at surveys or what is covered in anarchist literature, anarcho-capitalism is off the radar. Chuck0 (talk) 07:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

this article is probably the most prominent position they've had. maxrspct ping me 19:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, don't we love the argument from numbers fallacy, as well as the "just making up crap" method? - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 04:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Too right Knight of BAAWA. --124.189.244.79 (talk) 05:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

max rspct: The so-called anarcho-capitalists have a long history of using Wikipedia and other forums to make it appear like they are a bigger influence than they really are. If you want to talk about numbers, Infoshop has done surveys that have found that anarcho-capitalist are a small portion of the international anarchist movement. And here I'm differentiating pro-capitalist anarcho-capitalists from market anarchists and mutualists. Even the latter camp is small in number compared to other schools of anarchism. You can also measure these numbers by looking at the popuarity of anarchist websites, the amount of dead trees publishing these schools do, and attendance at protests and conferences. The market anarchists had a conference in 2007 in Salt Lake City. I don't know the attendance figures or how many of the people who attended this conference identified as anarcho-capitalists. Whichever way you slice it, anarcho-capitalists are few in number. Chuck0 (talk) 17:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to respond to the above by Chucko. It is strange that you think that most market anarchists are not anarcho-capitalists. Are you trying to say that most most anarchists still go for the labor theory of value? Benajmin Tucker style market anarchism is a throwback because the labor theory of value is pretty much extinct today. Virtually all market anarchists are anarcho-capitalists. I don't call myself an anarcho-capitalist but a market anarchist simply because "anarcho-capitalist" confuses people who don't understand that by "capitalism" we just mean a free market. You might find a few throwbacks out there but rest assured 99% of "market anarchists" are indistinguishable from anyone that calls themselves "anarcho-capitalist." You can rest assured that nearly everyone at that market anarchist conference you're talking about has the same philosophy as me. We simply want a society based in free markets. Call me an anarcho-capitalist if you want and say that I'm different from a market anarchist but it's nonsense.

I was a market anarchist and certainly no anarcho-capitalist, most market anarchists I've met in real life have been non-ancaps and even online it's about even. So your not being correct in your comments above. Plus marginalism is way over rated. Utility is subjective yet it is supposed to determine prices, so this can't even be proved.

IOW: Chuck0 wants to marginalize anarchocapitalists simply because he doesn't like them. Further, he will appeal to popularity as if it means something (which, of course, it doesn't). - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 21:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

He is completely correct in stating that anarcho-capitalism is a tiny doctrine which is largely an internet only thing. This says little about its merits on its own. And you are being hypocritical, you made comments yourself designed to marginalise anyone who believe in a labour theory of value rather than marginalist silliness.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and at the end of the day, changes to the a reference tool like Wikipedia is governed by stylistic conventions, scope, and other policies. If the links section is going to link to a website on anarcho-capitalism, why not link it to a useful website on the subject, like all-left.net? Chuck0 (talk) 03:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I was under the impression that all-left.net was an Agorist website, as opposed to a Anarcho-Capitalist site. They are not the same thing.--124.189.244.79 (talk) 12:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that All-left.net covers market anarchism, agorism, left-libertarianism and some stuff of interest to anarcho-capitalists. If the anarcho-capitalists feel that this site doesn't represent them, then they should choose between a link to the Caplan FAQ or a link to something else. It would be unfair to more important anarchist websites if a minor tendency got to have several links when tendencies that are more important and influential and restricted to a few links. Chuck0 (talk) 00:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

All-left.net is a sight for the Alliance of the Libertarian Left, which is supposed to be a alliance between factions such as Agorists, Mutualists, voluntaryists, market Anarchists, Anarcho-Capitalists and other left factions based on their opposition to statism. For it to be a source on Anarcho-Capitalism, a site would need to be explicitly Anarcho-Capitalist and crediting it as such would be misleading. I agree that all-left is an excellent source, and is a movement that should be replicated as it is constructive and avoids the whole "ANCAP v ANSOC" crap Anarchists seem susceptible to. --124.189.244.79 (talk) 12:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, this shouldn't even be an issue. Anarcho-capitalism is notable only in that its adherents are loud and few. Hazillow (talk) 07:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Lucky your opinion doesn't count for much then. --124.177.185.105 (talk) 10:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with the trend here. There is a form of 'anarcho capitalism' that doesn't believe in the financial system. As a free individual you have no option but to use the markets if you can use nothing else. Thats completely different from some interpretations that egoist capitalism can be defined as a form of anarchism. This is the reason for the debate, money is a thoroughly authoritarical tool, (anti-capitalist) anarchists perceive 'capitalist-anarchism' as a fraude and degrading abuse of the political ideal of freedom. Thats in my experience and also opinion. The result is that 'free-market' "anarchism" and "capitalist " anarchism are (sometimes un,-)acceptable as a strategy but appear not to warrant a seperate theoretical header. Also they can just be considered capitalist propagandist oxymorons.(un-anarchist because money is hierarchical and authoritarical as a organisational tool in society.)you might eg. call anti-authoritarical, financially active anarchists, "the pragmatists". The whole association between the integer history of freedom in anarchism and the repressive capitalism is unneccesary and wrong, money is authorative, 'a ruler'.. a dead horse.so unlike eg. anarcho-feminism it is not an emancipatory human theory, just a rebel tactic. although anarchists have used toilets, toilet-anarchism also deserves no mention in wiki, just like capitalism it would be merely a psychological disturbance.77.251.34.32 (talk) 13:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Zaxlebax problem

I oppose inclusion in the lede per the Zaxlebax problem - the term "capitalism" is simply far too ambiguous to be used in the lede, which is intended to be an uncontroversial summary of the body of the article. As Chuck indicated, pro-market anarchists oppose "capitalism" in the sense of big business, wage slavery, commodity fetishism etc.; but you would be hard pressed to find a major anarcho-capitalist thinker that meant anything more by "capitalism" than voluntary association and sticky property rights - see Rothbard, Molinari, Friedman. So it is highly deceptive to throw this factoid at the casual or uninformed reader at the start of the article without context.

However, the source is inarguably reliable, and as Switch noted, this article and especially this subtopic of capitalism need as much relaibaly sourced content as possible. As such, I support including this assertion in the Issues in anarchism subsection, right after the link to Anarchism and capitalism. That way, the reader will be familiar with the nuances of the various approaches to property rights and markets of the mutualists, individualist anarchists, anarcho-communists and especially the anarcho-capitalists and will be able to read the assertion in context. If the reader feels that the assertion jarrs, or feels like investigating the matter further, the article they will be directed to will be Anarchism and capitalism, not the ambiguous capitalism. Skomorokh ^incite 15:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Yep, that sounds good to me. ~ Switch (✉✍☺☒) 20:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Right. At this point, changes to this entry should try and capture the nuances. I removed the link to the Brian Caplan link, but I'm wondering if it should be included in a section or subpage on "criticisms of anarchism." Chuck0 (talk) 17:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

.77.251.34.32 (talk) 13:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Anarcha-feminism section

I'm a bit concerned that the anarcha-feminism section is too much a section about famous woman anarchists. Many male anarchists have been anarcha-feminists, so some research needs to be done to flesh out this subsection. Also, the section needs to name more contemporary anarcha-feminists. On another note, this section includes the following text: "Anarcha-feminists also often criticize the views of some of the traditional anarchists such as Mikhail Bakunin who have believed that patriarchy is only a minor problem and is dependent only on the existence of the state and capitalism and will disappear soon after such institutions are abolished." There needs to be a citation backing up this sentence. A recent biography of Bakunin made a very compelling case that Bakunin was an early feminist, even more so given that his sisters were active revolutionaries and thinkers. Chuck0 (talk) 06:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The anarcha-feminism section was only recently added to Anarchist schools of thought out of a concern that omitting such a prominent tradition was a serious failure for an article purporting to be a comprehensive overview of its subject. The anarcha-feminism article was not much help given its state, so this is a rough first draft. I'd encourage you or anyone familiar with anarcha-feminism to revise the anarcha-feminism article with cited material, an then we can alter the overview at Anarchist schools of thought and the summary here. From previous experience with the Green anarchism and National-Anarchism sections of the schools of thought page, the author Fang23 is not touchy about editors revising his work

The broader question is what to do with sections of this article that are of comparably poor quality - such as the green anarchism and anarcho-syndicalism sections in the recent past. Do we leave in the full length low-quality section, stub it, or remove altogether pending improvement? Skomorokh ^incite 14:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Deserves some mention of Joseph Dejacque... 72.83.176.33 (talk) 04:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Done i mentioned Joseph Dejacque.--Fang 23 (talk) 00:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Anarchism vs Liberalism - move Schools of Thought out.

This article is far too American, and leans far too far into Liberalist thinking as opposed to Anarchist thinking. The rest of the world sees Anarchism quite differently to Liberalism, see Noam Chomsky's writings on the subject in essays such as "Future of Government".

In the end, this article no longer captures what Anarchism is for new readers, the 'different schools of thought' section is the real culprit here, basically dividing Anarchists into Socialists or Free Traders with nothing much in between. You have to consider the over all effect of listing these factions for a new reader, without properly defining Anarchism itself, as an overhead banner first. (There is at least twice as much written for each faction, as opposed to Anarchism itself which gets half a paragraph)

Since Anarchist Schools of Thought is already an article on it's own ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_schools_of_thought ), should it really be repeated here where it distracts from the question what is Anarchism, which actually is a genuine question. You wouldn't answer someone's question "What is socialism" by first citing 5 sub types of socialism. You'd first tackle the question head on, what is Socialism, as opposed to Capitalism, Anarchism and other non-compatible schools of thought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lou777 (talk • contribs) 19:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the Schools of thought section is largely redundant here and should be radically truncated, but editors have opposed such suggestions in the past. The major difficulty with attempting to define anarchism before defining the different genres thereof is that self-described anarchists and scholarly sources disagree fundamentally on what anarchism is. For example, is anarchism opposed to hierarchy, authority, all government, just compulsory government or something else? There is no agreement, so there is very little we can write about it other than report the controversy or give dictionary definitions like in the lead paragraph. Regards, Skomorokh ^incite 19:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

It may be a good idea to point out that there is not agreement on what anarchism is. A source for such a statement is probably not too hard to find. Operation Spooner (talk) 05:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I was rather bold and took the scalpel to the Schools of thought section, perLou777 's suggestion. I agree an expanded introductory section would be useful. скоморохъ ^ѧ 12:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I noticed you inserted the term "sticky property." Looking on Google, there are extremely few references to the term. It appears to be a neologism invented by the author of Anarcho-capitalist FAQ. I don't think hardly anyone would know what it means. Operation Spooner (talk) 17:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, it's standard terminology in certain strands of econ, I was trying to avoid the zaxlebaxian "property", but you were rightto alter it, it's neologistic and probably confusing to the reader. Thanks for catching that. скоморохъ 08:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the late addition to this conversation, but it gets right to the heart of the problem with this article... it's not that there is no agreement on what anarchism is, it's that there are two or three well-defined meanings (or at least two or three strong clusters of related meanings). Each of these meanings is used very consistently by the factions that prefers it. Basically "anarchism = anti-government" is the definition used by, a few political scholars, anarcho-capitalists, and the entire non-anarchist public. On the other hand, "anarchism = anti-authority" (phrased in a hundred different ways) is the definition used by all other factions of anarchists (with the possible exception of certain anarcho-primitivists). Both definitions go way, way back and have wide agreement within their spheres of use. That's why it's such a difficult problem--each definition has traction, but only in a certain group of people. That's also why anarcho-capitalists have such a hard time getting acceptance within the movement--they are on the far side of a definitional chasm which groups ancaps and lay people on one side with all other factions of anarchism on the other. Aelffin (talk) 18:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

220.86.141.204

I want to thank the editors who quickly addressed the edits this anonymous user made. They added a bunch of links and then removed links to Infoshop three times, which violates the 3 revert rule. This IP maps to an ISP in South Korea, so it's possible that somebody is using an anonymous proxy to make edits and attack legitimate links to Infoshop.org. I really don't understand why people waste their time doing this. Chuck0 (talk) 03:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem, the intentions of anonymous IP's are difficult to fathom sometimes. скоморохъ 12:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Left-wing (collectivist,anarcho-coomunist/syndicalist) anarchist POV

Please do not remove the link to the "greenanarchy.org" site, on the external links section. This website is mentioned in mainstream channels, both since the wto riots and occasionally associated with the unabomber case, making it relatively well known. It is a website of a magazine with worldwide circulation and it is probably the most well known associated with the green anarchist branch. But most of all, there is a reason of balance while protecting this section from spam. There are websites in that section that are not that all notable, with fairly recent history, and seem to be there for the sake of a POV ideological judgment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maziotis (talk • contribs) 14:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Ex links associated with sub-branches belong on the sub branch pages only. Check out WP:EL: "a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked from an article about a general subject". I'm not necessarily defending the other links, but it's blatantly obvious this one concerns green anarchism first and foremost. Regards, скоморохъ 15:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

"archism.net - an anarchism without adjectives resource" Why have you not deleted this link, for example? It is referenced as a resource for "anarchism without adjectives".

Most of these websites, if not all, represent a particular view of anarchism. Either we delete them all, or we choose a list of general resources sites that stems from the different anarchist branches.Maziotis (talk) 16:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

"Anarchism without adjectives" implies it welcomes all forms of anarchism. It itself does not refer to itself as anarchism without adjectives. That's just wikipedia's designation. Zazaban (talk) 18:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

No, that's not what anarchism without adjectives implies. I consider myself to be an anarchist without adjectives, so I'm familiar with the history of this tendency within anarchism. Voltairine de Cleyre was one of the first anarchists to use this term. It doesn't mean that "anything goes", rather that the person who identifies as such doesn't like ideological labels as such and/or doesn't feel the need to adopt a more sectarian label to describe their anarchism. Chuck0 (talk) 05:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying what it is, I'm saying what that being used to describe the site is trying to imply. Notwithstanding, the site doesn't use that label on itself. Zazaban (talk) 06:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

That description (welcome of all forms of anarchism) itself represents an ideological approach to this issue. Just because it seems to rely on a more "broden" view of anarchist ideals dosen't make it more acceptable to anarchists who see themselves in every branch of a political doctrine. Why should the article "anarchism" represent the, let's say, 70% of anarchists who consider the colectivist/individualist dichotomy to be the essential question of anarchism, for example. Also, there is another example on the news section of the external links, where you find the website that expresses cleraly on there "editorial statement", "We identify ourselves as anarchists and with the "platformist", anarchist-communist or especifista tradition of anarchism." Now, why, on light of those principles concerning only having general anarchist sites, should we have a link to a forum of anarcho-communists?

There isn't a consensus of what "anarchism" is, let alone of what "general anarchism" might be. If you take this particular issue and apply to all of these websites, you will find the same problem. This criterion of "democratic representation" that leads you to speak about general anarchism is not even accepted by wikipedia standards, which clearly states not to be democratic, but always a plataform to seek consensus.

Clearly, that wikipedian principle that states that "a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked from an article about a general subject" is difficult to apply on a political doctrine. It's hard to find a resource that is clearly, for any common sense, to accept as universal for everyone concerned.Maziotis (talk) 22:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

After reading the discussion and the about pages of Anarchism.net and Anarkismo.net, I have changed the description of the former from anarchism without adjectives as any link with the historical school is OR on our part, and I have moved the explicitly platformist Anarkismo.net to the relevant subarticle.

While I agree that it is difficult to apply policy to some of these links, Greenanarchy.org and Anarkismo.net clearly tie their colors to one mast.

Our ex link policy for this article does need further discussion I think.скоморохъ 12:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

This entire article is bad

Can someone else please back me up that this article needs to be laid out a little better. I can't make head or tail past what the definition is. This history is suspect and the content is just plain rubbish. I agree that some of the content is well written but the article itself is missing cohesion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.218.53 (talk) 12:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, I agree that this article needs work and I'd like to help but I'm not sure how to address your concerns - could you be a little more specific? Regards, скоморохъ 12:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The biggest problem with the article, IMHO, is that it totally fails to address the current resurgence of anarchism as a movement. There's not a single mention of Seattle, black blocs, WTO, the web presence of anarchism, or anything that's happened in the last ten years. This is a significant oversight since this article wouldn't even exist if it weren't for this resurgence. There's plenty of scholarly material on the subject, some of which I've listed in the two "resources" threads I placed below. Considering that anarchism was nearly dead in 1990 and has become one of the hottest issues on the left today, I think us Wikipedians have really missed the boat on this one. Of course, I'm too busy to do the writing, but my suggestion to anybody who is actively participating in developing the content for this article is to leave well enough alone on the historical stuff that fills this article and move on to some of the more interesting aspects of the current movement. Aelffin (talk) 20:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

If there is a current resurgence, it deserves mention in several sentences, maybe even a subsection. But more than that would be recentism. Which of the sources says there was a resurgence? If you think the article would not exist if there had been a resurgence, you have not seen many articles on Wikipedia. There are articles on a very wide variety of topics, and anarchism would have made it even if it was a historical curiosity. -Pgan002 (talk) 02:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, not that this comment matters, but not knowing nor wishing to explore further I can say that as an anarchist of 72 years, this article is a lot of scholastic gobble which really misses a lot of very basic ideas in its overall discussion type format. Hope someone gets the plain definition out there. Regionalized government seems to be as lost as some of the historical information on anarchism from long before the modern gurus decided what it is that we have practised in small circles for a thousand years. Perhaps in the opening I am the only one who sees the following statement as an oxymoron, "the view that society can and should be organized without a coercive state," but I would like to hope others may see the total contradiction in that rather verbose line.[[[Special:Contributions/208.181.252.184|208.181.252.184]] (talk) 12:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, what contradiction do you see? More importantly, as a long-time anarchist, how specifically would you improve the article? -Pgan002 (talk) 02:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Hakim Bey picture, but no content?

Did there used to be content in the article referring to Bey that was removed maybe? It's a bit confusing that his picture is prominently displayed, but he isn't mentioned in any of the article at all... 71.65.254.179 (talk) 19:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

No, it was just the best picture I could find to depict post-WW2 anarchist thought. If you've got a better one, feel free to suggest it, as the Bey picture is of poor quality anyway. Regards, скоморохъ 21:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

An Excellent Resource

Here's a very good scholarly article entitled Making the News - Anarchist Counter Public Relations on the World Wide Web http://www.unc.edu/~lynnn/makingthenews.pdf As I've argued in the past, I think the current article is extremely weak on modern anarchism. This article would be a good resource to start writing a section on the post-Seattle resurgence. Aelffin (talk) 18:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

This article contains an interesting datum that's pertinent to the anarcho-capitalist/traditional anarchist debate. Based on their 1998 analysis of anarchist websites, "...81% of all links made by anarchists are to explicitly left-political sites." Aelffin (talk) 20:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Another good quote... "There is an old joke that if you put three anarchists in a room, you will get four different definitions of anarchism." Aelffin (talk) 21:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Scholarly Resources

Glancing over the list of sources in this article, it seems like the vast majority are primary sources and general encyclopediae. There are very few scholarly secondary sources. In order to combat some of the well-deserved criticism of this article, I suggest we start shifting our focus to scholarly literature. There is plenty of scholarly material available online and in print. The list below is the result of the first 10 pages of results from a Google search for the term "anarchists" in PDF files, after weeding out all the non-scholarly articles. This is about as close as I think we could get to an unbiassed sampling of scholarly literature, and I suggest this list as a basis for future rewrites of this article and as a starting point for finding further scholarly resources. I ignored the actual subject matter of the articles, and only focused on whether they were associated with a university and had plenty of citations. As such, you'll find many opinions and stances as well as a range of depth from methodic analysis to mere mention. Aelffin (talk) 20:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC) Image

I think this is an excellent idea and we should all pitch in and try to extract as much useful info as possible. скоморохъ 01:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC) ~~To this end, I have vetted the articles for their reliability:~~

denotes a reliable source, published by a third party, peer reviewed etc.

denotes an article written by a reputable scholar but which does not meet publishing standards i.e. a paper presented at a conference

denotes a source that is unreliable i.e. theses, dissertations, unpublished essays.

~~denotes my ignorance.~~ скоморохъ 13:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

You can explain your reasoning for each resource above if you like, but I'm taking off your icons because they give the impression that the sources were actually "vetted" by more than just you. Aelffin (talk) 19:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! I was going to remove these icons, but you beat me to it. The presence of those icons gave the impression that they were part of an official Wikipedia process for classifying sources. The sourcing scoring system can only represent the subjective opinions of one individual. Hey, thanks to the person who posted these links. I've added most of these files to the Infoshop Library. Chuck0 (talk) 03:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry chaps, it was poor judgement on my part; I have struck my comment above. I did not mean to sound at all authoritative, just trying to help Aefflin's idea along by indicating which sources would be best to concentrate on. Have we any ideas about how to procede with them? Apologies again, скоморохъ 03:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

No worries. I figure if somebody wants to use one of these, they should just make a note here as to why they think it's reliable and we'll all hash it out like we always do. Aelffin (talk) 04:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, once a source is vetted by consensus, I think we should put the icon on it for future reference. I'd like to see the same done for the references that are already cited in the article. Aelffin (talk) 16:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Definitions of anarchism

Here's a decent scholarly article that deals extensively with various definitionss of the word "anarchism". To combat some of the criticism of the opening paragraphs of the current article, I think this is a good place to start for a rewrite. There is an extensive reference list at the end that will provide more sources. Aelffin (talk) 19:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Australian Anarcha-punk Zines - Poststructuralism in contemporary anarchist and gender politics http://www4.gu.edu.au:8080/adt-root/uploads/approved/adt-QGU20070104.115215/public/02Whole.pdf

The master's thesis that you've linked to really doesn't deal particularly well with the definitions of "anarchism." The lit review covers "zine literature" and a bit of "punk literature." While it would be nice to get some more recent material in here, rewriting the definition section on the basis of this kind of thing would be a real disaster. Libertatia (talk) 23:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The reason scholarly sources are preferabble to general reference books is that scholarly articles deal more directly with the primary sources. Zines are one of the most important primary source materials for documenting social movements such as anarchism. While I agree that using this article alone would be a bad move, my argument is that our definitions should be based on this and other scholarly, comparatively up-to-date, secondary sources (rather than, say, century old primary sources). Aelffin (talk) 15:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The defining idea, "the rejection of a coercive state", is stated three times in the first four sentences. A better use of these sentences would be to state other defining ideas, such as rejection of illegitemate authority ("seek out authority and challenge it"), rejection of power hierarchies, the aim "to create a society within which individuals freely co-operate together as equals. As such anarchism opposes all forms of hierarchical control ..."[1] What's more, perhaps one of these more general or positive definitions should be in the first sentence instead of the "rejection of the state". Certainly there is no need to put our own definition that just rephrases one of the quoted definitions. -Pgan002 (talk) 02:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

AAFAQ

Off-topic discussion of AAFAQ and Infoshop.org

"The most prominent site is the Anarchist FAQ, which receives links from over 20% of anarchist sites in the population." [2] There you have it, AAFAQ is the most prominent Anarchist website, or at least it was at the time of this study. So, feel free to use it as a reference. Aelffin (talk) 21:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

That definitely clashes with the claim at Anarchism.net that IT is the most popular anarchist website. This claim SEEMS to be based on doing a google search for anarchism, and anarchism.net being the second listing (after THIS article). Murderbike (talk) 23:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

You might want to be more specific when you talk about popularity or citations. Infoshop.org has been the most popular website for many years. Doing a quick check of stats shows that Anarchism.net doesn't even come close to Infoshop, or for that matter, most anarchist websites. Infoshop is well cited too, including citations in scholarly literature. But this section is about An Anarchist FAQ which is seen be many anarchists to be a reputable source on the subject of anarchism. Chuck0 (talk) 02:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

From that same source "gathered data on the structure and content of the anarchist Web media by searching for 'anarchism' on Yahoo.com in the fall of 1998", so this data is nearly a decade old were as google search results are quite current. Again from that same source "we did not collect systematic data on the number of non-anarchist sites linking into the network", so this data only accounts for anarchists sites not the web in general as google search does. JoshHeitzman (talk) 05:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

That's correct--the question of what counts as the most prominent anarchist website is really two different questions. First, what is the most linked-to anarchist website within the online anarchist community. Second, what is the most linked-to anarchist website in general. The paper actually does deal with both questions as I recall, but the only one I quoted was the first one. It's also correct that Google is more up to date, but Google is not a citable source. Either way, I don't think there's any doubt that (as some have argued here in the past) AAFAQ is fair game for citations. Aelffin (talk) 15:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Irrelevant, popularity has no bearing on what constitutes a reliable source; its reputation for fact-checking and accuracy and its thorough vetting by the scholarly community are what counts. AAFAQ appears to be completely unacceptable on these grounds and should only be included as an "opinion" source (as it is popular and representative of a certain POV) rather than a "fact" source. скоморохъ 15:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it should be used as a representation of popular points of view within anarchism. What I mean is that I should be able to write "According to one of the most prominent anarchist websites[scholarly citation], anarchism is defined as...[AAFAQ citation]." Or, "According to one of the most prominent anarchist websites[scholarly citation], anarchists do not recognize anarcho-capitalism as being within the anarchist milieu [AFAQ itation]." I've seen such statements challenged in the past on the basis that AAFAQ isn't a reliable resource. I just want it to be on record that, according to scholarly research, AAFAQ does in fact represent popular anarchist opinion. Aelffin (talk) 16:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

No, AAFAQ should only be included for its own opinions i.e. "AAFAQ does not consider an-caps to be anarchists". It is not a reliable source for facts. Consider a parallel case "According to one of the most prominent talk radio shows[scholarly citation], liberals are...[[[Rush Limbaugh]] citation]." AAFAQ is a partisan hackjob, popular and respected in its partisan circles, whose factual claims should not be given credence in an encyclopedia article. скоморохъ 16:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Bad analogy. The proper analogy is "According to a prominent conservative [scholarly citation], conservatives are...[Rush Limbaugh citation]." That's fair, because it's the source (important conservative) talking about his own area of expertise (conservatism). Same holds if Jesse Jackson is talking about the democratic party or Murray Rothbard is talking about anarcho-capitalism. Whether you agree with them or not, they are all independantly acknowledged as respected experts, and they are speaking on topics in their field of expertise. Likewise with AAFAQ. If it was Rush talking about liberals or Jesse talking about republicans, or Murray talking about socialists, then your analogy would hold true. But the reverse does not hold. Aelffin (talk) 17:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Clarification The proper analogy is "According to a prominent conservative organization [scholarly citation], conservatives don't consider democrats to be conservative...[Heritage Foundation citation]." Aelffin (talk) 17:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The editors of AAFAQ are not independently acknowledged as experts in their fields. Furthermore, the "anarchism" AAFAQ refers to is explicitly limited to social anarchism (see refs of AFAQ), and is therefore a very different kettle of fish than the "anarchism" this article is discussing. So not only are they not experts in their field, this isn't even their field. We have a long-standing consensus that sectarianism should not be treated as fact; including partisan sources of questionable reliability is tendentious. скоморохъ 18:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

It's ridiculous to say that the editor of the AAFAQ is not acknowledged to be an expert in the field of anarchism. Who are you? The editor of the AAFAQ is well known in the international anarchist movement and the FAQ is generally seen, even by critics, to be a fairly good overview of anarchism. Chuck0 (talk) 03:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

First, it's not an issue of fact. It's an issue of opinion, so the factual reliability is irrelevant. Second, the study did not isolate socialist anarchism from anarcho-capitalism. It was a study of all known anarchist websites at the time. And it found that AAFAQ was the single most prominent website out of all known anarchist websites at the time. So, while the AAFAQ editors may or may not be "experts" per se, they can at least be considered representative of the opinions of online anarchists circa 1998. Aelffin (talk) 18:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. There is no proof that they represent the opinions of any more than the handful, or less, of online anarchists that wrote it. Operation Spooner (talk) 18:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by the AAFAQ website? What is that? Operation Spooner (talk) 18:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The AAFAQ even comes and out admits that it's biased. It doesn't even pretend to be objective. To use it as a source of fact seems to be out of the question based on that alone. Operation Spooner (talk) 18:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

AAFAQ makes an argument, and it cites sources with a thoroughness that puts most academic work on anarchism absolutely to shame. It has the same sort of "bias" that any scholarly work which advances an interpretation will necessarily have. If that sort of "bias" is fatal, then every general history of anarchism that I am aware of would stand a good chot at being disqualified. But the presentation and documentation of arguments, and their subsequent testing, is merely part of scholarly process. And, by Wikpedia's standards, we are not the folks who get to make the calls. So far, the responses to AAFAQ seem to have been equally partisan, and the author's responses to substantive criticism generally within scholarly bounds. Libertatia (talk) 19:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

No. Not as a source of fact, as a source of opinion. But it is independantly verified as being representative of the opinions of online anarchism. The study's other finding I mentioned above was that "...81% of all links made by anarchists are to explicitly left-political sites." So, we can safely say that online anarchism as of 1998 was predominately leftist, and that the leftist-oriented AAFAQ was the center of online anarchism. That would seem to make their opinions quite representative of online anarchism. Aelffin (talk) 18:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you're confused. I think you're talking about Infoshop.com. They're not the author of the AAFAQ. They just post in on their website. That's not the AAFAQ website. The actual AAFAQ website is here: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/ Operation Spooner (talk) 18:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I visit Infoshop, which posts the AAFAQ. Does that mean the AAFAQ represents my opinions? I don't see how you can draw that conclusion. Operation Spooner (talk) 18:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Infoshop.org is the primary website for AAFAQ. I can say that as the coordinator of Infoshop. Chuck0 (talk) 03:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not my conclusion. It is the conclusion of independant scholarly research based on empircal data (though it also happens to verify the anecdotal evidence). The paper says -

Anarchists are very self-conscious about their public image. Most sites include their own disclaimer about what anarchism is and is not. Many sites, however, rather than dedicate a large share of their web space to explaining and justifying anarchism, choose instead to refer the reader to the core, thereby creating a centralized public face of anarchism online...The most prominent site is the Anarchist FAQ, which receives links from over 20% of anarchist sites in the population. Offering an introductory statement on anarchism to the uninitiated, the FAQ’s stated goal is "to present what anarchism really stands for and indicate why you should become an anarchist," and it includes over 1000 pages of original text covering most aspects of anarchist thought and practice.

This very clearly states that 20% of all anarchist websites in 1998 were using AAFAQ as a substitute for their own FAQ. It also identifies two or three other websites that constitute the "core". Aelffin (talk) 18:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

From that, how are you drawing the conclusion that everyone, most, or even some people, that links to the AAFAQ or posts the AAFAQ on their website considers everything in it to be representative of their own opinions? This is a non sequitur. Operation Spooner (talk) 19:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

As quoted above, the study draws the conclusion that "Most sites include their own disclaimer about what anarchism is and is not. Many sites, however, rather than dedicate a large share of their web space to explaining and justifying anarchism, choose instead to refer the reader to the core". The core is identified as the following, with AAFAQ as the most important of these...

Infoshop www.infoshop.org
Anarchist FAQ www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931
Spunk Press www.spunk.org
Liberty for the People flag.blackened.net/liberty
Anarchy Archives anarchyarchives.org
Noam Chomsky Archive http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/index.cfm
Independent Media Center www.indymedia.org

Aelffin (talk) 19:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

But, I visit some of those sites too. That doesn't mean that everything in the AAFAQ is representative of my opinions. The most you could say, and even then it would not be reasonable to say, is that the owners of those website agree that everything in the AAFAQ is representative of their own opinions. The AAFAQ is linked to on Wikipedia. What does it mean? Nothing, other than that someone posted it here. Operation Spooner (talk) 19:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

This is the problem with Wikipedia's "Verifiability, not Truth" policy. Murderbike (talk) 19:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Spooner--Visiting is not the same as linking to. Murderbike--The study is verifiable and provides evidence that AAFAQ was the most prominent anarchist website. The most prominent website may be quoted to demonstrate its own point of view. I don't see what the problem is. Spooner--Now, you may contend that study was flawed in its conclusion that anarchist websites linked to AAFAQ to substitute for their own FAQs, but that contention is original research on your part. Aelffin (talk) 19:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is the most prominent encyclopedia site is it not? Does that mean that most people who visit it agree with everything that's in it? It doesn't make any sense what you're saying. I view the AAFAQ. Some of it I agree with and some I don't. And why are you referencing someone's term paper? Has this paper even been published? Operation Spooner (talk) 19:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

It isn't my conclusion. It is the study's conclusion. If you don't think the study makes sense, then affiliate yourself with a university and publish your own scholarly study that we can quote as a criticism. It is published by the Department of Sociology, on the website of the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Aelffin (talk) 19:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

So what if anarchists websites link to the AAFAQ? You can't, and the study, doesn't draw any conclusion than that other than it's a popularly-linked to website. Just the act of linking to something doesnt meant that you agree with everything in it. Moreover, there is no evidence that the owners of those sites that do link to it have opinions identical to the opinions of all online anarchists. The study says no such thing. Operation Spooner (talk) 19:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Once more, the study concludes that the websites link to AAFAQ "rather than dedicate a large share of their web space to explaining and justifying anarchism". You can dispute this conclusion, but that statement is pretty clear. Also, where did you find that this study was a term paper? Aelffin (talk) 19:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

It says rather than explaining and justifying anarchism the websites point people to other websites including the AAFAQ for information. That still doesn't mean that all online anarchists agree with everything in the AAFAQ, or even that some of them agree with everything in the AAFAQ. How are you coming to that conclusion? (The study just looked like a term paper. If it's published nevermind that.) Operation Spooner (talk) 19:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I never said that online anarchists agreee with everything in the AAFAQ. I just said it was the most prominent website out of a handful of ideologically similar "core" sites. Just read the study. Here are some quotes...

"A form of ideological gatekeeping emerges, which encourages readers to pass through core introductory sites first before moving to sites dedicated to anarchist activism on the periphery."
"The core-periphery structure funneled readers towards the core, which displays ideological agreement, while a densely connected community facilitated movement through the network and situated anarchism within a broader political context."

Aelffin (talk) 20:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

You said "While the AAFAQ editors may or may not be "experts" per se, they can at least be considered representative of the opinions of online anarchists circa 1998." The study doesn't indicate that. One of the quotes you gave said something about "ideological agreement" among a few websites. So what? That still doesn't lead to your conclusion, that I can see. Operation Spooner (talk) 20:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I said AAFAQ (and a few other ideologically similar core sites) are representative of the larger anarchist website population. I never said that they all agree. Agreement and representation are two different things. The study says the core sites are being used as a substitute for FAQs on the periphery sites. That's representation. Aelffin (talk) 21:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

That's not what it said. It said that they displayed ideological agreement. I take that as meaning the operators of those websites are all social anarchists. But that still doesn't mean that everything in the AAFAQ is representative of the opinions of all the social anarchists than run those websites. And it certainly doesnt mean that everything in the AAFAQ is representative of "online anarchist" except for those few people that wrote the AAFAQ. There may even be disagreement among two or more authors of the AAFAQ. That AAFAQ cannot speak for all anarchists or even all social anarchists. Operation Spooner (talk) 21:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The AAFAQ was written by anarchists, not social anarchists. The fact that you make this distinction about social anarchists indicates that you are one of those anarcho-capitalists who come here to pick fights. Chuck0 (talk) 04:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Spooner--you're the only one who's using the word "everything". Ultimately, each person speaks only for him, her, or itself. However, Wikipedia cannot display every single opinion. Our job as Wikipedians is to use scholarly secondary sources to summarize the most significant aspects of the subject matter. The data show a significant majority of anarchist websites linked to other politically left websites outside the anarchist community and that the most linked-to websites inside the community were a small number of left-oriented websites. The data are here, for the record. I think the significance is obvious, but other people may use them as they see fit. I'm bowing out of the conversation for now. Aelffin (talk) 22:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

If you agree that there is not agreement on "everything" in the FAQ among anarchists, then you have to concede that quoting anything from the fact is going to be a gamble on whether that particular statement is going to represent the opinion of all, most, or some anarchists. Just the fact that a lot of people link to the AAFAQ doesn't mean anything other than it's a popular thing to which to link. It's linked to on Wikipedia but that doesn't mean that the opinions presented by the FAQ represent the opinions of all of us here who use and operate Wikipedia. Operation Spooner (talk) 22:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

"Irrelevant, popularity has no bearing on what constitutes a reliable source; its reputation for fact-checking and accuracy and its thorough vetting by the scholarly community are what counts. AAFAQ appears to be completely unacceptable on these grounds and should only be included as an "opinion" source (as it is popular and representative of a certain POV) rather than a "fact" source" Popularity does have a bearing on what is considered to be a reliable source. Popularity is a factor that is considered in the construction of traditional reference tools. Google and other search engine rely on search algorithms that factor in the popularity of a site based on links to that site (see Alexa pagerank). It's interesting that you come here with some certainty about what a reliable source constitutes, when Wikipedia policy itself admits that thisis a contested idea. I'm also bothered by this idea that the "scholarly community" is being put on a pedestal. There are lots of people not involved in academia who are capable of vetting and fact-checking sources. Anarchists are traditionally not situated in academia. And the primary editor of AAFAQ has been responsive over the past 10 years to corrections and rewrites. Chuck0 (talk) 03:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Chuck, you surely know by know that I'm referring to Wikipedia policy, not some commonsense definition of reliable. Anarchism.net is one of the first results of a Google search for "anarchism", making it an extremely popular resource - I don't think this qualifies it as a reliable source either. Using 10-year old research on internet usage to gauge reliability is even more ridiculous. Scholarly community need not be limited to academia, nor should a reputation for vetting and fact-checking. The AAFAQ has been, with some merit, criticized by respected scholars such as Caplan and Friedman for being uninterested in the truth. I'm not going to get in to this much further, as the ridiculous length of this discussion compared to the dearth of constuctve editing to the actual article is so indicative of what's wrong with this page, and anarchist activism generally.скоморохъ 09:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't like to toot our own horn, but Infoshop is probably the most prominent anarchist website. That is based on our traffic, which has made Infoshop consistently the most popular website on the nets. There are plenty of links out there to Infoshop and citations in scholarly resources. But this thread is about the AAFAQ, so let me point out that many anarchists, including critics, see the FAQ as being a pretty reliable source on what anarchism is about. People should do some research to see what critics say about the FAQ. The FAQ was also updated recently (tho I haven't uploaded the updates to Infoshop) to reflect some input from a prominent anarcho-individualist. I've expressed some criticism of the AAFAQ too, but I would consider it to be one of the best contemporary overviews on anarchism. Chuck0 (talk) 03:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Infoshop is a has been. But yes this is about the AAFAQ, and you may have your standard of what constitutes reliability, but I don't think they meet the higher standards of reliability for Wikipedia. Operation Spooner (talk) 04:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

In other words, the comment you just made makes no sense. You make an attack on Infoshop.org as being a "has been", which is pretty funny given the scope of our website and its popularity. Your comment about the AAFAQ not meeting Wikipedia's standards of reliability demonstrates that you don't know anything about Wikipedia's standards. I don't know if anybody has pointed this out yet, but the AAFAQ is being printed in book form by AK Press this month or next. That's a pretty good indication of the FAQ's notability and importance in the international anarchist movement. I will also note that parts of the FAQ have been translated into other languages, which is another indicator of importance and reliability. Chuck0 (talk) 04:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh come on. You know good and well that when most people want info on anarchism, they look on Wikipedia, not Infoshop. Infoshop is a dinosaur, and it's going to remain that way as long as it's focused on socialist anarchism and biased against market anarchism. About AAFAQ being published, we heard that last year too. Until that happens, and it probably will never happen, it's irrelevant. If it does happen, it will be by a second party publisher so it will still not be percieved as very reliable. The fact that someone translated it it in no way indicative of importance or reliability. Operation Spooner (talk) 06:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Zazaban (talk) 07:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Your comments are pretty silly. Lots of people come to Infoshop for information on anarchism. If Infoshop is such a dinosaur, why are we adding two news servers to deal with our increasing traffic? Infoshop is not focused on socialist anarchism, in fact, its long been our mission to promote and educate about anarchism, as it is broadly defined. That is part of the reason why Infoshop has become one of the go to websites on the subject of anarchism. We have some materials on market anarchism and will be adding more in the future. Adding more stuff always depends on volunteers.

The AAFAQ is being published this year by AK Press. I don't understand why you dismiss this. Printing schedules always slip a bit at independent publishers. The fact that the FAQ is being published by a major independent publishers shows that the FAQ is reliable and noteworthy. The fact that the FAQ has been translated into multiple languages also demonstrates its importance to anarchists. That's how you measure these things. If you just don't like the FAQ, say so. Otherwise, you've just lost this argument. Chuck0 (talk) 01:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Where on your site is info on market anarchism? Do you have info about the most famous market anarchist Murray Rothbard? Last I heard Infoshop banned any discussion of anarcho-capitalism. Operation Spooner (talk) 05:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Infoshop has some articles and information about mutualism and market anarchism. We were going to add more stuff to the library, but much of the recent material I found are bloggish postings unsuitable for a library. Infoshop News has featured and linked to stories by mutualists and market anarchists. You are quite right about us not allowing any "anarcho-capitalism" on the website. That isn't the same thing as market anarchism. Almost all anarchists see "anarcho-capitalism" as being an oxymoron. Market anarchists and mutualists are quite clear that they are anti-capitalist. By the way, we may be including something by Rothbard in a book I'm publishing. Chuck0 (talk) 17:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

And that's why Infoshop is a dinosaur, trying to hold on to dying philosophy. Very few people are mutualists today. Nearly everyone today who calls himself a market anarchist is an anarcho-capitalist. There is no basic difference between almost everyone who calls themself a market anarchist and the philosophy and Rothbard or Friedman. Operation Spooner (talk) 23:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

You aren't making much sense here. You complained that Infoshop didn't have anything on mutualism and when I pointed out that we d have some content on mutualism you accuse us of being a dinosaur. Do you understand the concept of a library? A library is going to have content that doesn't reflect the views of the librarians who collect that information. Infoshop is a resource and library. Our mission is to collect and make available various resources on anarchism and other topics. The fact that we have some content on mutualism doesn't mean that any of the collective members are mutualists! Chuck0 (talk) 17:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I said you didn't have anything on market anarchism. When most people talk about "market anarchism" they're not talking about mutualism. They're talking about what you would call "anarcho-capitalism." Most anarcho-capitalists don't call themselves anarcho-capitalists, but simply market anarchists and they're not mutualists. Operation Spooner (talk) 17:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I hate to put a damper on this party, but can we please stick to discussing the article titled Anarchism instead of spouting our POVs about the FAQ and Infoshop.org? Murderbike (talk) 02:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed; off-topic discussion concealed. скоморохъ 17:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)