Talk:Anarchism/Archive 10

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 5

←

Archive 8

→

A bit of backstory

This page is one of the oldest and most hacked-up pages on Wikipedia. It's gone through several major revisions and several rounds of repeated arguments, including this same stupid argument about anarcho-capitalism and left-anarchism, several times. It's current form is due to the efforts, mostly, of Sam Francis, who is a very committed left anarchist who put a lot of hard work into updating many of the articles on anarchist theory and history on Wikipedia.

Therefore, please take a moment to pause and consider that things might have reached their current status for a certain reason, especially if you've been on Wikipedia for a period of only weeks or months (or days?). While it may insult your ideological purity, I assure you that that is not a consideration that matters to Wikipedia. What matters is presenting a cogent picture of what 'anarchism' is in as neutral a manner as possible.

If you are new to Wikipedia, I strongly suggest you back off from articles you feel passionately about and get involved in other areas that you can deal with unheatedly first. So long as you are more committed to anarchism than you are to Wikipedia, you won't be able to do justice to this article.

It's not uncommon for a Wikipedia article to be overrun by a group of people with an ideology (e.g. freepers, or as in this case their lefty counterparts from Infoshop.org) who are eager to change the article to conform to what they want. However, as anarchists I hope you will appreciate a few things:

You are in a new community, and you should respect the norms of that community.
Thrusting your nose into a new place and baldly asserting that you know what's right is not very anarchist at all.
You are not the first anarchists on Wikipedia, or the first anarchists to edit this page.

Here's hoping you'll cool down and take things more slowly. This article doesn't have to change NOW, this VERY INSTANT. If you're interested in improving Wikipedia, take it easy. Take it slowly. Learn to love it, first. I promise if you do, you'll become a much better editor and you'll do much more for the quality of this article. Graft 19:51, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Evidence of Sam's bias

Snowspinner: Why do you continue to take the side of Sam when he is (a) clearly biased, and (b) miserably ignorant and ill-informed about anarchism?

"From what I read of anarcho-capitalism, I am one. I reserve the right to defend myself, my values, and my property and will not hesitate to utlize every means necessary to do so, regardless of the desires or presence of a state. Also the definition of Libertarian Socialist (an oxymoron whose mention has lead to hearty amusement amongst many I have discussed it with) is so convoluted and bizarre as to possibly include myself as well, I wouldn't know, I don't understand it any better than that ass Chomsky who advocates it." (Sam Spade 17:48, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC))

Also, do really think I posted this on my user page?:

"HI!

I think Libertarian Socialism is the same thing as Anarchism, and change pages accordingly!"

Again, I remind you to read edit histories before jumping to conclusions. My page was vandalized. I didn't even know about the post until I saw your comment. Please note that that post was made by an anonymous user, probably Sam Spade, in an attempt to discredit me. Don't let yourself be duped.

Also, I'm not "discouraging attempts to expand and work on this page". As far as I'm concerned the truce is off, since it didn't seem to help bring about any sort of consensus. I would like to see people edit and improve this page. And I also would like to work on the article and help in the effort to achieve a sense of balance and NPOV, but I can't do anything as long as certain folks insist on reverting any and all attempts to tone down their pro-anarcho-capitalism bias on this page. Sincerely, Spleeman 22:38, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

deleting links

deletionism is anti wiki. This is a content related link. Put it on VfD or fix it if you think its bad. Censorship isn't very anarchist (in case anybody cares) either. Sam [Spade] 23:25, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The link you insist on keeping is to a "totally disputed" page that is widely acknowledged to be biased and inaccurate. I support attempts to improve said page by removing bias, but currently, I can't understand how this link helps do anything save for propagandize readers. Nevertheless, because you finally explained yourself on the talk page, I won't remove the link. We can work around it if necessary. I would suggest the following qualifier, however: "[some, many, most?] anarcho-capitalists oppose left-anarchism". Not all anarcho-capitalists actively oppose left-anarchism, although they may disagree with some of its tenets (see http:/www.anarchism.net). BTW, I am not a deletionist, as I generally oppose deleting articles except in the most extreme circumstances. (And even if I was, "deletionism is anti wiki" is not wiki policy, it's an opinion held by some.) I was not trying to imply I wanted the "critique" article deleted by removing your link. I would much rather refine the article than delete it. And I welcome any good faith attempts on your behalf to help in that process. Oh, and when did you suddenly become the expert on what is and "isn't very anarchist"? Hehe. -- Spleeman 00:09, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I appreciate your current embrace of civility. Sam [Spade] 20:37, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

This is not a matter of deletionism, as I have done nothing to remove the article itself from wikipedia. This is a matter of relevant links. It is relevant to post a blatantly POV article meant to serve as a soapbox for anarcho-capitalism to the anarcho-capitalism page, it is not relevant to post this to the anarchism page as a means of introducing anarcho-capitalism. Kev 20:16, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The link is relevent, and will remain so unless the article it links to is deleted. Sam [Spade] 20:37, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It is -not- relevant in the context of an introduction to anarcho-capitalism unless we are positing that opposition to libertarian socialism is a primary tenet of all anarcho-capitalists. It would be relevant in a section detailing the conflict between the two ideologies, but that is not where you keep inserting it. And to be clear, ac does not necessarily stand in opposition to libertarian socialism, as some anarcho-capitalists are neutral or even sympathetic to libertarian socialism. Peppering the anarchism page with links whose relevancy to a given passage is tenuous is a great way to ruin this article. If we posted such links every couple of sentences to libertarian socialism you would oppose that as well, and so would I. The link already exists on the anarcho-capitalism page, it is far more relevant to the anarcho-capitalism page, and the anarcho-capitalism page is already linked to from anarchism. If you -insist- on keeping this link the only way to balance it would be to provide similar links to libertarian socialism wherever it is remotely relevant to the subject (not even the particular text). I sincerely hope this is not the case, as it will not help this article at all. Kev 21:15, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

As you might expect, I tend to agree with Kev on this; I've said from the beginning the link adds very little to the "Anarchism" article, especially since the linked-to page is so clearly biased. I'm willing to work with folks on this issue, though. Sam: perhaps you could define for us all more clearly why you think this link is necessary. In other words, what does it add to the reader's understanding of anarchism? As I mentioned previously, I think that it is also important that we focus on working out the bias issues with the linked-to article. That will probably help both sides come to a reasonable conclusion on this. Might I suggest as well that the name of the "critique" article be changed to "Anarcho-capitalism vs. left-anarchism" or something like that, and that the content be changed accordingly, providing a more balanced discussion of both philosophies? -- Spleeman 21:52, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Let me know what you think about the new placement. Sam [Spade] 22:06, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

To be honest I think it was probably better off where it was, as the paragraph you moved it to seems to have little to do directly with left-anarchism. However, it doesn't fit in much better with the original paragraph the way it's currently written. Perhaps we should rewrite said paragraph to make it fit better, or possibly rewrite the sentence itself to say something like this: "This difference has in some cases led to intense ideological debate between anarcho-capitalists and other segments of the anarchist community, particularly left-anarchists." I was actually considering "intense animosity", but didn't want to be hyperbolic. -- Spleeman 00:05, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Again I have to challenge the relevancy of this link on the main anarchism page. Are we to put every dispute concerning anarchism on the main page and clutter it with links? As it stands it clearly belongs at the anarcho-capitalism page as a POV exposition of anarcho-capitalism. Spleeman is attempting to reform it to make it more balanced, in which case it would belong on both the anarcho-capitalism and the libertarian socialism page as relevant to each theory. But to overload the main page with this sub-section stuff is to invite in all sorts of petty disputes between every concievable group that might get the urge to call themselves anarchists, and between all the different factions of anarchism. Whether the main page is to exist as a historical disambugation page, or a minimalist disambugation page, or even as a brief introduction to each theory, these dialogues/rants belong on the sub-pages. The only criticism links that belong on this page are those directed toward anarchism as a whole, not a particular facet of it, or of a particular group claiming to be anarchist. This -is- the anarchism page, not the libertarian socialist page, nor the anarcho-capitalism page, and certainly not the anarcho-capitalist critique of libertarian socialism page. Kev 00:56, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hehe. Good points. -- Spleeman 02:29, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

What are people's thoughts on this? Can we keep the links to this page focussed on anarchism on general, since people will be able to find their way to the critique page by way of the "Anarcho-capitalism" and "Libertarian socialism" pages anyway? As I understand it, this page is going to undergo a major rewrite in the near future...this will likely be settled then. -- Spleeman 02:41, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Bad comparison

This sentence is still an unjustified narrowing of the defintion of "anarchy". It is also structurally incorrect, as it compares "anarchy" (not "anarchism") to three "-isms", statism, totalitarianism, and fascism. All three of these are theories of government, while "anarchy" refers to a social condition. Even if the sentence were not grammatically and analytically flawed, it would still imply that anarchism is more or less a reaction against the three "-isms" mentioned, which, again, is misleading to say the least. What we imply is often just as important as what we say explicitly, and this is perhaps even more true on wikipedia. For example, it could be argued that this sentence reinforces the societal POV that anarchism is defined primarily by what it opposes. Additionally, it implies that the three "-isms" mentioned are uniquely representative of what anarchism opposes, when in reality, many anarchists are just as opposed to bourgeois "democracy" as they are to fascism, for example. The original sentence was intended simply to give the anarchist defintion of the word "anarchy". Adding an faulty comparison to three specific ideologies that anarchism opposes is purposeless, especially when the things anarchism is "revolting against" can easily be discussed elsewhere in the article. -- Spleeman 19:49, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Re: Relative influence

Spleeman wrote: "First off, I disagree that "the influence of both varieties of anarchism is close to zero." Small, yes, but "close to zero"? No. Then there's your assertion that "the global influence of Mormonism is small". Where's your documentation for that? "What is your documentation for the claim that left-anarchism is presently more substantial than A-C?" In the U.S.: Food Not Bombs; IWW (growing); the presence of black blocs in almost all major street demonstrations; the anti-globalization movement; anarchist federations; intentional communities and anarchist communes; infoshops; zines; publishing houses; yes, even websites; left-anarchism's influence on the Green movement, or within the punk subculture, or on groups such as the ELF; and more, of course. Elsewhere: Zapatistas; Landless Workers' Movement (Brazil), the anti-poll tax campaign in England in the 1980s (initiated by anarchists); left-anarchist organizations throughout Europe; militant action in places such as Greece; and I know I'm missing lots of stuff. This is not to mention historically how important left-anarchism has been. Must I mention the Spanish Revolution? By contrast, there is virtually no anarcho-capitalist activity outside the internet that I know of." (Spleeman, June 25)

Okay, this is interesting stuff. (although the history I was already aware of, so I asked about the present specifically). Of course, when you start talking about influence rather than actually full-fledged anarchism, it becomes even more difficult to quantify.

It occurs to me that the way I've been thinking about this has been a little Norteamericano-centric. Based on living in the US most of my life, I still think the influence of any kind of anarchism there at present is pretty close to zero. The rest of the world, I don't know about. Incidentally, the IWW may be growing, but the only contemporary member I can think of was a player in the Libertarian Party.

Let me assure you that A-C does exist outside the web. The main vehicle for market anarchism in the US is the Mises Institute. Even then, it can seem unclear to casual observers, because they rarely label themselves specifically. But the principals (which basically means Rockwell and Hoppe) are clearly A-C's, and, if you look at the last few major publications of theirs, they contain pretty hardcore anti-statism. In addition to LvMI, there are large, mostly unorganized factions in the Libertarian Party (actually, the pledge that people sign when they join the LP would appear to bind them all to being social pacifists, but this often interpreted very loosely) and the Free State Project (despite the name) that support A-C. There is also the couple-year-old Molinari Institute, although from what I can tell, that is still primarily a web presence. For curiosity's sake, there is also a Molinari Institute in Molinari's native Belgium, which appears to be one person; there may or may not be anyone else in the country who cares about libertarian thought.

In general, anarcho-capitalists just don't seem very inclined to form membership organizations. I remember a while back on an A-C message board I used to read, somebody showed up one time and suggested starting to organize an Ancap Society or somesuch. He was laughed out of the place! "Good luck centrally planning things", somebody said to him.

As for the influence of Mormonism -- it's just a general impression, anｄI mean this as compared to the real biggies like Marxism, Islam, the rest of Christianity, etc. The Mormons have a lot of money and they aggressively seeking converts worldwide, but in practice there still aren't very many of them outside North America. - Nat Kraus e 17:20, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Spleeman wrote (starts by quoting me):""'Yeah, right, those anarcho-primitivists are always making the nightly news." (Nat Krause 05:23, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)). Wait, and anarcho-capitalists are?"

Nope, I certainly didn't mean that. None of them are.

More Spleeman: "Actually, green anarchists and anarcho-primitivists did receive a great deal of mainstream media attention after the Seattle protests in 1999." (Spleeman, June 26)

Well, I was paying some attention to those events at the time, and I recall hearing little or nothing about "green anarchists" or "anarcho-primitivists" as such. I do remember hearing a little bit about black-clad anarchists smashing stuff.

More Spleeman: "And then of course, there was the fucking Unabomber. Did you miss that?"

That's a good point ... well it's a point, anyway. I did forget about him. But what kind of publicity is this? I agree that anarchists can get some attention when they break things or blow people up. This is a sad state of affairs, though, and nothing to be proud of (I don't mean to imply that you are proud of it).

Kev wrote: "Nat was more than a tad unlucky with his choice of words. I mean honestly, could there be a more primitivist oriented organization than the E.L.F. (http://www.earthliberationfront.com/main.shtml)? Talk about making the nightly news all the time, they do." (Kevehs, June 26)

Arguably, although I had no idea from the news that ELF were anarchists, just that they were radical environmentalists. How many examples can you give me of anarchists getting attention for something other than breaking stuff?

This is just a demonstration of your insincerity Nat. You asked for evidence you clearly thought did not exist (i.e. anarchists getting widespread news attention). I supplied that evidence, and then you change the requirements. This is a bait and switch technique not used by people who are actually trying to learn something. Kev 20:27, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

More Spleeman: "Also, the local newspaper in Eugene, Oregon did a "bests" list that named "anarchists" (anarcho-primitivists, that is) as the "best hope for Eugene"."

Okay, here's one. I'll agree that this is pretty good coverage, although it's understandable that I missed it, since I am one of the numerous people who does not live in Eugene, Oregon. It's hard to picture this playing in Peoria. - Nat Kraus e 17:20, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

A portion of Save the Anarcho-fascism page!

Some ignorant individuals have been claiming that there is no evidence that this form of anarchism exists and are now insisting that this page be deleted. This is almost as ridiculous as suggesting that anarcho-capitalism is in an extreme minority compared to other forms of anarchism, where is the evidence?!? I don't know of any census having been taken, so how could they possibly know this? Anyway, I supplied the evidence they asked for, but I'm afraid it may not be enough. Who knows, they might start resorting to that old "no true scotsman" fallacy!

I felt so horribly bad that I had to delete the sentence on national anarchism that someone had put on this page because they included an external link in the text, so I went to all the trouble to create a page detailing the legitimate arguments of anarcho-fascists everywhere and this is the kind of thanks I get. Please, anarcho-capitalist sympathizers, you must know how this feels to be treated like a minority movement when clearly we are not. I mean, I'm not even an anarcho-fascist myself, I'm just sympathetic to their movement. Come to my aid and vote to keep this page immediately! And I'm specifically refering to Nat Krause, Sam Spade, and VV here, I often see you guys cluster about to help each other in other cases, so this calls for more right-wing bridage action. Kev 12:19, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Don't be silly. — Chameleon 12:33, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

An amusing parody, Kev, although it would be nice if you could attempt to make your point with out defacing the encyclopedia. You do raise an interesting point, though. If we are supposed to give the mainstream viewpoint the most attention, how do we ever really know which viewpoint is more mainstream than another? How do we measure that? I don't know. However, the fact remains that, however much Kev may have zinged the rest of us, he has done nothing to actually address the question of how he knows that one variety of anarchism is more popular or more relevant than another. Furthermore, as I argued above, the answer to that question is almost certainly irrelevant.

By the way, so far this has only happened twice, but already I am getting sick of the claim that I tend to cluster together with Spade and VV to help them. As far as I know, they don't even really cluster together with each other very much, although they sometimes engage in similar behavior on different pages. Please provide your evidence -- this, at least, you should be able to document, if it's true. - Nat Kraus e 14:39, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

This encyclopedia is currently being defaced by people not knowledgable enough on the political theory of anarchism to accurately represent it, how is this any different than the anarcho-fascism page? I chose that particular label because it is a genuine one. Yes, no shit, there are now people who call themselves anarcho-fascists. True, I don't know all the ins and outs of their philosophy, but this certainly never stopped the anarcho-capitalist apologists from editing these pages. My question to you is simple, how do you -know- that anarcho-fascism is not more popular or relevant than any other form? That is currently the main reason that people are voting to delete the article, that it is not relevant or popular, but there has been no census and no proof, a google search demonstrates very little in this regard.

And yet, somehow, we all seem to know that anarcho-fascism is not a big player. How do we know this? Anarcho-capitalists have long since inflated their numbers, using similar tactics to the one Snowspinner accidentally stuck himself in above. I agree with the dilemma posed by your question above, and that is precisely why the acceptance of an article or interpretation into wikipedia should not be based on our perceptions of the popularity of a given ideology, but rather merit of the claims being made. But that gives us yet another problem, because I was careful to qualify most of the claims made about anarcho-fascism, making them very difficult to disprove. The same is true of the claims on the anarcho-capitalism page. How does one disprove that anarcho-capitalists "draw inspiration" from individualist anarchists? One can't, frankly. How does one demonstrate that the emphasis being placed on individualism as the co-source of anarcho-capitalism is faulty? Again, just like my own claim on the synthesis between platonic philosophy and anarcho-capitalism to produce anarcho-fascism, one can't. Yet for months now partisan people have used these same tactics to push their edits of that page (and now this one). Yet I am defacing wikipedia just because I use the same tactics to explicate a philosophy I'm about as well versed on as they are in anarchism?

Of course it is impossible to demonstrate the claim that you intentionally cluster with VV and Sam Spade (along with a couple other users, RickK for example shows up quite often), but I can show a very high incidence of such behavior, along with invites to come "help" on given pages. There is for example your comment that you were glad to have VV aboard on the neofeudalism page, one in which you and VV and Sam are all present, and I have trouble believing that the presence of 172 is coincidence. Which brings us to the 172 crusade, much of which is difficult to document given the disappear nature of polls, but I doubt you will deny that you made comments on several of those pages along with VV and Sam. During that whole incident Sam Spade visited the user pages of the whole clique and invited them to join. The are of course these pages, the anarchism and anarcho-capitalism that all three of you have edited a good deal and pushed a similar message throughout. In fact, Sam Spade even went so far as to speculate with VV that I required a [RfC] page due to my unwillingness to let VVs reverts stand (though they long since have) and my "abusive" language in response to VVs amazing combination of wilfull ignorance and condescention, or there is your jumping into the middle of the war between VV and 172 (one of so very many) over at Origins.

But I don't think you are an intentional contributor to this little cabal, so there are of course far more examples of the dynamic-duo (VV and Sam), especially when 172 is anywhere nearbly, in the form of Anti-French sentiment, the stuff with Danny, the Augusto Pinochet debacle, a bit of collaboration on the Saddam Hussein disaster, and their interesting collaboration over at Hindutva.

And honestly, I don't have the time to point out the many more examples. But I don't suggest this is a personal thing, it is a political thing. You just happen to have the "right" views for VV and Sam so often. I'm going to assume that this is not sufficient evidence for you. What exactly would you require, blatant admission by all parties, or that someone spend 30 or more hours collecting the links that make this event clear? Even if you want to suggest a coincidence of edits in some cases, the consistent bullying of 172 and tagging along by Sam Spade seems almost undeniable. Kev 23:11, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

You wrote: "This encyclopedia is currently being defaced by people not knowledgable enough on the political theory of anarchism to accurately represent it, how is this any different than the anarcho-fascism page?" Well, the most obvious difference is that you defaced it purposefully, whereas I assume good faith in all the edits on this page. And where have you seen anarcho-capitalists exaggerate their numbers in the past?

Re: clustering behavior. I'd like to address this a little, although I guess I needn't say much, since you don't think I am an intentional contributor to the cabal. It seems to me that a cabal is the sort of thing which one had better contribute intentionally to if one wants to be a member. (by the way, I don't recall ever editing the same page as RickK, prior to some action a couple days ago on United States).

I remember exactly one instance of a user inviting me to take a look at a particular page, and, as it happened, I didn't take him up on it. As for the Neo-Feudalism article, frankly, I saw it as a little bit of a special case because it had such little encyclopedic value. Not that we actually did anything wrong; it was just an offhand comment.

As for the 172 "witch-hunt", for one thing, you will note that it was started by Snowspinner and Michael Snow, neither of whom is exactly a right-wing POV warrior, although one might question whether both of them have a certain pro-snow bias. I signed statements at that time criticizing both 172 and VV. I certainly don't recall Sam Spade inviting me to take part, and if he invited anybody it was unbeknownst to me. This claim is a little ironic, considering that it is very clear that 172 solicited (much more effectively, I might add) his supporters to come and comment on the page. As far as the "undeniable" bullying issue of 172, this is of course a much larger issue that has been discussed voluminously elsewhere and need not be dredged up again here. I'm glad to see that 172 and VV have apparently buried the hatchet.

You ask: "What exactly would you require, blatant admission by all parties, or that someone spend 30 or more hours collecting the links that make this event clear?" For my part, what I would like, what I think would be relevant, is any evidence of purposeful involvement by me in some sort of cabal. However, you have pretty much said that this cannot be supplied. If simply agreeing with other users is cabalism, then there are indeed many cabals afoot, such as the Spleeman/Kevehs/Todebarricades.tk junto. - Nat Kraus e 17:42, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Re: Responses to Nat Krause

Spleeman wrote (quoting me): "Firstly, you 'don't see how ["anarchists without adjectives"] can [be] sensibly described as belonging to one persuasion more than to another' apparently because you know nothing about anarchism." Good explanation. Wait, I'm being sarcastic. I still maintain my point, which is that they can call themselves anything they want, but if they are "leftist" or "post-left" or "anti-capitalist" then those are all adjectives, and thus, in my opinion, for them to describe themselves as "without adjectives" is misleading. If, on the other hand, they are not any of those things, then what possible conflict can there be with anarcho-capitalists? Note that this is deductive logic, not requiring any specific knowledge of the movement. I will point out, though, that, in an effort to learn more about "anarchism without adjectives" I found this article, on what appears to be a left-leaning website, about Voltairine de Cleyre, which says that she praised the U.S. "founding fathers" as precursors to her sort of anarchism. I don't suppose you will tell me, then, that Washington and Jefferson were part of the same movement with you and Kevehs and Bakunin?

As for the rest of Spleeman's comments about the individualists, I'll respond further to this sort of stuff on Talk:Anarcho-capitalism when I get a chance. - Nat Kraus e 18:01, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Nat, you are fast becoming a waste of my time. I've actually read the article in which de Cleyre "praised" the founding fathers of the U.S. This means that, unlike you, I know something of the context of her comments and the implications she was drawing. When you decide to get off your ass and study this subject a bit, then perhaps I will take your analogies more seriously. Kev 02:37, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Oh, and I failed to comment on your impeccable use of deductive logic. Really brillant. Indeed, if we all agree with your premise at the outset (i.e. that anarchism means nothing more than anti-statism) then it does follow that anarchists without adjectives could not possibly be against capitalism! Why, that just blows me away, if we agree with the parts of your position that we don't agree with, then it turns out that we must logically agree with the implications of your position as well. This is where a little knowledge of actual history would go very far to aid your deductive reasoning Nat. Now back in reality, apart from rhetorical circles like the one you have demonstrated, the anarchists without adjectives held a very different definition of anarchism than the one anarcho-capitalists and sympathizers like yourself began to push in the 1950s. If I was to take your logic, I could easily argue that anarchists without adjectives cannot be anti-state because anarchism means nothing more than chaos in the streets and anti-statism is an adjective. Thankfully, I don't use your logic, and can see that those people who called themselves anarchists long before the anarcho-capitalists attempted to subvert the title are completely justified in considering themselves to be anarchists in general when the philosophy itself rejected capitalism and all other forms of human domination. Kev 20:41, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Semantic argument and policy

(an old quote from me): "This is why this is a semantic argument. Who gets to do define 'anarchism'? Do we go with the dictionary, or do we define it as used by the small number of people who self-described with the term between 1840 and 1950?" (Nat Krause 05:23, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)).

(Response from Sleeman): Yep, because this "small" number of people still happens to be the overwhelming majority within anarchism. I refer you again to the NPOV statement:

"Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views. We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by only a small minority of people deserved as much attention as a majority view. That may be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. If we are to represent the dispute fairly, we should present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties." -- Spleeman 07:25, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I can see that you and I interpret this policy differently. To me, when it says "minority views", that should mean a minortiy view from the perspective of the general readership, which is pretty evidently what any form of anarchism is. I certainly agree that for people who call themselves anarchists, the clearest organization would be have your "traditional" anarchism on the anarchism page with a see also: anarcho-capitalism disclaimer somewhere. But from the perspective of the general reader, who has little, if any, knowledge of various anarchist traditions, I think it would be much better to define "anarchism" in general terms, lay out out all the traditions briefly on the anarchism page and let them choose a specific page for what they are looking for.

I have to say that I'm not too worried about the "post-left" issue. There are anarcho-capitalists who object to the name anarcho-capitalist, but we still have that page under that name because it is the most commonly used term. - Nat Kraus e 18:15, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Applying a little of your own evasive techniques. Do you have any evidence that anarcho-capitalist is "the most commonly used term"? Pardon me if I find it a little strange that you believe individuals who have explicitly rejected the politics of the left should be titled as leftists merely because you believe that is the most common term used to describe them. I believe that the most commonly used phrase to describe anarcho-capitalism is "contradiction in terms". Shall I now apply your logic to my own edits? Kev 20:34, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)