Talk:Anarchism/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 10

Feb 1st Edits

I have switched the previous starting passage,

Anarchism is a term given to a political philosophy advocating a society without any state, and often the overthrow, violent or otherwise, of the current system of government.

to this,

"Anarchism" is a political theory holding all forms of coercive control and authority to be unnecessary and undesirable, advocating instead a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups.

The previous version not only misleadingly delimits anarchism to the absence of a state, but also relied far more heavily on the definition of anarchy rather than that of anarchism. Since these two words are often used to mean two different things, I feel a definition based on the word anarchism is more appropriate, so I slapped on an amalgam of a couple dictionary definitions (specifically and

However, their actions generally lead to increasingly authoritarian rule and political repression across Russia and southern Europe in the first half of the twentieth century.

As I said previously, to blame the anarchists for having lost to the communists and fascists who then turned up the degree of authoritarianism in these regions just defies logic. The anarchists did the best they could to oppose these insitutions, often dying in the attempt, they are certainly not to blame for the institutions themselves. That blame lies directly on the shoulders of the statists who supported and maintained those authoritarian institutions.

While I agree with this, if I am not mistaken some anarchist movements involved some degree of coercion. I am thinking specifically about the Spanish anarchists during the 1936-9 civil war, for instance Durruti's militias and the collectivization of land in Aragon during the "Spanish revolution". Any takes on this? — Miguel 19:07, 2004 Mar 1 (UTC)
This is a good point. I think the issue is POV on whether or not one views the collectivization of land or the general antagonism with the Churh in Spain as coercion or defense. I mean, it can be argued that defense is often coercive, but that is perhaps another subject. My take is that in the last months before they were suppressed by the communists and defeated by the fascists the anarchists did become more authoritarian (and much less anarchistic). However, in my mind, this is not particularly relevant to the question of whether or not the actions of anarchists lead to increasing authoritarianism and political repression in, for example, Russia (which was listed). - Kev 03/01/04
Even a sympathetic portrayal such as Ken Loach's Land and Freedom depicts the early stages of collectivization as somewhat coercive, in that when a town voted to collectivize the land, individuals who opposed collectivization but where in a minority had their land taken away. Granted, those people where usually the largest landowners, so issues of class struggle creep into the discussion. It is definitely complex. — Miguel 23:10, 2004 Mar 1 (UTC)

I still question the importance placed in Godwin in this text, as per my discussion above. However, I'm not sure at this point how to rework the text such that he is still included but not so prominent. As such I left all the referances to him in tact save for one, which I replaced with Kropotkin in explaining the diverse range of ideas that anarchism allowed for right from its inception. In addition, referance to Max Stirner's "individualism" is problematic by his own account, thus has been changed to egoism (despite the shortcomings of even that title).

, only being politically related via individualism

I have an open challenge concerning the political relation of anarcho-capitalism to individualist anarchism on the anarcho-capitalism talk page, until that is resolved this claim should be removed or qualified. - Kev 01/01/04


Couple of reverts from Jack's slew of edits. First, refering to political violence as terrorism is POV. Wether or not a given action is a "terrorist" one action all depends on what viewpoint you are coming from, and usually on what viewpoint some prominent politician wants to espouse. A freedom fighter to one is a terrorist to another, but neither label is appropriate for a neutral discussion. So that will be reverted back to political violence and the reader can decide for themselves whether or not it amounts to terrorism. This is especially relevant because the anarchists of the time felt they were acting in self-defense and many of them specifically wanted to inspire others to fight against their oppression, rather than to sew terror in that same populace.

Also this,

However, there is debate over the anthropological evidence to support this.

was changed to this,

However, there is little acceptance of the anthropological evidence to support this

Not only was the former version completely accurate and convienently side-stepped the problem of POV that the later brings up, but furthermore the change is simply inaccurate. Few anthropologists question the evidence primtivists use, but rather the interpretation of it. Anyway, if someone wants to give some evidence of the degree of acceptance this has within a specific community (rather than just a vague indication that it has little acceptance in general, a claim so vague it would be nearly impossible to verify), then that evidence would be welcomed. - Kev 01/02/04

If political violence is a valid term, somebody write the article that that links to. I agree that I don't have the documentation, and I further more agree that such documentation would be pleasing. I agree with what you have done, and similarly request greater specification (thru citation, documentation, etc..) on these less than thoroughly covered areas (Political violence and Primitivism. Jack 07:11, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

How many people is too many people?

I come back from a brief adventure elsewhere, and a great glommy list of Americans are dominating recent Anarchists. Moreover, my suspicion is that its a list on the level of "my mate jane down the road." Sure, the effect of Starhawk on American social protest anarchism might be great at the moment, but doesn't that belong under Anarchism, United States, Late 1990s - early 2000s?

Second point: Where lies the limits of social anarchism. I added Hungary '56 'cause its my hobby horse and has (arguably) the most developed self-governing workers councils ever. But only one person was an "anarchist," being the playwrite Julius Hay (Hay Gyulia). Solidarity (UK) seemed to think this was the be and end of past social revolutions... but then again Solidarity was only ever called anarchists by others, much like the IWW... So where do we draw the circle? User:fifelfoo

Removing "anarcho-capitalism"

The following paragraph needs to be rewritten for this entry to retain any credibility:

"In the latter half of the twentieth century, two new schools of thought developed in North America: namely, anarcho-capitalism and primitivism."

This is very inaccurate, because more than two schools of anarchist thought developed in the latter half of the twentieth century, and anarcho-capitalism was not one of them. The so-called "anarcho-capitalism" has been discredited as being oxymoronic and a silly idea advocated by cranks with little understanding of anarchism, or political theory for that matter. By saying that anarcho-capitalism is one of two main schools of thought, you totally misrepresent contemporary anarchism which has nothing to do with this crank theory. Perhaps a cross reference could be established somewhere on this page, but including here as an important "school of thought" isn't just wrong, but it makes a mockery out of this entire entry.

Chuck Munson

The above is diametrically opposed to my POV, that Communism and anarchism are incompatable (since communism necessarilly involves subordination of self to the group). Capitalism on the other hand embraces the rights of the individual, the right to arms, the right to pursuit of property, the right to defense against unjust taxation. I think w the sort of hooey that is being tossed about on this page, you might want to consider merging much of the content w communism, and let this article be for anarchism alone ;) What ever happened to "truth in labeling" laws? I suppose you commu... anarchists disregard those too? Sam Spade 21:06, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Maybe Chuck and Sam should accept the existance of each other's philosophies, including the right of groups to name themselves.

More to the point, capitalism refers to private ownership of capital (the means of production in Marxist terms) while socialism refers to collective ownership (as in cooperatives). Both of them admit authoritarian and libertarian implementations, while totalitarian philosophies such as fascism and stalinism are neither capitalist nor socialist in a strict sense. And also please don't conflate market economy with capitalism. Miguel 18:07, 2004 Feb 26 (UTC)

FAO Matthew Stannard

I have added to your example of wikipedia with paragraphs taken from this old version of anarchism. I did notice your comment the other day but didn't have time to reply!

moved from article

"Many of these operate using de facto anarchist law which does not use prison systems, does not use violence, and in which enforcement generally (or at least hopefully) happens by polite and rational discussion on publicly archived mailing lists, where even emotional coercion and manipulation are discouraged, as well as any pressure which requires secrecy in order to function."

The above is from the functioning section. This begs many, many questions (as does the preceeding paragraph, to some extent) but what I mainly object to is the mentioning of "prision" and "violence" when what were talking about is the internet. Also, do you actually think people on mailing lists are polite and rational??? I see hierarcry (admins) and punishments (banning), and an almost complete lack of anarchy. If you want to talk about anarchy, how about a chat room w no mods? Sam Spade 21:28, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I would put that paragraph back and put the references to alternative media, open software, and Wikipedia in the talk page for further discussion and substantiation. Most free software projects, including wikipedia, operate on a benevolent dictator model rather than a pure anarchist model. It was a bit humorous to find that there were no "real" examples of "operating anarchy", so I added Christiania. The example of Argentina in 2002-2003 should be added to this section and expanded on. Miguel 22:11, 2004 Feb 26 (UTC)
I agree to that. the above paragraph would be ok on its own, if it is reworded so that its intent is to meerely describe theoretical anarchist politics, rather than the circumstances of the internet. And yes, that net related stuff is silly, and needs a rewrite at minimum. Sam Spade 01:31, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I have discussed the internet anarchies as a movement, but this paragraph does not seem to fit nicely with the rest. Please feel free to work on it and put it back in! — Miguel 18:10, 2004 Mar 2 (UTC)

However, some would dispute that these are anarchic, noting that most wikis are privately owned, with the owner having (in principle) near-absolute power and others (such as administrators) being delegated certain privileges, while yet others doubt the long-term viability of these projects precisely because of their anarchic nature (see Meatball:WikiLifeCycle). Other candidate anarchies functioning during the first decade of the 21st century include Usenet, Indymedia, the GNU/Linux community, and other sub-societies which are generally networked using the internet.

Maybe these can be mentioned at the end of Functioning anarchies again, but the discussion needs to be much improved. Miguel 18:30, 2004 Mar 2 (UTC)

Re: Godwin and Proudhon

At present, the article seems to imply that there are two camps within anarchist history -- one claiming Proudhon as the 'founder', the other Godwin. In reality, this conflict doesn't exist -- I have never seen arguments about who founded anarchism, because they don't happen. --Sam Francis

No, they don't, I don't think most people care because the very title of "founder" really indicates nothing of substance in this case. However, I also know very few anarchists who describe Godwin as the founder of anarchism, and am still a little taken aback that he is introduced as such in the article. Sure, there are a couple encyclopedias which describe him as such, but that in itself is hardly a reason to do so here. As I said before, if we are going to start going to folk before Proudhon's use of the word to describe himself then we might as well go all the way back to Xeno or Lao Tsu. But we don't do that, so why are we retroactively A) calling Godwin an anarchist when he never used the term and B) going so far as to call him the founder of anarchism? There are literally dozens of groups and individuals in the few hundred years prior to Proudhon that could from one interpretation or another be called anarchists in retrospect, but we aren't calling any of them the founders of the theory (often we don't even call them anarchists at all). Why? Precisely because that requires interpretation and is thus open to speculative debate, whereas stating that Proudhon was the first to use the term to describe himself is simply fact. I'm not trying to reduce Godwin's importance here, I like what he wrote, but I'm just not sure we should be refering to him as the founder of anarchism. - Kevehs 02/27/04

Anarchist ideology

"It is important to understand that though two individuals or groups might both call themselves anarchist, their ideals and arguments may differ immensely. There is a spectrum of anarchist philosophies ranging from libertarian socialist ideologies (the anarchist left-wing) to anarcho-capitalism (the right-wing), according to the philosophy's approach to the conflict (or lack thereof) between the individual and society. There is also a significant portion of the anarchist politi that dismisses the left/right dichotomy entirely (e.g. post-leftists and individualists). Many libertarian socialists argue that right-wing anarchism is a misnomer, while some anarcho-capitalists characterize libertarian socialism as an oxymoron."

There are a number of problems with these passage that need to be addressed, and after editing them I found there was only a single sentence left. Thus I am posting it here for help in turning this around.

First, the declaration that "there is a spectrum of anarchist philosophy ranging from..." is stated as fact, when it should be stated as a claim. Both camps are being misrepresented here, as both claims to anarchist theory are being stated as though they were valid when that is the very point of contention.

There are several ways to classify anarchist political philosophies: by their theory of economic organization (especially the role of property), their theory of social organization (including proposed methods of collective decision-making/social choice, and the role of violence), their, and the suggested method to get there from here (again, violence/nonviolence plays an important role). The "spectrum" of anarchism may be organized along more than one dimension, and if we discuss such classifications in the article we will have to reinstate something along the lines of what you deleted. — Miguel 17:38, 2004 Mar 2 (UTC)
I contend that there is more than one flavour of anarchism, even if the followers of particular ideologies would like to present themselves as the true standard bearers of Anarchism and produce all kinds of arguments while all or some of the others are "not really anarchist". By talking about "both camps" you are taking it as a fact that there is a competition between two factions within anarchism. Whether each of them is valid is the point of contention for them, not necessarily for others. — Miguel 19:27, 2004 Mar 1 (UTC)
First, no one here is arguing that there is only one form of anarchism. There are many forms of anarchism, be they collectivist or individualist, syndicalist or primitivist, mutualist or communist. So claims that there is more than one form of anarchism aren't relevant to the question of whether or not one particular ideology falls into the category. I'm fine with people contending that "anarcho-capitalism" or "anarcho-fascism" or "anarcho-nationalism" or "anarcho-syndicalism" are all forms of anarchism. What I disagree with is that the language of the article should imply that this contention is fact. It is a belief, a POV position, to declare that anarchism is part of a spectrum from "anarcho-capitalism" to libertarian socialism. It is a fact to declare that anarchism is believed by some to be a spectrum from the one to the other. I'm simply saying that the fact should take precedence over the assertion in this case, especially given the controversial status of the assertion. - Kev 03/01/04

Second, indicating that libertarian socialism is "the anarchist left-wing" would be considered a misrepresentation by some libertarian socialists, both those who deny that they are a part of the left-wing and those who deny that anarchism has anything other than a left-wing.

Ok, so how do we characterize the spectrum of anarchist beliefs and literature without playing into anyone's agenda? — Miguel 19:27, 2004 Mar 1 (UTC)

Third, applying the claim that anarcho-capitalists believe libertarian socialism to be an oxymoron to this page is to endorse a version of history so twisted it cannot possibly be pulled apart. Are we now to claim that Proudhon and Tucker weren't anarchists, weren't libertarians, weren't socialists?

Actually, Brian Caplan seems to think that they weren't socialists. Probably a lot of anarcho-capitalists would agree. NPOV thus forbids us from making either claim. -- Toby Bartels 20:33, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Caps are free to claim whatever they want, but I don't think NPOV should be used to shield their claims. Tucker and Proudhon ought to have their own self-descriptions respected. Besides, Caplan uses his own custom definition of socialism that is uncommon to say the least, and definately different than the one libertarian socialists use to describe themselves, thus his views in this context are irrelevant. Since he believes that Proudhon was not a socialist because of Proudhon's belief in possession, it follows that most libertarian socialists are not really socialists either, including the ones he calls socialist in his own faq! I still think neither the misnomer or the oxymoron claim should be on this page, but if they must remain then I think it is the burden of those making the claims to create a link to another page which details the argument being made so that it can be properlly addressed. Without such explication both claims amount to nothing more than propaganda. - Kev 03/02/04
Well, my mention of Caplan's claim that Proudhon and Tucker weren't socialists was just by the by. I definitely agree that their self-descriptions should be respected. But in the same vein, the anarcho-capitalists' self-descriptions should also be respected, as should their claims to draw inspiration from Proudhon and Tucker. You and I may disagree with their interpretation of Proudhon and Tucker, but Wikipedia cannot. What Wikipedia can and should do, in contrast, is to explain the debate over Proudhon and Tucker. (For the most part, that debate would fit best on Anarcho-capitalism and to some extent on Individualist anarchism. But it can be summarised and referenced here.) -- Toby Bartels 04:06, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

That the very people who helped to define the term for what it meant ruled themselves out in the process? There are good reasons to think that anarcho-capitalism is a misnomer, namely the fact that all the original anarchists were directly and expressly opposed to capitalism. But to claim that libertarian socialism is an oxymoron is to simply ignore the history of the very subject this page is supposed to illuminate. Given that there are hordes of "anarcho-capitalists" on the net who insist on propagating these kinds of ridiculous claims in the absence of knowledge I don't expect that they will let this go. So I suggest the entire thing simply be removed rather than to engage in a name-calling war in the middle of the article.

You obviously believe that anarcho-capitalism is a misnomer (this opinion is, in fact, stated as such in the article), just like many of them think that libertarian socialism is an oxymoron. Now, whether this is an opinion that most self-described anarcho-capitalists would agree on, or whether most self-described libertarian socialists would agree to disown anarcho-capitalism, I don't know. It does seem to me that this partisan dispute really gets in the way of discussing the generalities of anarchism.
Anyway, if I am not mistaken, NPOV requires that we state all these apparently widely-held opinions without taking sides, that we allow political groups to name themselves, and that content specific to any flavour of anarchism be moved to the corresponding page (i.e., libertarian socialism or anarcho-capitalism among others) — Miguel 19:27, 2004 Mar 1 (UTC)
I agree with each and every one of these points. However, I don't think this is a page for debate over the issue, if anarcho-capitalists or libertarian socialists want to tear apart each others theories, let them explicate their criticisms on their respective pages (as they already have by and large). I also agree that any group can pick any name it wants, and that other groups are free to point out how a particular title might be flawed or misleading. - Kev 03/01/04

Feb 29

A few edits, mostly restoring info.

You mean a few reverts, because that is just about all you did. - Kev

(a) The intro as was seemed to be explicating a certain formulation and certain justification for anarchism, not just describing the view.

Please feel free to explain - Kev

The 'pedia should report the meanings of these terms, and this is the common meaning of anarchism,

It is? Did you do a poll to ensure that before you completely dismissed my reasoning and reverted my edit? - Kev

which is the common denominator of people considering themselves anarchists. The "coercive control" bit is too vague and too general, and "authority" is I think inaccurate for many anarchists.

Might as well claim that "government" is too vague. And it wasn't "authority" it was "coercive control and authority." - Kev

(b) Restored flow of Bakunin paragraph, which became disconnected.

You reverted the text back to a misplaced emphasis on Bakunin that happens to fit your own ideological bias. "Restored flow" my ass. - Kev

(c) Fixed dangling participle, and reinstated adjective; redundant or not (disputable), it's clearer and more neutral.

No, it is purposefully misleading. The current text is meaningless, ac draws more on liberal tradition that on previous anarchist traditions? What traditions could it draw on other than previous anarchist ones, anarchist traditions of the future? - Kev
Does it have to draw on any tradition? What I take the current text to mean is that AC arrives at anarchism from a liberalist (laissez-faire) point of view rather than a traditional libertarian point of view. — Miguel 19:46, 2004 Mar 1 (UTC)
I would absolutely LOVE if that could just be stated explicitly rather than the text as it reads now. - Kev 03/01/04
This is a problem of terminological overload. More precisely, I can't just paste my previous comment onto the article as it is because anarcho-capitalists would jump at my use of the word "libertarian". The problem is roughly this: in Europe "liberal" means "laissez-faire", and in the USA it means "progresive"; because of this, anarcho-capitalists call themselves ""libertarians", which in Europe is associated to "libertarian socialism". — Miguel 21:12, 2004 Mar 1 (UTC)

(c) Put back in ideology paragraph; it may need fixing, but it seems like a useful explanation; even if "left" and "right" are terms that don't fit well,

And blatantly misrepresent anarchists in order to skew the wikipedia toward the AC perspective. Kinda a trend in all of your edits on anarchism VV. BTW, just how many edit wars are you engaged in right now? Three? Why don't you go concentrate on those and leave the pages on anarchism to people who know the subject matter better. - Kev
Personal attack, anyone?
VV constantly refers to people as "problem users" when he gets into edit wars. I'm just giving him a taste of his own medicine. Both this article and the one on anarcho-capitalism showed a lot of progress in the time he was absent, and he has intentionally involved himself in numerous edit wars throughout wikipedia. I honestly feel his time would be better spent concentrating on one or two of these topics, especially since he has repeatedly admitted to having little knowledge of anarchist theory. - Kev 03/01/04
If anarcho-capitalists want to include their philosophy in the bigger picture of anarchism, that's fine, as long as they respect the fact that the terms libertarianism and anarchism have been in use for almost 150 years before anarcho-capitalism came along. Conversely, given that the most important value for anarcho-capitalists is personal freedom and they advocate a reduction of state power, I think they are justified in adopting the term libertarian or anarchist. — Miguel 19:46, 2004 Mar 1 (UTC)
To each his own. I've never had any problem with such opinions being stated as such. - Kev 03/01/04

they fit vaguely enough to make explanation of their use relevant, and dissenting views are noted. -- VV 14:48, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

As usual, you claim that something might indeed need to be fixed, and then you reinsert it without fixing anything. - Kev 02/29/04
This has all too familar an air. Reverting me en masse is not going to be productive; you even undid spacing changes.
Every one of my so-called "reverts" was in response to a revert on your part. I'm also pleased to note that you didn't even read the article before reverting it this time, as the spacing changes were in fact left in. - Kev
The intro I proposed had both the "traditional forms of government" clause and yours, conditioned only with a "generally".
As it currently stands the passage limits anarchism to mere rejection of government. Not even that, it limits it to mere rejection of "traditional" government. Anarchism means more than this, its inception meant more than this. - Kev
As usual, I propose something trying to adapt to all positions, and you undo it. I also don't think I need to continue to put up with your imputations of bad faith, and it's going to be a problem if you continue them.
Is that some kind of lame threat? You have repeatedly accused me of bad faith in the past for having dared to stand up to your reverts, so I hardly think you are one to talk. - Kev
The Bakunin paragraph was disconnected; before, it introduced and then explicated the topic of violence, but now it no longer connects. Answer this concern instead of dismissing it and reverting me.
But that is EXACTLY what you did. I made the original edit, and you dismissed it and reverted it. Why should I show you more respect than you are showing me? A disconnected paragraph is far less of a concern for me than misrepresenting anarchist theory, if you have such a problem with it, then you fix it. -Kev
I pulled your dangling participle entirely and replaced it with hopefully more agreeable (to you) text. Will that matter to you? I doubt it.
In no small part because the grammatical error was already fixed in the last edit, and you have now changed the passage again to reinsert your own personal bias. - Kev
And don't just erase the ideology para; come up with a better way of communicating those ideas if you think what's there is flawed (it seems fine to me). -- VV 10:56, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I didn't just erase the paragraph, I posted it here for rewrite and I already stated why I was unable to rewrite the concepts addressed there in an acceptable manner. Feel free to offer the help I asked for, rather than continuing with your antagonistic spree of reverting every article I edit. - Kev 03/01/04
And the reason I'm intervening again is that people (mostly you, far as I can tell) are introducing bias into the article, a situation I am trying to gently remedy. -- VV 10:58, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

reverts moratorium

Let's try to be civil about this. It does not seem to me that there is trolling going on, so no reverts should be necessary. Nothing should just be deleted, and if someone moves a paragraph from the main page to the talk page, it should not be restored unchanged. Let's try to nip the edit war in the bud, ok? — Miguel 19:51, 2004 Mar 1 (UTC)

I am redoing the intro similar to before but somewhat modified. The notion of coercive control is highly unclear.

Of course that wording was already changed when you edited this. - Kev

For someone who does not recognize others' property rights, some things are "coercive" which to the other are not, and vice versa.

And for someone who holds government not to exist even when there are police, prisons, judges, and absolute rulers over local domains makes the term "government" highly unclear, yet that is the text you keep pushing. - Kev

Lack of government, however, is the defining property of the words anarchism, and unites all self-proclaimed anarchists, between who we should not be promoting a POV.

Which is precisely why it is explained to be merely absence of government according to some in that very passage. But to hijack the passage and express that it is first and foremost the absence of government is POV, because it has since its inception been more than this. If you have a single shred of evidence to contradict this please feel free to give it, as I have already offered you the evidence in support of it many times. - Kev

If some (even the major) anarchist movements mean something more specific, then that view can be explicated under some heading or in a daughter article. We must maintain NPOV here, however. I was happy to have the "generally" clause in there, even though it does seem to push a certain POV (namely, Kev's).

I wasn't the one who put the clause in, and I am by far not the only one trying to remove the capitalist bias that occasionally pops up in this article. Once again you demonstrate that this is simply a personal grudge you have against me. - Kev

Also, I'm not cool with removing "of other stripes" (though I won't reinstate it yet); remember, we are keeping an NPOV and thus do not judge others as non-anarchists. -- VV 22:25, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Keeping NPOV means neither judging them as or not as anarchists. That is exactly as the text exists when the "of other stripes" is removed. You want to have the text implicitly endorse the judgement that they are anarchists, this would be as POV as if the text read "they are disowned by actual anarchists." - Kev 03/01/04
Can we all agree that, if someone calls themselves anarchist, we can call them anarchist, too, without violating NPOV? Please? — Miguel 23:02, 2004 Mar 1 (UTC)
No. If someone came to this page and wrote "anarchists love tacos" (this happened once) because that person refers to him/herself as an anarchist and believes that love of tacos is all-important to anarchism, then I wouldn't feel even a twinge of guilt in removing the statement. If (s)he claimed (s)he was an "anarcho-tacoist" then I wouldn't be able to argue against it on grounds of NPOV, cause folks can call themselves whatever they want, but I sure as heck don't have to accept statements like "anarchism is a spectrum that runs from libertarian socialist to anarcho-tacoist." That would be ridiculous, and even more ridiculous is the idea that anarchism is compatible with capitalism. I mean, anarchists aren't even against tacos, but they have always been against the accumulation and application of capital in an economy. But of course there are a number of people who call themselves ACs, not too many who call themselves anarcho-tacoists, and I respect that. So I'm not going to remove all statements that imply or assert that ACs are anarchists, no matter how ridiculous those statements are. But I -am- going to remove all statements that imply or assert that acs or "anarcho-tacoists" are anarchists without being properly qualified. - Kev 03/01/04
A way to make this NPOV is to say in the introductory paragraphs (before the first header, hence before the TOC), that not all people calling themselves "anarchists" accept all people calling themselves "anarchists" as anarchists; so when we say "anarchist", this should be taken as shorthand for «persons calling themselves "anarchists"». Then we don't have to constantly say things like "Some anarchists (whom other anarchists don't consider anarchists, assming that these anarchists are really anarchists in the first place) like tacos." (As for anarcho-tacoism itself, this philosophy does not exist; and a random user claiming it would find themselves with a lack of Verifiability. But if the movement did catch on, then NPOV would require us to cover it as well. Personally, I find anarcho-capitalism at least as ridiculous -- but Wikipedia can have no such opinion.) -- Toby Bartels 18:27, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
This is already done (by me), the line about "This article covers...", to address this very point. However, any attempt to refer to ancaps as anarchists, no matter how many qualifiers and explanations I add, is considered "propaganda" by Kev and proof that I am trying to misrepresent and distort facts in order to promote anarcho-capitalism. You can see why there's trouble around here. The anarcho-tacoism example is ridiculous; it is not a well-established movement with a long history and numerous thinkers. -- VV 22:01, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Yep, you go ahead and leave out the rather relevant fact that your attempt did nothing to remove the terminology from an endorsement of a given claim to anarchism, whereas Toby's suggestion does just that. The only propaganda I have accused you of is the picture you paint about yourself, like the one you are trying to make right here. - Kev 03/02/04
Sounds good to me. - Kev 03/02/04
Am I to assume that anarcho-capitalism is as ludicrous to you as Libertarian Socialism or Libertarian Communism are to me? If so, I'd have to agree with the above ;) Sam Spade 19:08, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Precisely ;-) Miguel 19:46, 2004 Mar 2 (UTC)
Definitely less in my case. As I recall, you found the idea of Libertarian socialism so meaningless that you wanted to delete a substantial article about it. Although I gather that your views on this have moderated, I never conceived of this for Anarcho-capitalism. (Of course, I'm also rather anti-deletionist, but one can still speak of removing material, if not pages). In particular, I can easily see how somebody might think that anarchism and capitalism are compatible -- they would merely be quite wrong, that's all. I might just as reasonably object to state socialism, which is also wrong! -- Toby Bartels 20:58, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I'm a die hard inclusionist, in case you didn't know (even vanity pages and trivial scraps of info should stay, IMO) ;) The only place I draw the line is on misinformation, which is what "Libertarian socialism" and "libertarian Communism" are as best I can tell. My views have "moderated" mainly because you at least half-way convinced me that I have no idea what people justifying the article were talking about. The fact that they werrn't making any sense at least mellowed me on the subject of deleting the article (for the time being), but I am still eager for you to remove it from "featured articles". I would be positively thrilled if you could explain to me (and our poor readers) how capitalism and anarchism are incompatable (seems to me anarchism leads to an extreme of laissez-faire capitalism) as well as how anything vaguely resembling socialism or communism could exist without a state. Not only would it be amazing to me to be able to comprehend such seeming contridictions, but I think it would make an awesome addition to numerous articles, as well as perhaps revoloutionizing political science ;) Sam Spade 22:23, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
It would hardly be a revolution; the anarchist critique of capitalism has been around since the 19th century. Have you read the first external link on this page? That's an opinionated (and long!) FAQ that answers all of your questions more thoroughly than I ever could. To the extent that you care about my personal opinion (the long history of criticism is more relevant for article content):
  • A society is capitalist if differential investment of capital drives its economic decisions. Any gross inequality of wealth in a capitalist society then implies a gross inequality of social power, which leads to a hierarchy of authority, at least in the economic sphere. But anarchism is the absence of hierarchical authority. As far as definitions go, one might have capitalism without inequality of wealth, but anarcho-capitalists don't object to such inequality. And indeed, it's not obvious how society could enforce equality of wealth without a state. It's better all around if wealth doesn't readily translate into social power.
  • Capitalism as actually practised relies directly on the state. In a case of absentee ownership in particular (such as a factory owned by a large corporation), it is the state that maintains property rights; otherwise, the workers (perhaps an anarcho-syndicalist union?) could just take over. To be sure, anarcho-capitalists have ideas about how to maintain property rights, even in the absence of possession, without the state. But unless one has studied anarcho-capitalist theory, there is a prima facie conflict between anarchism and property rights, every bit as great as the prima facie conflict between anarchism and collectivism.
  • Socialist anarchism has its own complementary theory of how to maintain collective ownership without the state. I'm not the best expositor of this, since (like many social anarchists) I don't think that it's necessary to maintain this. I would be quite satisfied in an individualist anarchist society with an economy based on independent artisans. The socialists and the individualists can let circumstances decide how people want to organise themselves (not only in the economy, but also in housing, education, and the like).
  • Unlike the writer of the FAQ in the external link, I would never say that anarcho-capitalism is not an anarchist ideology. It is a mistake, but anarchists can make mistakes too. The maintenance of private property by force is socially unjustifiable, even if it is managed by competing private firms. Still, an anarcho-capitalist utopia would IMO be a great deal better than even the most liberal state.
-- Toby Bartels 04:06, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Look, Sam, just because someone came along in the 1950's, took the words libertarian and anarchist to describe their philosophy, and ignored 150 years of previous usage of those words to refer to fairly different political ideas does not allow them or you to claim that pages like libertarian socialism or even this one are misinformation, unverifiable or misnomers. It is a verifiable fact that a lot of political philosophy in the 19th century, including anarchist philosophies, had in their core a critique of the capitalist economy that was then developing. Certainly the wealthy capitalists had no pressing need to develop alternative social, political or economic theories, since the system worked just fine for them as it was.
As for laissez-faire, even Adam Smith's invisible hand does not work in the presence of giant corporations able to influence the market in the same way as government spending can. Market failure can come as much from misplaced government action as from an accumulation of economic power in the hands of a few large corporations. If a few investors can cause a global economic crisis as happened in 1997 by manipulating a free currency market, that tells me someone has access to too much cash flow for the good of everyone else. Because anarcho-capitalists (as described in Wikipedia's page) seem to think that corporations are inherently good and the natural way for economic activity in a free market to organize itself, there is a lot of room for debate there. Socialist anarchists would argue that a cooperative of small farmers is superior to an agribusiness megacorporation employing those same farmers.
Finally, capitalism and a market economy are not synonimous, and there is the rather common dictum (although, I presume, it must not be common in your circle) we want a market economy, not a market society.
-- Miguel 01:18, 2004 Mar 3 (UTC)


I removed the sic from "the affairs of men [sic]"? This is just silly ;-) -- Miguel 22:00, 2004 Mar 1 (UTC)

You could change it to "the affairs of [people]" -- translating from 19th century English to 21st century English. ^_^ The link to Sic is probably silly in any case. -- Toby Bartels 23:57, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)


The following quotation about Zeno

"He repudiated the omnipotence of the state, its intervention and regimentation, and proclaimed the sovereignty of the moral law of the individual."

is obviously by a commentator, but it is not made clear who said this. Google shows two hits:

Miguel 22:26, 2004 Mar 1 (UTC)

It's from Kropotkin's Brittanica article [1] which is quoted earlier and linked to later! That article is the source for Zeno's mention here. --Sam Francis 22:38, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Miguel, I'd appreciate it if you could make your edits all at once rather than editing at least once a minute! I can't get a word in edgeways! Try using the preview button more, maybe? --Sam Francis

Sorry, I'm moving stuff among sections, looking at the whole article and then editing a single section at a time, using the TOC links, so I don't know that just previewing works. But I'll try. -- Miguel

No more anarchies functioning today?

Can we come up with something better than internet anarchies for "anarchies functioning today"? Is Christiania the only example of a working anarchic social organization? — Miguel 18:12, 2004 Mar 2 (UTC)

I am renaming this section Functioning Anarchies to allow the inclusion of past successful examples of anarchic organization. Someone mentioned Hungary 1956? — Miguel 18:25, 2004 Mar 2 (UTC)

Dear Fellow-Worker Miguel, Hungary 1956 is an excellent example of a functioning anarchy, and I'll describe the emergence, function and failure briefly. Yours for the OBU, User:fifelfoo 11am March 3 (AEST)

Try somalia or albania. Sam Spade 19:09, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Good thing the text already addresses this straw-man. - Kev 03/02/04
[2][3]Do you have something against facts, or what? One of the nice things about encyclopedias is they prevent people from misusing terms. Or at least their supposed to... Sam Spade 19:28, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
You might get more relevant hits [4] [5] if you searched for anarchism instead of anarchy, Sam ;-) — Miguel 20:31, 2004 Mar 2 (UTC)
Sam, if you can make a cogent exposition of how Somalia and/or Albania are "organized along anarchist lines" instead of just "in disarray", by all means add them to the article. — Miguel 19:54, 2004 Mar 2 (UTC)
Let's see what the CIA world factbook has to say about each:
The SIAD BARRE regime was ousted in January 1991; turmoil, factional fighting, and anarchy have followed for twelve years. In May of 1991, northern clans declared an independent Republic of Somaliland that now includes the administrative regions of Awdal, Woqooyi Galbeed, Togdheer, Sanaag, and Sool. Although not recognized by any government, this entity has maintained a stable existence, aided by the overwhelming dominance of a ruling clan and economic infrastructure left behind by British, Russian, and American military assistance programs. The regions of Bari and Nugaal and northern Mudug comprise a neighboring self-declared autonomous state of Puntland, which has been self-governing since 1998, but does not aim at independence; it has also made strides towards reconstructing a legitimate, representative government, but has suffered civil strife in 2002. Puntland disputes its border with Somaliland as it also claims portions of eastern Sool and Sanaag. Beginning in 1993, a two-year UN humanitarian effort (primarily in the south) was able to alleviate famine conditions, but when the UN withdrew in 1995, having suffered significant casualties, order still had not been restored. The mandate of the Transitional National Government (TNG), created in August 2000 in Arta, Djibouti, expires in August 2003 and a new interim government was being created at peace talks held in Kenya. Numerous warlords and factions are still fighting for control of Mogadishu and the other southern regions. Suspicion of Somali links with global terrorism further complicates the picture.
Between 1990 and 1992 Albania ended 46 years of xenophobic Communist rule and established a multiparty democracy. The transition has proven difficult as corrupt governments have tried to deal with high unemployment, a dilapidated infrastructure, widespread gangsterism, and disruptive political opponents. International observers judged legislative elections in 2001 to be acceptable and a step toward democratic development, but identified serious deficiencies that should be addressed through reforms in the Albanian electoral code.
Miguel 20:03, 2004 Mar 2 (UTC)

Someone did a very good job of including mention of Somalia and other such "failed" anarchies in the article. I found it to be responsible, and the example of christiania is also a good one. My compliments on a job well done, and NPOV upheld. Sam Spade 22:10, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't see how they're relevant. These lawless societies are neither what anarchists promote, nor the results of actual anarchist activity. The existence of warlords ipso facto proves a lack of anarchy in the sense of this article! -- Toby Bartels 04:06, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Thanks. Let's see if Kev reverts it, claiming it's "propaganda" and that I have an "agenda". -- VV 22:15, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Get off it VV. You've made dozens of edits to the anarchist oriented pages alone that I've never touched or even disagreed with. Go ahead and pander about some more, acting like you are a victim of bullying, the edit and revert history of these pages paints a different picture. Anyone who bothers to take a look at your own "user contribution" history can tell right off the bat what your intentions are on wikipedia. - Kev 03/02/04
I'm sorry, Sam, but you'll have to credit me for introducing the Christiania example, and Kev for NPOVing it. ;-) — Miguel 04:00, 2004 Mar 3 (UTC)

I have a factual accuracy, Verifiability and objective truth agenda myself ;) Sam Spade 22:25, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Objective truth has no place on Wikipedia; we substitute NPOV. ^_^ -- Toby Bartels 04:06, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

On the contrary, objective truth is NPOV, as is the critiqing of doublespeak and idealistic propaganda. ;) Sam Spade 05:22, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Recent edits

"How anarchists propose that an anarchist society will achieve these goals in the absence of government varies widely."

This is problematic. Government or law mistakenly indicates an either/or choice. Government and law would be false, as certain groups claiming to be anarchists endorse the application of law. I'll put up a tentative alteration, "how anarchists propose that an anarchist society will achieve these goals varies widely."

say and/or. When I wrote or I meant inclusive not exclusive or. — Miguel 19:45, 2004 Mar 2 (UTC)

"All societies, and anarchist ones are no exception, need to organize the production of goods, including food and shelter, to satisfy the needs of the individuals."

To avoid potential primitivist debate over the necessity of institutions which organize rather than institutions which are organized I will alter this statement to the following: "All societies, and anarchist ones are no exception, have methods to produce goods, including food and shelter, to satisfy the needs of the individuals.

how about "need organized production of"? — Miguel 19:45, 2004 Mar 2 (UTC)
Hmm, now that I think of it, that would not fix anything. — Miguel 04:01, 2004 Mar 3 (UTC)

"In so far as an anarchist society is more than the sum of the individuals living in it, some form of social choice or collective decision-making mechanism needs to be in place. Different anarchist philosophies deal with this problem in widely different ways."

As it exists now this indicates a singluar form of social choice or collective decision making, but adding little (s)s to form and mechanism futzes the "needs," so I'm trying to think of a good rewrite.

Be bold in updating pages, I'm not going to get upset, as those sections were created pretty much as placeholders, meaning "we need discussion of these organizational issues, not just of violence/nonviolence". — Miguel 19:45, 2004 Mar 2 (UTC)

"Drawing much from classical laissez-faire liberalism as well as from traditional anarchist thought, it is disowned by many anarchists."

I think that I wrote this -- or in any case, I wrote that link -- and it should probably begin "Drawing as much". (Leaving it neutral as to whether we mean "at least as much" or "at most as much" -_^.) -- Toby Bartels 21:53, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
No, I didn't write that -- but I added "as" nevertheless. -- Toby Bartels 21:56, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I reject that we should be writing that anarcho-capitalism draws "much" from traditional anarchist thought, especially when it can be argued that it draws nothing in particular. As such, I am unaware of any evidence to support the assertion that anarcho-capitalists draw from anarchist tradition. I assume this refers to individualism, but there is nothing in anarcho-capitalist theory that is unique to individualism or anarchism in general (there were anti-state liberals before anarcho-capitalists), and there is nothing that anarcho-capitalists claim to draw from particular individualists that is representative of individualism as a whole. So first I am rejecting this general claim toward anarchist tradition which really should be more specific. Second, I am requesting evidence for why the influence of individualism should be emphasized here when there are several other theories which more closely match or more accurately predict anarcho-capitalism. Hopefully someone can supply such evidence, if not I'll rewrite this in about a week. - --Kevehs 19:24, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The anarcho-capitalism page claims influence from radical individualism. — Miguel 19:45, 2004 Mar 2 (UTC)

Which closely correlates to, but is distinct from, anarcho-individualism and anarchism in general. There were anti-state liberals before anarcho-capitalism came into existence, and there were folk who were described or described themselves as radical individualists who were not specifically anarchist. So I'd be happy to see the current text replaced by the claim that it draws heavily on radical individualism, since that would be a different assertion altogether. - Kev 03/02/04

I don't know the difference between individualist anarchism and radical individualism; I just know that Benjamin Tucker was both. It'd do me a real favour, at least, if you wrote the latter article! ^_^ -- Toby Bartels 21:49, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I doubt I'm the person for that. To my limited knowledge radical individualism is merely a descriptive term, something like how the term socialist was used by individualists in the late 1800s, not a solid indication of a particular ideology, but rather a more vague term used to describe general sympathies. The reason I distinguish it from anarcho-individualism, which was used by individualists of the past to refer to a more specific set of beliefs, is that many people who did not consider themselves anarchists or even expressly denied being anarchists have been described as radical individualists. As such, a claim to following in the tradion of radical individualism may or may not be a claim to following in the tradition of anarcho-individualism, depending on which radicals we are refering to and how universal their position is to the individualist anarchist tradition. Kev 18:02, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Since I wrote "radical individualism" to refer to the people around Tucker and Spooner, then perhaps I should just repace it with "individualist anarchism". Anarcho-capitalists (like Kaplan) indeed claim these very people as inspiration. -- Toby Bartels 04:06, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

While I think it suffers from misplaced emphasis I can't complain about the current text because it refers to "inspiration" specifically, rather than a general claim to borrow or synthesize or draw from the ideology of anarcho-individualists. The ways in which things can inspire are vague and diverse, so there is nothing to argue against. Kev 04:29, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Contemporary movements

The contemporary movements section is a mess and I can't figure out a way to fix it. — Miguel 20:00, 2004 Mar 3 (UTC)

Thematic articles

Just like in the case of country pages, some of these develop some sections of this article more fully, so I am moving the links to the beginning of each section.

These links point to empty pages:

Miguel 01:14, 2004 Mar 4 (UTC)

Anarchy, Anomie, Chaos

The article anarchy does not disambiguate the meaning and just says see also anomie, chaos.

The article chaos is about the mythological meaning, and the only alternative is chaos theory (from mathematical physics).

The article anomie refers to our meaning in the section anomie as social disorder.

For these reasons, I changed the introduction. We may have to go in and change the articles anarchy, chaos and further develop anomie. — Miguel 15:25, 2004 Mar 4 (UTC)

Historical events

The following events are nor anarchist, at least according to the respective wikipedia pages.

-- Miguel 18:04, 2004 Mar 4 (UTC)


I have edited Paris Commune to bring it in line with sources (ie, the non-Statist trends). I have edited Mexican Revolution to point Zapata's anarchism. I have edited Russian Revolution to include Russian anarchism (Makhno and urban). I agree with Spanish Revolution instead of civil war. But you really do need to put the others back (and Hungary god damn it). Fifelfoo 23:19, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hungary 1956 is linked already from the historical examples of anarchy section. Part of what I have been doing is putting thematic links at the beginning of their respective sections if they fit nicely. If the historical events section is renamed other historical events then the "examples of anarchy" don't belong there anyway. Moreover, if Russian and Ukrainian anarchism during the October revolution is similar to Spanish anarchism during the Spanish civil war in that the larger event cannot properly be called anarchist, then the anarchist aspects should have their own focused discussion in a paragraph of the "historical examples of anarchy" section, and maybe their own article separate from russian revolution of 1917.

I also don't need to put anything back, this is a wiki so you can do it yourself if you think I made a mistake ;-) — Miguel 00:30, 2004 Mar 5 (UTC)

I can handle that view point. I guess the significant thing is the lack of appropriate sectionalisation within Anarchism. I also guess that it might be worth our while to start viewing sections as "stubs" for external articles. Plus, given that my intended solution would be to revert your changes, I think its more polite to talk it out. Creation is freer than destruction, in that creation less often harms others without their permission.  :) Fifelfoo 00:46, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Indeed, the idea that a section of one article is the stubs of a related article is a very fruitful idea on Wikipedia. -- Toby Bartels 01:36, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Dysfunctional anarchies

Generally speaking, this distinction will be hard to maintain as NPOV. In my opinion, for example, much of the anarchy in the Spanish Civil War was dysfunctional; the CNT even joined the loyalist government! But it would be POV to move that, right? The only purpose now served by this subheading is to list things that are not, in any (relevant) sense, anarchies. So we should remove the POV subheadings, and also remove the irrelevant examples under the dysfunctional subheading. (These examples could quite properly be moved to Anomie, however.) -- Toby Bartels 19:29, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Miguel wrote that stuff and said that he didn't mind if I removed it, so I moved it. But others are obviously still free to comment! ^_^ -- Toby Bartels 22:35, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Toby, will you please restore my discussion of functional vs dysfunctional anarchies so the troll will shut up? — Miguel 03:58, 2004 Mar 5 (UTC)
Not only is that intensely impolite, it is just the sort of attempt to stifle intellectual discourse, antagonism for communication of ideas, and opposition to the inclusion of a diversity of verifiable POV that I would expect from someone advocating (however subtley) for totalitarianism. Sam Spade 04:09, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I find the attempt to redifine the term anarchy shocking, and profoundly intellectually dishonest. The removal of mention of the anarchy of somalia is again dishonest, and reminiscent of orwellian propaganda. Sam Spade 02:42, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Any dictionary will distinguish at least two meaning of anarchy, lawlessness = anomie, and a social organization without state or government. These are not synonimous, but they are referred to by the same word. Which part of this don't you understand?
Nobody is trying to redefine anarchy, we are going to extreme lengths to distinguish the various meanings of the word anarchy, and to note that the proper place for certain discussions or examples is anomie. By the way, Frederik Hayek, which is one of the inspirations of anarch-capitalism, is mentioned in the anomie article making the very same distinction we are making.
"Orwellian"? Drop the self-righteousness. You limit yourself to leveling unfounded accusations at everyone's work, based only on a boldness that comes from your ignorance, and contribute no content to these articles, and no rewordings, just claims that the article is not NPOV. Someone else has called your behaviour trolling on a related talk page.
As for intellectual honesty, since you are of the opinion that the one true strand of anarchism is anarcho-capitalism, and you disagree with our distinction of anarchy and anomie, especially in the case of Somalia, are we to infer that you consider Somalia an example of anarcho-capitalist organization?
'nuff said. I've spent a week on this article trying to accomodate you and I'm fed up. — Miguel 03:28, 2004 Mar 5 (UTC)
Clearly I disagree with the use of the term anomie. Your exasperation w my lack of edits is intruiging. I have been avoiding editing because that would involve a rewrite, and as you said I am ignorant. Fortunately, one of things I'm NOT ignorant of is citations and verifiability, which I will utilize meticulously in any and all such rewrites. You may be interested in the edit history, where you can find that I have rewritten this page before, with strikingly little dispute considering its popularity. Thank you for your encouragement, and please do try not to let rumors and injudicious whisperings bias your ability to assume good faith. Sam Spade 03:37, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
You have admitted your ignorance yourself, I am not coming up with that characterization. Also, after a week of dealing with your unfounded criticism and finding you unamenable to change your position in the face of sensible arguments by a variety of people on a variety of pages, I am not longer giving you the benefit of the doubt. — Miguel 03:56, 2004 Mar 5 (UTC)
The following passages were in the article when you posted this double header: The current political situation in Somalia, for example, is often referred to as anarchy, since it has no central government.
Recent examples of short-term anarchy or long-term warlordism include Afghanistan and Albania around 1990, Rwanda/Burundi in the early 1990s, Somalia from the early 1990s to the present
Kev, Sam is actually complaining about Toby's moving of those two paragraphs to anomie. — Miguel 03:32, 2004 Mar 5 (UTC)
So Somalia is not only mentioned, but specifically refered to as anarchy on two separate occasions. What exactly is your problem with this? As for the attempt to redefine anarchy, I think you will find that most dictionaries have multiple definitions, that multiple meanings of existed for the word for hundreds of years across many dictionaries and indeed many countries, and that all the most common of these meanings are at least briefly dealth with on the page. So, again, I'm unclear as to your exact objection. Kev 02:55, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
My objection is to the list of "anarchies" w/o somalia's inclusion within it. Also, I object to the misleading usage of the terms "anarchy" and "anomie". Sam Spade 03:37, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Somalia is not an anarchy because there are two self-proclaime autonomous regions with transitional governments, plus a third region torn by internicine warfare anr ruled by warlords on the principle of force. The first two regions do not qualify as chaos, anomie, or anarchy. The last region qualifies as anarchy in the sense of chaos/anomie, but not in the sense of anarchy as an organizational principle. Do you object to these usages of the terms anomie and anarchy because of your political bias, because of your ignorance of political theory, or because of your ignorance of the English language? — Miguel 03:56, 2004 Mar 5 (UTC)
I object to your misuse of langauge, which is sometimes refered to as doublespeak. If you are not aware of what you are doing, I appologise, the proper term is then doublethink. I have never said that your alternate terms and ideas should not be present. I am advocating for the inclusion of mainstream ideas and usages (i.e. somalia is a state of anarchy, anarchy is a proper term for political chaos). The insults don't help any, trust me. Sam Spade 04:12, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)