Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bobdobbs1723 (talk | contribs) at 22:43, 2 October 2002. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Hello there, Welcome. Who are these people you are writting articles about? What have they done to merit inclusion in this encyclopedia? One of the things Misplaced Pages is not is a homepage provider. You are more than welcome to create just about anything over at Metapedia. --mav

Lir. I have responded to your questions on my talk page. If for some reason you can't edit that page then please post your messages here. --mav

Well, I've got to go to bed. Talk to you later. --mav

Hi Lir. Great stuff you're writing, but plase watch the CAPS lock key. We don't put names in capitals. I'll fix the ALVIN TOFFLER page you've made. -- Tarquin (oh well. Someone else beat me to it... ;-)

(reply to your comment on my page) It's been merged into Alvin Toffler, a page which already existed. Your text has not been deleted. It's a good idea to do a search before creating a new page, to avoid duplication. -- Tarquin

Hi Lir,

I'm User:Bobdobbs1723 and I noticed your edits on Anarchism. I'll read through them to find your train of thought. I just figured something out when I was editing (I still feel a fool) that may really help. At the bottom of the edit screen is a 'Preview' button. Use it, and it will provide a formatted page below the edit window so you can see what it looks like without posting 50 times in a row. My problem was (and possibly yours too), is that when I hit the button, due to my screen size and resolution, the preview page posted below, and what I was looking at didn't appear to change at all. So I thought it wasn't working..... Live and learn. Oh four tildes '~' in a row will put your name and timestamp after your message. Three just leaves your name. Have fun. Dobbs 16:39 Oct 2, 2002 (UTC)

I'm posting here so you can read it quickly: "Lir seems eager and a newbie as well. I'm going over to his Talk page and try and describe searching before starting new articles, and reading the talk page to get an idea of what everyone before you has done and is trying to achieve. Most anarchists I tend to meet seem to have developed their understanding from more general work and bits and pieces of popular descriptions. Our more doctrinaire and rigorous work describing the distinctions is a bit enlightning and confusing when people are first exposed."

That is posted from the Anarchism:Talk page. You can get there by clicking on Talk Page, located under Page Options on the left side of your browser window, when you are on the Anarchism topic page. (I'm not trying to talk down - BTW - I just don't know how much you know and am being better safe than sorry).

Your changes on the Anarchism page were reverted, and I didn't want you to take it the wrong way. As you can see, there has been quite a bit of discussion on how to approach the subject, and your changes edited out much information that many others felt necessary to illustrate the distinctions between forms of anarchist philosophy. Libertarian Socialism is a synonym of Anarchism, not something different, it just describes a specific type and style of Anarchism (from your Summary of your changes). Your energies might be better spent reading through the discussion, reading the page and finding out where your philosophy of Anarchism fits, and expanding that section or page. It's not that what you were trying to do wasn't good, it was just too specific for the main page. Dobbs 17:31 Oct 2, 2002 (UTC)

Hi, Lir... I reverted your changes on anarchism, not because they weren't good, but because they sort of went against the structure we had decided on for the pages (like Dobbs said)... anyhow, you might want to check out Libertarian socialism and hack at that a bit. Graft

So I see you take offense to my revert of Anarchism. This is fine, I don't particularly care if we discuss before reverting. At any rate, my reason for doing so was, because, if you'll read the archived discussion on the Talk:Anarchism page, you'll see that there was a substantial conflict over who got ownership of the term anarchism, and not everyone agreed that "libertarian socialist" was uniquely synonymous with "anarchism". Many of the anarcho-capitalists here felt that "anarcho-capitalism" had just as much of a right to the anarchist label as libertarian socialism did. And given that many prominent historical anarchists (like Max Stirner, John Henry McKay, et al.) were NOT libertarian socialists, this has a lot of credence to it. So, anarchism, we felt, should be a meta-page introducing the various strains of anarchism, with sub-pages discussing the various strains in detail. Graft

Lir, please... We came to the current situation of placing a meta-like page on anarchism at "anarchism" and the page on what we usually call anarchism at "libertarian socialism" after a while of thrashing between anarchists and anarcho-capitalists. Your edits don't fit in with the flow of the page; that's why Graft removed them for now. If you don't like the structure of the pages, please don't just put material that doesn't fit into them; talk about it on the talk page. Thanks! DanKeshet

Yeah, if you keep on like this, we will be reduced to total anarchy, which would be a richly ironic source of merriment if the resulting chaos weren't so darn annoying ;-) --Ed Poor

Also, you have been putting your messages on people's "User" pages. Your comments to a particular user should go on his or her "Talk" page. David "Anarcosocial-communist" dePaoli ;)

A user's talk page is linked on the sidebar and the bottom of each user's page. It's entitled, appropriately, "Talk page".

Lir, a lot would be achieved by your engaging in discussion instead of continuing with this fruitless edit war. You clearly have a different viewpoint of what the 'anarchism' page should be - can you try and explain it for us, instead of drastically altering the structure that the rest of us happen to agree on? Graft

A lot would be accomplished if you would explain what is wrong with my changes? I have done nothing that I could see as being in the least bit controversial. All that has been said to me is that Im not allowed to change the anarchist page to being about anarchism rather than libertarian socialism.

If you'll look at the original version, you'll find this is NOT the case. The original version describes four and a half basic kinds of anarchism: libertarian socialism, individualist anarchism, anarcho-capitalism, anarcho-syndicalism, and has a discussion of anomie(chaos). This is because people subscribing to ALL of these philosophies call themselves "anarchist", and so the label "anarchist" is insufficient for giving a nuanced description of the various "anarchist" philosophies. The original page was really about FOUR subjects that all call themselves "anarchist". What do YOU mean when you use the word "anarchism"? Graft

I don't understand this debate. His "edits", at best, violate NPOV (example, "Anarchists loathe capitalism.") and at worst amount to nothing more than vandalism. His combative, rude and disrespectful actions and comments clearly outweigh his contributions. He should be banned. David dePaoli

Let's not be hasty. Lir is a new user, not a vandal. It takes a while to get used to working cooperatively in a wiki. I have hopes that his contributions will soon make up for any early friction. Who knows? Maybe he's an anarchist coming to terms with his first online experience of collectivism. There's no way to ban a logged-in user anyway, unless you can talk Jimbo into it. Why not join me in showing him the ropes? --Ed Poor

I agree, he should not be banned. Dobbs 21:58 Oct 2, 2002 (UTC)

I guess I'd never make a good admin, Ed. ;)

I tend to agree with Ed. Graft

Okay, let me try it again, for the last time: The following philosophies have all been called "anarchist":

• Libertarian socialism
• Anarcho-capitalism
• Anarcho-syndicalism
• Anomie
• Individualist anarchism

There are others, but these broad categories will do quite well. So, since ALL of these could be described as "anarchist", when you replace "libertarian socialism" with "anarchism", you are removing information. For example, if before it said "Libertarian socialists like candy", I would know that this is a peculiar property of those anarchists who are libertarian socialists. However, you want it to say "anarchists like candy". This is less specific. Get it? Graft

ANARCHISM IS NOT LIBERTARIAN SOCIALISM. THERE IS A REASON WHY THEY ARE NAMED DIFFERENTLY. MY REVISED VERSION HAS A LINK TO LIBERTARIAN SOCIALISM. IT LISTS MORE TYPES OF ANARCHISM. IT DISCUSSES IN MORE DETAIL. IT HAS OMITTED NO INFORMATION.

THERE IS NO NEED TO SAY LIBERTARIAN SOCIALIST ON THE ANARCHIST PAGE EXCEPT WHEN WE ARE TALKING SPECIFICALLY ABOUT LIBERTARIAN SOCIALIST AND NOT ANARCHISM-BECAUSE THEY ARE DIFFERENT-AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THE FACT THAT THE LIBERTARIAN SOCIALISTS ARE DISAGREEING WITH MY EXPLANATION THAT

ANARCHISM OPPOSES TOTALITARIANISM. WHICH THEY ARE TRYING TO USE TO STOP ME.

Most of us think that there are several different variants of anarchism that deserve mention in the article. Even if you have only heard of one before, we are here to tell you that there are others. The one you describe might be important to you, but unless you want to set up a hierarchy with yourself at the top and the rest of us having no power -- you'll have to tolerate the existence of other views. Can you imagine the irony of an anarchist resorting to anti-anarchic tactics to promote his views of anarchy? --Ed Poor

I am NOT eliminating other forms of anarchism. HAVE YOU READ THE DAMN THING? I added forms of anarchism. There is no reason why I can't change where it says libertarian socialism to anarchism. It is anarchism that is being discussed on that page. If libertarian socialism is to be discussed than how is it different than anarchism? The old version said they were the same. They are not. HAVE YOU READ THE REVISED VERSION?

Now lets not get all excited. I tried that during my discussion of the Electoral College, and I felt (and still do) really bad the next day.

Lir, please read the last edit before you started posting. It really has some good stuff on it. The other ways of constructing anarchism are different than your idea to be sure, but not *WRONG* in the metaphysical sense of *WRONG*. They are different and do not agree with your take on it, yes to be sure. But not *WRONG*.

There are things I don't like. I for one, am an anarcho-capitalist. This philosophy has many things in it that relate to an American term libertarian, used by the American political party the United States Libertarian Party. However, I know from the literature that Libertarian Socialism was used before the modern American usage of the term Libertarian, so I don't make much of an issue - other than stating in the sections on anarcho-capitalism the differences and similarities with both.

Likewise, there are many other interpretations of what these things mean. Rather than stating "one true ideal", it is certainly anarchistic that we spontaneously organize and come to some sort of agreement on how to approach this page's organization. I think being respectful of other (and sometimes, perverse) interpretations of ideas you have is overall a better thing.

Now, I will take issue on something you said above:

"... EXCEPT WHEN WE ARE TALKING SPECIFICALLY ABOUT LIBERTARIAN SOCIALIST AND NOT ANARCHISM-BECAUSE THEY ARE DIFFERENT-AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THE FACT THAT THE LIBERTARIAN SOCIALISTS ARE DISAGREEING WITH MY EXPLANATION THAT ANARCHISM OPPOSES TOTALITARIANISM. WHICH THEY ARE TRYING TO USE TO STOP ME.""

Two issues here. One, I think there is real disagreement as to Anarchism being against totalitarianism. This, of course, is true, as far as it goes. However, anarchism (may also be / is) against coercive behavior, and the establishment of hierarchies. What is (more / less) important to you is why there are differences between various flavours of anarchism. That's why we are trying to give each type of anarchism its fair shake.

And as you well know, anarchism is not chaos. Anarchism can and does offer a different way of forming social and civil relationships among members of a society. How you decide to form those relationships is the other main differentiation between forms of anarchy. How does your ideal of anarchism solve the problem of what happens after the state is gone? Possibly, if you look at that, you can use that to read what we have labeled the different forms and see where you may or may not fit in. Either way, add to the section - or create a new one - so we can see what it is you are getting at.

Second, no one is trying to stop you. No one is ganging up on you or not willing to allow your side to be heard. The amount of responses on your talk page is an indication of how much effort people are willing to expend resolving this issue. Please, lets hash it out on the Anarchism:Talk page about how to proceed.

BTW - Thank you for responding to me on my talk page! But remember to sign it with four tildes (~ ~ ~ ~) all together, so I can see who sent it! I'll take your writing on my page as a mistake, no problem at all - I feel confident that you have good motives. But please remember, even though I noticed the edit, I didn't actually revert your changes. I'm trying to help out and not make you defensive (which can happen when that is done to someone, and seems to be the case here). I want the best for the 'pedia, not to cause bad feelings and worse editing..... Dobbs 22:07 Oct 2, 2002 (UTC)

"...individualist anarchism, and or red anarchism. There is also anarcho-capitalism which many anarchists feel is a misuse of the anarcho prefix."

Now Lir, this is what some people are taking offense at. I for one, as an anarcho-capitalist think of myself as entitled to call myself an Anarchist, as do you. This is not really written NPOV. Take a look at the NPOV page and see what I mean. Dobbs 22:32 Oct 2, 2002 (UTC)

Lir - let's take this to the Talk:Anarchism page. This is a good thing to talk about in public, rather than a back and forth between just us. Meet you there! Dobbs 22:43 Oct 2, 2002 (UTC)