Talk:Anarchist symbolism - Definition

Image requests

This article could do with a few more images:

1. A picture of an anarchy symbol spray painted on a wall for the anarcho-punk section.
2. That picture of the Spanish anarchist militiaman with the circled "A" symbol on his helmet. Apparently it was part of a BBC documentary.

If you can find or create any of these images, please do! Thanks. • Benc • 02:33, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Ambiguous Text

In section Black Flag, the following text appears. "Also at about the same time, the British based journal Black Flag was started and is in existence." This does not appear to be grammatically correct, but I'm not sure as to the author's original intent. Recommend "...is still in existence today." or "...continues to exist.".

Fixed. You know, you're allowed to (and are very welcome to) make any changes you feel like to the article yourself. :-) • Benc • 06:27, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

purple "black cross"

so why does the black cross image contain a purple cross? ✈ James C. 01:30, 2004 Aug 17 (UTC)

No clue. Fixed. • Benc • 06:27, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I put it there as purple... i thought it was better than nothing, and then forgot to fix it myself. Thanx benc. Beta_M

Someone should get us a better image so we can thumbnail it like the rest.--Che y Marijuana 05:34, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

I just thumbnailed the image so we can get the little description under it, but I don't know how to make the thumbnail smaller, if anyone can help with that it would be appreciated--Che y Marijuana 07:07, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

Never mind, figured it out. I'm sure someone's gonna get really annoyed with me over how many times I have to edit to get things right :P--Che y Marijuana 07:16, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

Totally wrong page for a dollar symbol

The anarchist tradition has always been anti-capitalist. Information on the symbols of free-market fundamentalism (often misleadingly called "anarcho-capitalism") belongs on a seperate page (which I do not have the time or inclination to create). AW

That's just plain not true. It disobeys the requirement that Wikipedia follow the neutral point of view. You can claim that anarchocapitalists aren't real anarchists, but there is a substantial amount of controversy about it. Certainly all the anarchocapitalists would dispute that this is correct, thus, the claim is not point of view neutral. Any claim that they aren't "real" anarchists is at best an opinion, not some sort of "objective truth".

On the objective facts level, there are certainly propertarian anarchists that date back to the early 19th century and before, so you can't even claim that this is a new strain in the anarchist movement. It would be fine to say "some anarchists deny that capitalism is compatible with anarchism, while others claim that both traditions are present in the history of the movement", but it is not okay to pretend that there is only one objective point of view here.

I would strongly demand that the page be made neutral on this point. If that doesn't happen, I'll bring this up for an appeal. --Pmetzger 16:18, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

After consideration and researching the origin of the section on the page and the origin of the symbol, I've restored (and made some minor edits to) the anarchocapitalist symbol section. If you would like to discuss ways to edit the text to indicate disputes about whether anarchocapitalism is anarchism, or to discuss linking to a page on that topic, I'm amenable to it. --Pmetzger 19:20, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

On another front, it appears that the symbol in question may be of fairly recent origin. I hadn't heard of it before, so I'm researching it.--Pmetzger 18:59, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I've determined the origin and linked to that on the page --Pmetzger 19:20, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Someone vandalized the page to remove the symbol again. I've reverted their edits. --Pmetzger 02:02, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

A lot of edits happened to the text, so I've also re-NPOVed it. I am trying very hard to emphasize that many anarchists don't like anarchocapitalism, think it isn't anarchism, etc., without leaning to a point of view or being offensive to either side. If people want to edit this more, I'd strongly suggest we come to some consensus on the text here, rather than engaging in pointless editing wars. --Pmetzger 02:15, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Vandalism

The person at IP address 213.100.52.73 seems to keep changing things to re-insert his point of view. This is not acceptable behavior. Anyone have any ideas on what the right thing here is? I'm happy seeing people discuss the language -- maybe it isn't as neutral as I'd like it -- but discussion, not vandalism, is the way to make forward progress.

I agree, this is totally unacceptable. If 213.100.52.73 has a problem with POV wording, they are free to change a word here and there — or better yet, add to this discussion. By and large, I feel that a compromise has been reached by those willing to talk it over here. Unilateral, repeated removal of the section is vandalism. I've left a note on asking them not to do it again. If they do, we need to report it to Vandalism in progress. Three strikes and you're out. • Benc • 02:10, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

In the interests of not biting newcomers, I've decided to give the anonymous user a second — and final — warning on their user talk page. Make that four strikes and you're out. • Benc • 09:52, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I have to disagree. I think they've worn out their welcome at this point. Time to ask for their IP address to be banned. There are plenty of signs on Wikipedia indicating how to get help with stuff and how to learn the rudiments of interacting with others. I get the impression this person doesn't want to follow the rules. --Pmetzger 14:56, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

NPoV: left-anarchism vs. anarchocapitalism

There are several branches in the anarchist movement, some of which are not hostile to free markets.

Given this, I've changed the history section of the page to refer to anti-capitalist anarchism having grown out of socialism, rather than more generically calling anarchism a child of socialism. (People like Lysander Spooner and Gustave de Molinari were not socialists and predate the modern socialisms of the mid 19th century.)

I do not think this description is totally right though -- although these strains of anarchism tend to be anti-capitalist I do not know if calling them that is per se the right turn of phrase. Would "left anarchism" or "anarchosocialism" be better terms? I'm tending towards using "anarchosocialism" in that spot since it seems to most accurately reflect the aspirations of such anarchists towards a society of collective benefit, though perhaps this would offend some as well. I'm very interested in comments.

By the way, if anyone claims again "anarchocapitalism isn't anarchism", I'll just refer them to NPOV. It is fine to edit the page to reflect that some people disagree that anarchocapitalism is anarchism, but it is not okay for wikipedia itself to display an opinion. Wikipedia needs neutral. --Pmetzger 18:40, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I still think that that symbol is totally out of place with the rest, seeing as it stands in direct opposition to what the others on the page stand for. For that reason I have reluctantly moved it to the end of the article, adding a qualifying note, which you can NPOV if you want.

I'll NPOV it. --Pmetzger 04:28, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Incidentally, I think that you need to read a bit of basic anarchist history. Figures like Spooner are marginal ones at best. Beside which, Spooner was not a proponent of markets, as you seen to suggest. He was a more of a left-individualist. The term "anarchosocialism" is redundant and would only confuse matters. I've never met or read of anyone who uses the term. Anarchism *is* a form a socialism. Socialism without government to be more precise. While not all socialists are anarchists, anarchists are by and large socialists. Even individualists call for the economy to be organised along rough socialist lines. What you call "anarcho-capitalism" has only the most tenuous of linkages with both the historical anarchist movement and tradition and any part of anarchist theory. AW

I'm fine with the changes both you and Pmetzger have made, and appreciate the work you've put in to this article. I have a question for you, though: I can see how anarcho-capitalism can be viewed as a corruption of anarchism, or even as a negation of it. But how does the anarcho-punk movement fit into this equation? Isn't anarcho-punk also kind of corrupting to the original anarchist ideals? They're selling albums (a capitalist pursuit) in the name of anarchy, right? • Benc • 00:33, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think most of the "anarchist" punks I've met don't understand anarchism though there are plenty of exceptions I'm sure. --Pmetzger 04:28, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

FYI, you might believe Spooner was a left-individualist, but he was the founder of the American Letter Mail Company, which was the reason the U.S. Government implemented the private express act banning private mail delivery services. He was a pretty successful capitalist when he put his hand to it, and I'm unaware of any of his writings that advocate socialism in any way. They do advocate a stateless society, though. To you, Spooner may be a marginal figure, but he and others like de Molinari are big people to the anarchocapitalists, just anarchocapitalists are less interested in some folks the anarchosocialists prefer. That is to be expected given the distinctions between the groups. --Pmetzger 04:28, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I note that AW altered my change to the history section on the black flag to remove my change distinguishing some strains of anarchism as having arisen out of the socialist movements of the mid 19th century. I very strongly believe, given the history of 19th century anarchism, and the several strongly non-socialist threads of the anarchist movement at the time, that it is not reasonable to characterize all of anarchism as having arisen out of the socialist movements. I doubt that folks like Stirner thought of their ideas as having grown from socialism. I'd strongly suggest that we come up with a way of phrasing this in a more refined manner. Proposals are solicited. FYI, I strongly dispute the contention that "all" anarchism is socialism -- it is readily apparent that at best one may state that some anarchists believe that, but that many other people do not. The term itself only refers to the organization of society without resort to the state -- it does not make any claim whatsoever about the nature of that organization. --Pmetzger 04:54, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Good points. I put in my attempts to NPOV that part of the article; hack away wherever it can be made more NPOV. • Benc • 06:11, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Libertatis Æquilibritas shouldn't be on page, part 2

Wow... ok... please check the Anarchist FAQ (http://www.infoshop.org/faq/append1.html) for why no Anarchists consider Libertarian Capitalism a part of Anarchism. To them, Capitalism is a form of hierarchy. At the most, I believe a seperate page with redirects from Anarcho-Capitalism and links from this page should be created for Libertarian Capitalism. This is not a POV issue, this is an issue of historical political ideas. What a very small political sect believes should have no bearing on where they are placed in an encyclopedia. People such as Pinochet claimed to be Capitalist, but their political ideologies involved much more than that. Thus, he wouldn't be listed as "Capitalist" in an encyclopedia. This is not a dictionary, where we ignore the historical connotations of movements and categorize them based on dictionary definitions with no basis in political reality. The same stance should be taken on Libertarian Capitalism. If you want to take an NPOV position on definitions, you have to take the collective understanding in political terminology.--Che y Marijuana 22:53, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

People are free to claim to be whatever they want to be, and if a significant group of people support that claim, into the Wikipedia it goes. However, I agree with your analysis based on the fact that it's a very small sect compared to the rest of the anarchist movements. Please note that it is still POV to assert that anarcho-capitalism is not anarchism without discounting it with "most anarchists believe that".

An analogy: if a Pro-Choice group declared their name to be "Pro-Lifers Opposed to the Murder of Abortion Doctors", they would not deserve a section in our Pro-Life article. They would certainly deserve a link to a separate article, of course. Therefore, I support your suggestion to move the content of the "Libertatis Æquilibritas" section back to its own article (Libertatis Æquilibritas), leaving a one or two-sentence note here linking to that page. • Benc • 09:12, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

But you have to remember that there are many in the anarchist movement who consider Anarcho-Syndicalism or Anarcho-Communism not to be a trully anarchist ideology (if anarchist ideology actually exists). So, therefore, if we move one of the groups out to their own article, i would suggest making this page simply a disambiguating one... "leaving a one or two-sentence note here linking to" other pages. Beta m 11:32, 2004 Sep 5 (UTC)

I see your point, but I think there's several key differences to take into consideration:

1. Relative size. Compared to anarcho-syndicalism and anarcho-communism, anarcho-capitalism is small.
2. Length of existence. Anarcho-syndicalism and anarcho-communism have existed since at least the 1880s, growing up side-by-side with anarchism. Anarcho-capitalism, on the other hand, was first named in the 1950s.
3. Vehemence of mainstream opposition. The average anarchist would take much more umbrage at the anarcho-capitalist ideology than anarcho-syndicalism and anarcho-communism.

Take these for what you will, of course. I'm okay with leaving the Libertatis Æquilibritas on the article if that's what the consensus is, but my vote is to move it back to its own article. • Benc • 20:19, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If size is small then that is precisely the reason why not to create a page for the small group's symbol. Length of existance (in my humble oppinion) plays little role here, but once again if it does then it's my argument that if there is less history to discuss then merge the discussion into the page about something else (such as general "anarchist" symbols). I take the point about the mainstream opposition. It is true that ancaps have little to do with anarchist movement most of the time, and sometimes they (either individually or as a group) oppose it. Beta m 10:25, 2004 Sep 6 (UTC)

In case anyone was wondering, I was the one who originally moved it here when I created this article. This was not a POV action on my part because I had no POV on this issue at that point — I knew next to nothing about anarchism but decided to research it because we needed an article about the circle-A. The move was naïve on my part; I was simply gathering sources. Now that I know a bit more, I'm suggesting we give the symbol its own article to sidestep NPOV issues. • Benc • 09:12, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Vehemence of mainstream opposition. The average anarchist would take much more umbrage at the anarcho-capitalist ideology than anarcho-syndicalism and anarcho-communism. Does this constitute "mainstream opposition"? As I argued recently on Talk:Anarchism, I think it is much more important how the genuine mainstream, i.e. average English speakers, uses words, rather than how most anarchists use them. Because I think most people would define any group that wants to abolish the state as anarchist, I don't see the problem keeping the libertatis on this page. We could split it up, but I don't see the point. Is the libertatis aequilibritas notable enough to have its own page? This is just a page about symbolism anyway. Who cares? What's the big deal? - Nat Krause 08:30, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The big deal -- and I think it is a big deal -- is the offense given to anarchists by the inclusion. This is parallel (but less intense) to those who wish to include fascism under conservatism or socialism. -- Jmabel 17:54, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)

Suppose that I were offended by the page's failure to include the libertatis, much as other people would be offended if the page excluded, say, the syndicalist flag (I'm not, but for sake of argument). Is offendedness really the appropriate standard here? Doesn't that simply create a heckler's veto? Nat Krause 07:50, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Frankly, no. The title of this article is "anarchist symbolism". Everything else here is of groups that would generally mutually recognize each other as part of the anarchist tradition. Including anarcho-capitalism is no more appropriate than discussing the Larouchies in the context of a discussion of the U.S. Democratic Party, just because Larouche now claims to be a Democrat. -- Jmabel 08:21, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

To be honest, if there were a page on Democratic Party symbolism (or, more likely Democratic Party campaign buttons or something) and a group of Democratic Party regulars were bent out of shape about include a Lyndon LaRouche button, I would think that was pretty silly, too, especially if the image was captioned with a note that it's inclusion was controversial. - Nat Krause 08:31, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

So are we reaching a general consensus here? Is it agreed then that this symbol should not be on the page? What are we going to do? Or are you implying that it is pointless to move it? The problem is more than that man, the Anarchist movement at its core is a worker's movement, and has been throughout its history. The biggest issues they have had to deal with are with mainstream opinion characterizing them based on linguistic definitions, chaos, rather than looking at their real historical and theoretical definitions. They have been battling this for some time now, with teenagers adopting Anarchism as a theory of Nihilism when it is not and it pisses them off. Then come these "Anarcho"-Capitalists, who go to an even worse extreme, having the balls to tell established anarchists their definition is wrong and should include Capitalists. They fight their entire political history against bosses and the Capitalist class, and suddenly Capitalists want to be called a part of their movement? It's a very bad situation. I'm personally very offended, but as I said, I don't do solo actions. So I will do nothing till there is a general consensus here.--Che y Marijuana 09:36, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)

I was arguing that there is no reason to move it. However, I don't think it is very important one way or the other, so if there is a consensus among people other than me, I will not object. I'm kind of uncomfortable moving it to the anarcho-capitalism page, because that page is cluttered enough already and the libertatis is really not actually very widely known or used even among ancaps. Maybe merge with ancapistan (which I wrote in my misspent youth) as anarcho-capitalist jargon and symbolism? - Nat Krause 06:21, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, given that anarcho-capitalists have a pretty marginal relation to anarchism in the first plae, if the symbol is obscure even among ancaps, then the symbol certainly doesn't belong here. All of the other symbols shown here are longstanding and well-established anarchist symbols. -- Jmabel 07:31, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

Well, I don't necessarily agree with your conclusion, but the argument is reasonable enough. The libertatis is indeed obscure among ancaps. Therefore, it is unimportant what happens with the information about it. - Nat Krause 08:22, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree with you if you think Anarcho-Capitalism is not large enough to have its very own page, which is why I suggested it be a redirect to a page on Libertarian Capitalism, which is a much bigger movement that would include people such as Ayn Rand who never called herself an Anarcho-Capitalist as far as I know. Please move it, as it is offensive to Anarchists, and the differences are too great to warrant putting it on the same page. Considering Anarchism has always been a union driven worker's movement, it is very difficult to swallow. Again, I will take no action myself because I don't want POV issues because I am personally an Anarcho-Communist. My suggestion is Benc make the final move if that is the decision as it is the best way to avoid further quibbling. As for Anarcho-Syndicalism, there are very few Anarchists who don't consider Anarcho-Syndicalism or Anarcho-Communism Anarchist, though some of the thinkers took that line. Those Anarchists tend to be of the "lifestyle Anarchist" variety, less political even than the Anarcho-Punk variety and with no organizations whatsoever. They have little or no knowledge of Anarchist theories and ideas and tend to be opposed to politics in general, and assume Anarchism is Nihilism. Which we all know is not true. Other than that there have been a few select Anarchist movements historically, known as Individualists, who opposed Anarcho-Communism but not Syndicalism. They stood against Capitalism nonetheless, and considered Syndicalists comrades. The Individualist movement is there, but these days is, once again, very limited on an organizational scale.--Che y Marijuana 04:03, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

Er, I think anarcho-capitalism deserves its own article, at least. The issue here is whether their symbol (Libertatis Æquilibritas) should be (1) merged into anarcho-capitalism; (2) given its own article at Libertatis Æquilibritas; or (3) left here as part of anarchist symbolism. If you think anarcho-capitalism should be merged/moved to libertarian capitalism, then you should be discussing it at Talk:anarcho-capitalism (good luck :-P). • Benc • 18:08, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No, you're right, that's a different convo all together. My opinion is merge with anarcho-capitalism. Went on a rant, sorry :P Anyways, what do you guys think, move to anarcho-capitalism?--Che y Marijuana 01:47, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)

I think move to anarcho-capitalism, no large image on this page, but a see also link on this page, possibly with a small thumbnail. Whatever we adopt, I'd then handle any other kind-of-but-not-really-anarchist symbols the same way. -- Jmabel 18:04, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)

That sounds like a good solution to me. • Benc • 20:15, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

my vote is for a see also link at the bottom, no thumbnail. I don't see the point if you're gonna put a thumbnail anyways, but otherwise, a good idea.--Che y Marijuana 12:57, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)

After thinking about for a bit... i still say keep it where it is. On the bottom away from everything else... maybe with the line separating it from everything else and nasty warning that if you scroll down Jesus will come and eat your first born hermaphrodite child... (the thing about the Jesus is the joke by the way, i wouldn't really like to see that). Keep it! Beta m 13:15, 2004 Sep 10 (UTC)

good going guys! Seems we worked it out.--Che y Marijuana 13:20, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)

"...can be seen as..."

"The symbol can be seen as..." etc. This either needs attribution or shoudl be dropped. As it is, it's nothing but POV or original research. -- Jmabel 21:17, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

After a 60 second Google search, I've found several sources, one of which is a 1986 poster from Australia. I've requested permission to use an image of it on this article from ipl.org. Note that Proudhon predates the symbol, so we're not going to get anything straight from the horse's mouth. • Benc • 10:57, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Autogestione

I beleve that in Italy, the A-circle is also taken to stand for autogestione. Any confirmation or disconformation from Italian sources? Any equivalents beyond Italy? -- Jmabel 21:35, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

What is autogestione? • Benc • 11:03, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Literally "self-gestation". To my knowledge the term is most common in Italian, but I've seen cognates in other languages. Basically meaning bottom-up development of organizations, collectives, etc. -- Jmabel 17:48, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

"autogestione" means self-determination basically, it refers to workers taking control of factories and running them democratically without a boss.--Che y Marijuana 03:23, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks; this makes the connection to the circle-A symbol is pretty clear. If anyone can confirm this, feel free to add the following text into the "Description" section. I'd add it myself, but I'd like factual confirmation first. Thanks, • Benc • 07:18, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The "A" has an addition symbolic meaning in [[Italian language|Italian]]: ''autogestione'' (literally ''self-gestation''), meaning ''self-determination''. This refers to the radical action of factory workers taking control of their factories, running them democratically without a boss. Anarchist movements are often associated with [[trade unions]].

added it, thanks for that. anyone have anything on paris, may 1968? I heard they had an autogestione movement there too and I wonder what the french word was.--Che y Marijuana 04:55, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

Sabcat

I added the anarcho-syndicalist cat image, and juggled the info around so that the liberatis thing is at the bottom as opposed to above the cat.

I would alos like to say that the words "many anti-capitalist anarchists" are redundant. It is enough to say "many anarchists" as saying they consider capitalism hierarchical implies by definition that they are anti-capitalist.

I will not edit this alone however. I would prefer it say "most anarchists". Because that is the statistical truth of the matter, the libertarian capitalists are a very small minority and are the only ones who consider that movement a part of anarchism.

Thoughts?--Che y Marijuana 03:10, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)

I also added a link at the end providing an explanation of the majority view on "Anarcho"-Capitalism.--Che y Marijuana 03:18, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)

Good edits; thanks for the image and the reference. I moved the link up into the relevant section, as the "External links" section should cover anarchist symbolism as a whole, not tangential (but worthwhile) topics.

As for the "many anti-capitalist anarchists" vs. "many anarchists" issue, I think it would be best if we left this as is — better to risk redundancy than to appear POV to anarcho-capitalist readers. It's just one word. But if you'd like to emphasize the fact that anarcho-capitalists are in the (very small) minority, feel free to do so. • Benc • 06:44, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I am about to move the cat once again, firstly for formatting issues, and also the fact that it is more important and prominent in my opinion than the black cross.--Che y Marijuana 04:42, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

I have also changed a line in the anarcho-syndicalism section, that made it seem like syndicalism was unique in embracing socialism. I clarified that they embrace it more than most Anarchist movements, though I also said "anti-capitalist" anarchists to keep it clear till we get the issues with Libertarian Capitalism worked out. Oh, and I don't know where to put this, but I added the sabot image.--Che y Marijuana 05:35, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

Black cat

Could we get some examples of groups (and publications?) named "Black Cat" for this section? Also, there are anarchist small businesses?! This is surprising (and interesting) — please support this statement with facts, and possibly add info about such businesses to the main anarchism article. Thanks, • Benc • 06:54, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Anarchist small businesses is, I suspect a badly chosen term for Anarchist collectives and Anarchist-affiliated co-ops. Collectives are owned by all the workers equally, with no boss or hierarchy and direct voting on all decisions including hiring and firing. Co-ops are, on the otherhand, less Anarchist. They have workers who are simple wage workers and not part of the co-operative, meaning they don't vote. I would consider the second one a "business" in some sense, though to classify either as "small businesses" doesn't convey the nature of those projects in my opinion. I have edited it out and added "co-operatives" instead. Hope everyone agrees.--Che y Marijuana 04:40, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

No strong objection, except that the Black Cat Cafe in Austin - one of the examples I provided - is legally a privately owned business (they needed to be for their liquor license) founded by someone who happened to be an anarchist. -- Jmabel 18:33, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

Added reference to Autonomist Marxist use of Black Cat symbol. FTI: the difference between a collective and a co-operative is one of legal structure (co-ops need one by law, collectives have many (or no) structures)) and adherence to the seven co-operative principles. There are plenty of co-ops that fit Che y Marijuana's definition of co-op. While there are some Worker's Co-ops that employ people who are not a member of the co-op ther are plebnty that don't, as well as other sorts of co-ops (e.g. Housing Co-operatives that don't employ anyone at all. Tallus 16:34, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Does anyone know of any collectives called "black cat" which are still open? Last I knew the black cat in Austin had been hollowed out by a fire (and so isn't open anymore), and there hasn't been any effort to restore it. I also heard (sometime last year) that the original owner was trying to sell what's left of the building. millerc 01:16, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Unicode Circle-A

The Unicode character for circled latin letter A is not visible to some browsers. In the line "The anarchy symbol that most people are familiar with is Ⓐ, which consists of the capital letter "A" surrounded by a circle.", Ⓐ is only visible as a small rectangle. The Unicode for the circle-A, & # x 2 4 B 6 ; (spaced out here for convenience) is correct, but for some computers it will not function. This may be more of a problem of Unicode, but I felt it should be brought to attention. Anonymous Non-User 08 Oct 2004, 23:20 (EDT)

Yes, it's a rather obscure character, I'm not sure it's useful to use it here. I have a pretty extensive font - no problem with, say, Chinese - and I can't see it. -- Jmabel 03:42, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)

Monkeywrench

Thanks to whoever wrote up the info, I chased down an image of it, edited out the text and placed it up. If someone could please put in the correct image tag for it, I would appreciate that. I can't find anything better than "fair use, unsure", even though I'm absolutely sure there's no copyright. It's a political symbol of an Anarchist organization, somehow I doubt "unsure" is the correct word to use about my belief that this image is not copyrighted.--Che y Marijuana 07:24, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)