Talk:Anarchism/Archive 51

Archive 45

←

Archive 49

Archive 50

Archive 51

Archive 52

Archive 53

→

Archive 55

Anarchy/Anarchism?

Should not the articles Anarchy and Anarchism be merged? I mean, they're the same thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiwikiwakoo (talk • contribs) 16:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Can we cut the Kropotkin and Platformism sections from the anarchist communism section?

Or can someone trim that while section and reduce those subsections to minimal intros? Jacob Haller 04:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll do it unless there is opposition. Anyone opposed? Skomorokh ^incite 18:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Alright then.Skomorokh ^incite 17:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Done.Skomorokh ^incite 18:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey that was a little fast - particularly in August not everyone with an interest is going to be checking for changes every day. I'm not happy with this edit as it removes one of the major currents sets of anarchist organisations and publications (twenty plus publications) while really marginal ones like 'anarcho' capitalism (any regular periodicals at all?) and 'Green Anarchism' (two periodicals) get entire sections to themselves. The balance on this article is already really skewed and although most people focus on the massive over emphhais on 'anarcho' capitalism the relevent weight given to different sections does not reflect anarchism today at all (with the possible exception of the USA).

This makes the article really hard to fix as its not that its not referenced but rather than a huge amount of effort has gone to insert a number of POV's that will stand up to the standard wiki tests defined to prevent this happening. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewFleming72 (talk • contribs) 20:23, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

Anarchy and atheism

Why is there no mention of atheist anarshism in Religion section? http://www.couchsurfing.com/group.html?gid=1154 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.46.248.208 (talk) 13:25, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by "no mention"? Jacob Haller 13:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Godwin and Proudhon trimmed

Possibly useful material here

Charles A. Madison writes, "The first modern systematic exponent of anarchism was William Godwin… [s]trongly influenced by the sentiments of the French Revolution, he argued that since man is a rational being he must not be hampered in the exercise of his pure reason. Moreover, since all forms of government have irrational foundations and are consequently tyrannical in nature, they must be swept away."<ref name="Madison">{{cite journal|author=Madison, Charles A.|year=1945|title=Anarchism in the United States|journal = Journal of the History of Ideas|volume=6|issue=1|pages=46-66}}</ref>

Skomorokh ^incite 21:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

In terms of aesthetics and readability, I think I prefer the sub-sections. FWIW. Libertatia 22:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to merge Mutualism and Market left-libertarianism sections

I don't think either of these are notable enough to stand alongside individualist anarchism, anarcho-communism, anarcho-syndicalism, anarcho-capitalism etc. As mentioned previously, agorism is rather obscure and deserving of a line or two at most; ditto Kevin Carson and his mutualist revival. The ALL gets an entire pull-quote when it is not even notable enough for an article and Peter Kropotkin just got cut down to a few lines. I feel these two tendencies are broadly in agreement (they are included together in the Left-libertarianism article for example) and will merge them unless anyone objects. Thoughts? Skomorokh ^incite 18:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Organizing this article is problematic since things overlap, etc. I don't know if a "left libertarian" section should be in the article if there is not a "right libertarian" section. Just putting some suggestions out. It's confusing. Operation Spooner 18:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I think we want to avoid subsections as much as possible in the Schools of Thought section. Anarcho-capitalism is, in my opinion, notable enough for its own section in a way that left-libertarianism and mutualism (not to mention [[agorism and geoanarchism) are not. As a general rule, I'd like each section to be confined to three paragraphs about 20 lines long. Is there any reason that left-libertarianism and mutualism should not be put together — any blatant contradictions — or am I right in thinking they share common market-friendly individualist tendencies? Skomorokh ^incite 19:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

In terms of notability, from 1840 through almost 1870, there is really only mutualism, and the school continues to the present. By early in the 1850s, there were mutualists in the US and in England. Manifestations of the "spirit of '48" in America certainly ought to be notable. Proudhonist mutualists played a formative early role in the IWA. Virtually all other forms of anarchism derive in part from that form, and no other school, however numerous, can claim so lengthy a history. Of the four "notable" schools mentioned above, all four acknowledged descent from mutualism. If you want to downplay the current interest in such things, and to treat treat contemporary "left-libertarianism" as covering contemporary mutualism, together with other currents, such as agorism and geoism, I don't have much objection. But dismissing mutualism as "not notable" sounds like old fashioned sectarian revisionism. Libertatia 20:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that individualist anarchism descended from mutualism. For example, Theoreau, Emerson, Warren, and others early individualists were never exposed to it. Anarcho-capitalism didn't descend from mutualism either. There is no mutualism in anarcho-capitalism. At the most mutualism was an influence on some individualist anarchists, but an influence that has pretty much disappeared with the near extinction of the labor theory of value. I don't think any revival in it is very significant because who is involved in it, other than Kevin Carson? Maybe two other people at the most? Just because he wrote a book on it, it doesn't exactly indicate a revival. It's also difficult to see why agorism would be under left libertarianism since it's no different than anarcho-capitalism. It's just a strategy (i.e. the practice of guerrilla capitalism) to achieve anarcho-capitalism. Operation Spooner 23:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Your arguments are ridiculously inconsistent. "Individualist anarchism" is defined theoretically, regardless of self-identifications and movement affiliations, but "mutualism" must be defined in precisely the opposite fashion. Sorry. POV-driven special pleading doesn't cut it, particularly when it is supported by clearly false statements. Warren was almost certainly "exposed" to explicit "mutualism" of the pre-anarchist variety in the 1820s, was involved in the promotion of mutual banking (according to James J. Martin) in 1850, participated in a variety of collaborations with explicit mutualists in the 1870s, and was one of the primary sources of what was known as "mutualism" from the early 1870s to the present. As for Emerson and Thoreau, there is no consensus that they were in fact anarchists, and plenty of reason to suspect that they were not. Compared to the explicit "no government men" around them, their doctrines are pretty tepid stuff. Libertatia 20:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

In order to really shorten the mutualism section, we could take out the POV verbiage about the LTV and some of the material about non-anarchist mutualism in the trades unions. The mutualism article covers the origins of the movement and the term rather exhaustively (which is useful there, but not here.) With that stuff gone, we could actually clarify the material on Proudhon and Greene, mention Bellegarrigue and The Spirit of the Age, and add reference to the English wing of the equitable commerce movement, while still cutting length a bit. Josiah Warren probably belongs in the mutualist section. Individualist anarchism can start with postbellum figures. Anarcho-capitalism should have its own section because it defined a particular historical epoch in market anarchism. Similarly, left-libertarianism (in the sense we're using here) seems to characterize another more recent moment. I would be inclined to emphasize agorism in the left-libertarian section, as it emerged earlier, and is better represented in both primary and secondary source literatures than geoism and the modern manifestations of mutualism. Libertatia 21:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to Carson's revised mutualism. I'm not as familiar as I would like to be with historical mutualism, but I'm happy to accept its pre-eminence if what you say is true. I fully support your proposals for the Mutualism section, but giving my lack of familiarity with the subject I'll abstain from editing too heavily there. My basic problem is that Market left-libertarianism has a section at all, and I want to sneak it in somewhere else. We could split the Mll section in three and move Agorism under Ancap and Carson under Mutualism. This would leave geoanarchism without a home, but I'm not sure it really deserves one here. Skomorokh ^incite 21:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

You can look at the mutualism article for rough guidelines, but I would be happy to attempt an edit tomorrow, in fairly tight summary style. As for the notability of contemporary left-libertarianism, I suggest you consider the notability of the individuals involved—editors from The Journal of Libertarian Studies and The Freeman, individuals such as Roderick Long with their own Wikipedia pages. New work by Carson just appeared in the Freeman, the journal of the Foundation for Economic Education. A merger that puts Carson in the mutualism section but leaves Tucker in the individualist anarchist section is even more confusing than the present arrangement, since Carson is an avowed Tuckerite. Geoism is another of those minor schools with a lengthy history that isn't likely to go away. And anarchists still love to fight about the Georgist-anarchist fusion, so it's of some general interest. My suggestion for a long time now has been to be inclusive on this page and exhaustive on individual subpages. I continue to think it's a good strategy. Libertatia 21:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

That is an eminently sensible doctrine. So do you think the status quo is the best solution vis-à-vis association of schools of thought? Skomorokh ^incite 21:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the current scheme flows relatively well, organizes the material relatively well, and allows us to include links to important sub-pages. That's probably all we should ask of a summary page. Libertatia 21:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

A long time ago, there were continuous edit-wars about the order of schools in the Schools of anarchist thought section. Some of us, including myself, suggested moving the schools into rough chronological order, to end the edit wars, so that schools could refer to earlier schools, and so the schools section could double as a history section. Some of our other ideas (major thinker subsections) weren't so great. I recently suggested splitting individualism, and then did it, for much the same reason. My understanding has been that individualist anarchism was largely sidelined from the end of Liberty until the emergence of anarcho-capitalism and the ensuing debate, which, among other things, revived both sides' interest in the older individualist anarchist tradition. This is not to say that individualist themes, and even competitive/market themes, were not present in other anarchist traditions in the interim. Jacob Haller 22:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to merge Individualist anarchism and anarcho-capitalism

I think anarcho-capitalism belongs in the individualist anarchism section. I thnk there should be one main individualist anarchism section, then subsections with the different individualist anarchist theories. Operation Spooner 18:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalism is significantly different from individualist anarchism in respect of its attitude towards economics and the role of business. I think it's reasonable to say that anarchist right-libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism entirely overlap, while, at least by Wikipedian standards, anarchist left-libertarianism lacks a similar relationship.Skomorokh ^incite 18:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand you saying that anarcho-capitalism is "significantly different from individualist anarchism" when it actually is individualist anarchism. Anarcho-capitalism is simply a term used to refer to individualist anarchism that is not anti-profit and interest. I don't see any reason that mutualism wouldn't fall under left libertarian, I hope there's some sources for that though. Operation Spooner 19:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Similarly, Benjamin Tucker didn't call his doctrine individualist anarchism, but anarchistic socialism. Analagously Rothbard called his doctrine anarcho-capitalism. But they're both individual anarchism, with tweaks in different areas. It would be unusualy for two individualist anarchists have idential theories. Spooner differed from Tucker, they both differed from Warren, who differed from Rothbard, who differs from Friedman, but they're all individualists. Operation Spooner 19:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

"Individualist, as distinct from socialist, anarchism has been particularly strong in the USA from the time of Josiah Warren (1798-1874) onwards and is expressed today by Murray Rothbard and the school of 'anarcho-capitalists'." http://www.ppu.org.uk/e_publications/dd-trad6.html This is the view I see in encyclopedias that discuss anarcho-capitalism. Operation Spooner 19:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be a serious error to allow this amalgam to be instrumentalised. Of course it may be convenient for leftist anarchists to acquiese in this respect, allowing right-wing anarchism to be synthesised into a single entity to which they can then mount an opposition, but as the purpose of wikipedia s enclyclopeic, It would hardly be appropriate to go along with this. Thankfully Operation Spooner has enough honesty not to hide their ideological bias, even if they have sufficent confidence in their evident aspirations for hegemonic supremacy to feel theycan "win the argument" here. (In case there are those amongst us who feeli have abandonned the supposition of good inetent which is the watchword of wikipedia here, I would quickly remark that I feel that I feel this perspective here is marked by a comlete lack of psychological insight, and that the ideologues active here are functioning as well intentioned militants, oblivious to the somewhat mechanicalrole they are playing. For those who aren't comletely encased in this neo-libertaran version of he Californian Ideology, I would suggest that a perusal of the activities of Max Stirner, the prussian police spy Theodor Reuss, and even Alistair Crowley would evince evidence that the phenomenon of individualist anarchism is far broader than the persepective offered in this merger prooposal.Harrypotter 00:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you merge the two that would certainly qualify as "original research" by Wikipedia standards. Please do some reading on anarchist theories and tendencies before you go conflating two different things. Yes, there is some overlap between individualists and anarcho-capitalists, but many individualists would be shocked to find out that Wikipedia consider them to be kindred spirits with anarcho-capitalists. Again, please learn a few things about the subjects before suggesting drastic changes. Chuck0 05:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not original research at all. Many references say that anarcho-capitalism is individualist anarchism. I gave one just above saying that Rothbard was an individualist anarchist. Your statement that "there is some overlap between individualists and anarcho-capitalists" does not make sense, unless maybe you're artifically restricting the term "individualist anarchism" to philosophers that disagree with Rothbard? Now that would be orginal research. Operation Spooner 02:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

In my understanding, "individualist anarchism" has two distinct meanings - one concerning economic theory (overlapping with mutualism) and one concerning ethical theory (corresponding with egoism). Many individualists, such as Tucker, were so in both senses, but others were not.

• Malatesta distinguishes two types - without defining either - but
  • One is a moral theory which he excludes from anarchism
  • One is an economic approach which he includes within anarchism
• Bookchin merges both to condemn both (Social anarchism or lifestyle anarchism)
• Rocker distinguishes the two in two consecutive paragraphs, denies any connection, and only calls the economic model "so-called individualist anarchism" (Anarchy and anarcho-syndicalism)

Ideas similar to the economic and political conceptions of Proudhon were propagated by the followers of so-called Individualist Anarchism in America which found able exponents in such men as Josiah Warren, Stephen Pearl Andrews, William B. Greene, Lysander Spooner, Benjamin R. Tucker, Ezra Heywood, Francis D. Tandy and many others, though none of them could approach Proudhon's breadth of view. Characteristic of this school of libertarian thought is the fact that most of its representatives took their political ideas not from Proudhon but from the traditions of American Liberalism, so that Tucker could assert that "Anarchists are merely consistent Jeffersonian democrats".

A unique expression of libertarian ideas is to be found in Max Stirner's (Johann Kaspar Schmidt) (1806-1856) book, Der Einzige und sein Eigentum, which, it is true, passed quickly into oblivion and had no influence on the development of the Anarchist movement as such. Stirner's book is predominantly a philosophic work which traces man's dependence on so-called higher powers through all its devious ways, and is not timid about drawing inferences from the knowledge gained by the survey. It is the book of a conscious and deliberate insurgent, which reveals no reverence for any authority, however exalted. and, therefore appeals powerfully to independent thinking.

However, I am unable to find specific sources clearly affirming or clearly denying a single theme connecting Stirner's egoism with all the market-individualist traditions but none of the other traditions - a theme which could define "individualist anarchism" inclusive of Stirner. 72.83.183.212 07:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Individulist anarchism is a small, but valid part of the anarchism spectrum while anarcho-capitalism shares no common history with anarchism and the only thing in common is the name. // Liftarn

As there is no consensus that anarcho-capitalism is a form of individualist anarchism, I am removing ancap to its own subsection. Skomorokh ^incite 01:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

To Operation Spooner, if the Ind Anar section gives undue weight to the 19th century, could you perhaps remove some of the 19th cent info and add reliably sourced info on ind anarchism in the 20th and 21st centuries? Skomorokh ^incite 02:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

But, that's what moving the anarcho-capitalism section into that section was doing. I don't understand why there would be a seperate section for individualist anarchism and anarcho-capitalism, when anarcho-capitalism is just another individualist anarchism. If I put in info about individualist anarchism in the 20th century on, then it's going to be duplication of the anarcho-capitalism section even if it is in different words. Operation Spooner 02:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Dude, the consensus in this discussion is that the two are separate. Unless you have sources that say that the individualist anarchism of the 19th century has continued (notably) to the current day, then consensus is unlikely to change, and the existing section is accurate. It's hard to believe Stirner, Tucker and Thoreau would sit easily with the ideas of David Friedman - you're going to need to show us something verifiable if you want to get your way. Skomorokh ^incite 02:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Saying that Rothbard, for example, is an individualist anarchist, is not saying that his views would sit easily with Benjamin Tucker's views. That's not what defines individualist anarchism. Individualist anarchists don't have to agree with each other. There is wide variation between the doctrines of various individualist anarchists. Individualist anarchism is simply any anarchist philosophy that is individualistic. That's really the only criteria. I gave the source above for Rothbard being an individualist anarchist. Go to the anarcho-capitalism or the individualist anarchism and there's many sources listed there indicating that anarcho-capitalism is individualist anarchism. Operation Spooner 02:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

It should be pointed out that Rothbard refused to call himself an "individualist anarchist", stating that while "strongly tempted," he could not do so because "Spooner and Tucker have in a sense pre-empted that name for their doctrine and that from that doctrine I have certain differences." ("The Spooner-Tucker Doctrine: An Economist's View") And, I would suggest, that the notion that "anarcho"-capitalism and individualist anarchism are the same is held, in the main, by "anarcho"-capitalists. While they may seek to confuse the two tendencies, other anarchists do not. I doubt that you will find any consensus for such an attempt. Most anarchists are far too aware of the differences between the two to allow it. And, of course, there are plenty of sources which note that "anarcho"-capitalism and individualist anarchism are not the same. If I were an individualist anarchist, I would be sick of the attempts by the "libertarian" right to submerge that tendency into their ideology. BlackFlag 15:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter that Rothbard didn't want to use the term "individualist anarchist" to refer to himself. Some anarchists refused even the term "anarchists" for themselves, such as Warren, Tolstoy, Godwin, Stirner, and Thoreau but they're still anarchists. The view that anarcho-capitalism is individualist anarchism is widely accepted in books, essays, articles, and so on. You say that there are plenty of sources which say anarcho-capitalism and individualist anarchism are not the same. Where are they? Operation Spooner 19:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The view that "anarcho"-capitalism is NOT the same as individualist anarchism is widely accepted in books, essays, articles, and so on. Marshall's "Demanding the Impossible" is the obvious starting place, as is "An Anarchist FAQ" and other anarchist sources. The consensus in anarchist cirlces is that it is not, and I am sure that this will be the view here as well. So, will "anarcho"-capitalists may wish to merge the two, anarchists will resist such claims. BlackFlag 10:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

You're definitely wrong about that. "Demanding the Impossible" is just one article and it doesn't say that. I merely makes a speculation about what it "might" be better classifed as. An Anarchist FAQ is irrelevant. Operation Spooner 20:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

"Demanding the Impossible" makes a clear difference between individualist anarchism and "anarcho"-capitalism. And it is the leading history of anarchism, I would say. Also, Colin Ward indicates a difference between the two in "Anarchism: a Short Introduction" (Ward is one of the leading anarchists in the UK, if not the world). An Anarchist FAQ is a valid source and so is not irrelevant. BlackFlag 20:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Given that the vast majority of anarchists think that anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchist, it takes lots of work to argue that anarcho-capitalism and individualism are the same thing. They simply aren't. There is some overlap, but the majority of anarcho-individualists are not anarcho-capitalists. Chuck0 18:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of Friedman, Friedmans ideas don't sit easily with Rothbard's either, but that doesn't meant they're not both anarcho-capitalists. Anarchists don't have to agree with each other. No individualist anarchist has to agree with any other individualist anarchist on anything other than opposition to collectivism/statism. Operation Spooner 02:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Surely, disagreeing on whether you are a socialist or a capitalist is pretty significant? Or whether occupancy and use was the anarchistic form of land ownership? After all, that determines what is and is not a valid market exchange and what forms of property should be considered as acceptable. BlackFlag 15:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes those are significant differences. But just because individuals have significant differences from each other than doesn't mean they're not anarchists. Anarchists don't agree on much at all. Spooner did not have an occupancy and use requirement for land ownership, but Tucker did. So which one is the real anarchist? Both are, because individualist anarchists don't have to agree on anything other than opposition to collectivism/statism. Tucker didn't even call himself an individualist anarchist, but he is one according to most references. Tormey, Simon, Anti-Capitalism, A Beginner's Guide, Oneworld Publications, 2004, p. 118-119 "Pro-capitalist anarchism, is as one might expect, particularly prevalent in the U.S. where it feeds on the strong individualist and libertarian currents that have always been part of the American political imaginary. To return to the point, however, there are individualist anarchists who are most certainly not anti-capitalist and there are those who may well be." Operation Spooner 19:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Tucker did call himself an individualist anarchist (and an individualist socialist as well, although he preferred socialistic-anarchist). I'm not denying that some sources do confuse individualist anarchism with "anarcho"-capitalism (particularly, "anarcho"-capitalist ones). I'm also not denying that anarchists disagree with each other. I am pointing out that many sources (particularly anarchist ones) reject the notion that individualism anarchism and "anarcho"-capitalism are the same thing. So, there is no consensus in the evidence for your attempt and so it is original research. At best you can state that some sources argue that "anarcho"-capitalism is a form of individualist anarchism while others do not. To merge the two sections is POV, and one which most anarchists would reject. In summary, there is no consensus in the source material nor here nor in the anarchist movement for any attempt to merge individualist anarchism and "anarcho"-capitalism. BlackFlag 10:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Tucker called himself an anarchistic socialist, not an individualist anarchist. I'd like to see a source that says anarcho-captialism is not an individualist form of anarchism. Can you present one? There are many sources that say that it is. Operation Spooner 20:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. Tucker used a number of phrases, including "individualist anarchism," to describe his approach. See "On Picket Duty," Liberty, Apr 28, 1888, for example. In any event, the current scheme, which treats both mutualism and anarcho-capitalism separately from "individualist anarchism," is subject to any number of classifactory quibbles (as would any system of organization), but it provides a clear, elegant picture of the historical development of anarchist thought. It incorporates more and better information in summary form than any other scheme that has been proposed. Libertatia 20:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with individualist anarchists of the 19th century having their own section apart from anarcho-capitalists, but if that's the case then the title should be "Individualist anarchism in the nineteenth century." If the title of the section is simply "Individualist anarchism" then it has to include a discussion of Rothbard's individualist anarchism, otherwise it looks like individualist anarchism is confined to the 19th century. Operation Spooner 02:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the section on individualist anarchism is not presently devoted to "19th-century" figures, so that label and the attendant assertion would simply be incorrect. The simple historical fact remains that Rothbard's philosophy was distinct, and he wished it to be distinct, from the existing individualist anarchist tradition. Your apparent desire to confuse that issue, and your ahistorical insistence on treating figures active in the 20th century as "confined to the 19th century," seem to me to speak for themselves. Libertatia 14:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course Rothbard's doctrine is distinct and wished it to be distinct from the Tucker individualist anarchist tradition. But there are several individualist anarchist traditions, and Rothbardianism is one of them. Therefore, if there is a section called "Individualist anarchism" then all the traditions should be discussed under it. If only 19th century figures are going to be discussed in that section then the title should be changed to reflect that. Operation Spooner 16:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

And so the confusion begins! So, out of interest, how do you suggest we indicate the difference between individualist anarchism and "anarcho"-capitalism? So will we have "socialist individualist anarchism" and "capitalist individualist anarchism"? Or will we call individualist anarchism "Anarchistic Socialism"? Best, I think, to use "Individualist Anarchism" to refer to individualism anarchism and "anarcho"-capitalism is right-wing free market capitalists. After all, that is what anarchists generally do. BlackFlag 10:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

"How do you suggest we indicate the difference between individualist anarchism and "anarcho"-capitalism?" You don't. Anarcho-capitalism is a form of individualist anarchism. What you do is you distinguish the different theorists indicating how their doctrines differ from each other. It doesn't appear that you understand what individualist anarchism is. It's not a specific philosophy. It's CATEGORY of anarchism. If the anarchism is individualistic then it fall under individualist anarchism. If it's not then it most likely falls under the communitarian (or the various other names for the other category, such as social, socialist, or collectivist) anarchism category. Operation Spooner 18:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

What can I say. Now individualist anarchism will now include people who argue directly opposite things. You will have socialist individualist anarchists and capitalist individualist anarchists. Maybe we can extend the descriptions even more. Perhaps you can have "mutualist socialist individualist anarchists" (Dyer Lum) and "individualist socialist individualist anarchists" (Tucker). After all, Tucker did call himself an "Individualist Socialist." As for terms, I would suggest the obvious, traditional, position. Individualist anarchism is those forms of anarchism which are socialist in nature (i.e., against exploitation of labour). "Anarcho-capitalism" refers to those who support capitalism and non-labour income. That would make it so much easier and is the traditional method. Given that many individualist anarchists have protested attempts to merge it with "anarcho"-capitalism, that seems sensible. BlackFlag 10:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Suggested compromise

There seems to be a strong consensus against merging these sections in this discussion. Operation Spooner has graciously accepted the separation of the sections, on the condition that the scope of the individualist anarchist section be expanded to cover individualist anarchists and individualist anarchist movements of the 20th (and presumably 21st) century. This is quite uncontroversial, with the caveat that the section should be kept from growing too long and thus being given undue weight. The anarcho-capitalist section does not itself appear to be in dispute here. So it seems to me that the only issue is whether or not there are reliable sources for individualist anarchist phenomena from beyond the 19th century. I propose that Operation Spooner (and whoever else is keen on expanding the scope of the section) provide reliable sources here for any additions, so that we can evaluate them and then add the material to the article if unopposed. Does anyone have an objection to this? Skomorokh ^incite 16:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that we work on the source-list on Talk:individualist anarchism and improve coverage on individualist anarchism before deciding what should be on this page. Jacob Haller 18:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

It only becomes controversial if the section on individualist anarchism states that "anarcho-capitalism" is a 20th/21st century continuation of that school of anarchism. I'm all for the individualist anarchist section to mention people like Laurence Labadie, Kevin Carson and other non-19th century individualists. As it stands, the "anarcho-capitalism" section mentions that some claim that it has links the 19th century individualists. That is sufficient. At best, you could add that some people consider it a form of individualist anarchism but that this, like the claim it is a form of anarchism, is disputed. BlackFlag 10:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

What form of anarchism is not disputed as to whether it is true anarchism? Albert Meltzer says that individualist anarchists in general, including the 19th century individualst anarchists, are not true anarchists. Benjamin Tucker and several other individualist anarchists say that anarcho-communism is not geniune anarchism. Some anarcho-communists say anarcho-syndicalists aren't true anarchists, and so on. They're all disputed. But, these disputations come from highly biased individuals, such as an anarcho-communists saying individualist anarchists aren't true anarchists, and are in the minority. The general consensus among scholarly publications is that they're all forms of anarchism. If it's going to be stated anarcho-capitalism is disputed then it should also be stated that all the others are disputed as well. Operation Spooner 19:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll all for the article to note that certain people have disputed that others are anarchists. That is fact. It is also fact that most anarchists reject the notion that "anarcho"-capitalism is a form of anarchism. That should be noted, particularly as "anarcho"-capitalism has proved all the main disagreements on Wikipedia! Most who do dispute the anarchism of "anarcho"-capitalism also generally acknowledge that individualist anarchism is a form of anarchism, although they do not agree with it. It is also a fact that the notion that "anarcho"-capitalism is a form of individualist anarchism is disputed, so to deny that dispute and simply assert that it is so is pushing a POV. Sorry, merging the two sections is unlikely to happen. I'm happy for the "anarcho"-capitalist section to say that some sources say it is a form of individualist anarchism while others do not. BlackFlag 11:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Your claim that it is a fact that most anarchists reject anarcho-capitalism as being a form of anarchism is incoherent on its face, because you're excluding the opinion of anarcho-capitalists by assuming that they're not anarchists. In other words, you're not asking anarcho-capitalists. So you're begging the question. As I pointed out, I don't care whether the anarcho-captalism section is merged or not. I would think an anarcho-capitalist would want anarcho-capitalism to have its own section so that the doctrine is highlighted, instead of just mentioning what it really is, i. e. one of the many variations of individualistic forms of anarchism. But individualist anarchists such as Rothbard should be discussed under individualist anarchism also because they're are plenty of references saying his doctrines are individualist anarchist. There is no other possible category for anarcho-capitalism but individualist for anyone that categorizes forms of anarchism under the individualist/communitarian categories, because they're is no denying that it's individualistic rather than socialistic meaning they will allow individuals to hold property as individuals rather than denying them this liberty and assuming common ownership. Operation Spooner 14:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Here we go again! Look, it is simple. There is no consensus that Rothbard is an individualist anarchist -- Rothbard himself explicitly denied it! Combine this with the other sources which agree with him (John Clark, Colin Ward, Peter Marshall, An Anarchist FAQ, other anarchists, etc.) then it is clear that there is no consensus to the claim that "anarcho"-capitalism is a form of individualist anarchism. I do love the way that certain people are simply ignoring the fact that there is no consensus on this issue. Also, I do love the way you dismiss Tucker's self-proclaimed socialism. And, for your information, communist-anarchists explicitly argued that individuals could hold property as individuals within a system of common ownership. I'm assuming that makes them "individualist" anarchists as well? As it stands, "anarcho"-capitalism has its own section -- there is no need to mention them in the individualist anarchist section -- particularly as they are distinct tendencies. BlackFlag 09:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Then, by your reasoning, since anarchocapitalism has a disputed status by other anarchists (including the aforementioned Anarchist FAQ) saying that it's not a form of anarchism, we should remove anarchocapitalism from the anarchism section. However, that's been discussed to death and the consensus among those here is that it is a form of anarchism. Thus, it seems that this is the same tune, different words. --Knight of BAAWA 14:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

There is a consensus that Rothbard is an individualist anarchist. I've yet to see anyone call him a communitarian anarchist. Rothbard did not deny that he was an individualist. He said he wanted to call himself that but didn't want his doctrines confused with Tucker's. Tolstoy rejected the term anarchist for himself, but there is still a consensus that he was an anarchist. Same for Godwin. What a person calls himself is not really important. What is important, in terms of Wikipedia, is what the references call them. Now there are claims from an extreme minority that anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism. But if it is a form of anarchism, which the consensus of references does indicate, then of course it's an individualist form. I don't know anyone could dispute that. It's an extremely individualist form of anarchism. And, contrary to your claim of me, I do not dismiss Tuckers's self-labeling as a socialist. That's a prime point actually. Even though he called himself a socialist, the references call him an individualist, because he was not in favor of socialized ownership. He was using what is now an outmoded definition of socialism. Socialism today means socialized ownership. Operation Spooner 18:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I notice that the attempts to reach a consensus here are being undermined by user "Knight of BAAWA" who constantly reverts changes indicating that there is no consensus back into the firm statement that Rothbard was an individualist anarchist. Perhaps we can produce a footnote which discusses this issue, for as I have noted the source material is not consistent. There are plenty of well known anarchist sources which argue that Rothbard was not one. And, of course, there is Rothbard himself -- which is quite funny, given that any footnote will, of course, reference Rothbard in support of the claim that Rothbard is not an individualist anarchist! BlackFlag 14:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Now I've read much of Rothbard's work, and if you can cite where he denies being an individualist anarchist, that will settle things. I would have no problem with it, and I suspect others wouldn't, either. But what's more at issue here is the fact that he is listed on the Individualist Anarchist page as an Individualist Anarchist, and his own page has him listed as an Individualist Anarchist. So your dismissal of the consensus of the pages seems a little like POV pushing. Please don't try some silly blame game, ok. That's not mature and won't get us anywhere. --Knight of BAAWA 13:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is the reference. "I am . . . strongly tempted to call myself an 'individualist anarchist', except for the fact that Spooner and Tucker have in a sense pre-empted that name for their doctrine and that from that doctrine I have certain differences." ["The Spooner-Tucker Doctrine: An Economist's View", pp. 5-15, Journal of Libertarian Studies, vol. 20, no. 1, p. 7] Happy now? I would also point to Walter Block calling Kevin Carson a Marxist as relevant, as Carson is attacked for expressing individualist anarchist positions. BlackFlag 14:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Rothbard continues "Politically, these differences are minor, and therefore the system I advocate is very close to theirs; but economically, the differences are substantial, and this means that my view of the consequences of putting our more or less common system into practice is very far from theirs." So what Rothbard is saying is that there are areas where Spooner/Tucker and he diverge, but they are still rather close politically. Thus, Rothbard is saying that were it not for the pre-emption of the name, he'd call himself an individualist anarchist. But frankly, this is much like taking back the term "liberal" or "libertarian" from those who have used it incorrectly. I would say that Rothbard is admitting that he is an individualist anarchist of a different bend. Oh--a full quote is better next time. You don't want to be accused of quote-mining. Just FYI, ok. --Knight of BAAWA 13:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Except, of course, the key issue is that Rothbard had the opportunity to say that he was an "individualist anarchist" but did not. This was because of differences, both political and economic. Thus Rothbard is saying that because of these differences he could not call himself an individualist anarchist. As for the full quote, well, the relevant part was quoted. Here we have Rothbard explicitly refusing to call himself an individualist anarchist and yet people are still denying he said it! Well, what can I say! BlackFlag 09:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Except, of course, the key issue actually is what is currently thought of as individualist anarchism. It's not specifically what Spooner and Tucker conceived anymore. Rothbard stood for individualism. He liked that notion. Further, your quote-mine, deliberate or otherwise, needed to be pointed out as you missed a relevant part. Knight of BAAWA 13:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

How about this: Rothbard is in the line of thought spawned from the individualist anarchists. --Knight of BAAWA 15:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Well..."spawned" might be a bit POV... Libertatia 21:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems to be pretty well accepted by sources quoted. At any rate, I was just trying to get BlackFlag to offer something and get this all hammered out. --Knight of BAAWA 22:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure there is any consensus on whether ancapism is a form of anarchism (I suspect the majority view is that it is not) or whether ancapism belongs in this article (perhaps the majority view is that it does, some considering it anarchist, and some including it for completeness and neutrality). Bakunin says somewhere that he accepts Proudhon's political ideas but rejects some of Proudhon's economic ideas, and these differences are enough that the article distinguishes collectivist from mutualist anarchism. Jacob Haller 17:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

That's not a good analogy because individualist anarchism is category, not a specific doctrine. Operation Spooner 18:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a fine analogy, because "individualist anarchism" is, in fact, (and this is what Rothbard alludes to) a specific doctrine. That use of the phrase is well established. The fact that one can also use the phrase to designate some broader array of market anarchisms does not mean that there is any consensus that this is the appropriate usage. More to the point, in this entry, the separate use of "individualist anarchist" and "anarcho-capitalist," within a general historical account, provides readers with more information than lumping categories would do. It also maintains a distinctions between schools that pretty much everyone involved considers significantly distinct. You are insisting on an approach which decreases our ability to present a great deal of historical and ideological information elegantly. Libertatia 21:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The source in this article (Ward, Colin. Anarchism: A Very Short Introduction) says that the are "several traditions of individualist anarchism," so no, individualist anarchism is not a specific doctrine. It's a group of specific doctrines. Just like "anarchism" is a group of doctrines. Operation Spooner 21:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

This would be the Colin Ward book in which he argued that Rothbard is "the most aware of the actual anarchist tradition among the anarcho-capitalist apologists" he may be "aware of a tradition, but he is singularly unaware of the old proverb that freedom for the pike means death for the minnow." The individualist anarchists "differed from free-market liberals in their absolute mistrust of American capitalism, and in their emphasis on mutualism" and were "busy social inventors exploring the potential of autonomy." The "American 'libertarians' . . . inventiveness seems to be limited to providing an ideology for untrammelled market capitalism." (Anarchism: A Short Introduction, pages 67, 2-3 and 69). He seems pretty clear that "anarcho"-capitalism is not the same as individualist anarchism. BlackFlag 10:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

It's interesting how you leave out parts the quotes. Let's look at the whole quote, which you chopped up: "There are unsuprisingly, several traditions of individualist anarchism, one of them deriving from the 'conscious egoism' of the German writer Max Stirner (1806-56), and another from a remarkable series of 19th century American figures who argued that in protecting our autonomy and association with others for common advantages, we are promoting the good of all. These thinkers differed from free-market liberals in their absolute mustrust of American capitalism, and in their emphasis on mutualism. In the late 20th century the world 'libertarian', which people holding such a viewpoiont used as an alternative to the word anarchism' was approporated by a new group of American thinkers, who are disucssed in Chapter 7." I don't see anything in there about anarcho-capitalism or Rothbard, or that Rothbard is not an individualist. The "free-market liberals" that he is talking about appears to be the classical liberals, not anarcho-capitalists. When he starts talking about the "late 20th century" is when he starts talking about the new individualist anarchism, as can be seen in Chapter 7 where he says "Some time later, in the 1970's, a series of books, from academics rather than activists, proclaimed a different style of American libertarianism. They were Robert Paul Woff...David Friedman...and Murray Rothbard..." He's saying it's a different style of libertarianism than the libertarianism of the 19th century, such as Tucker's. It's clear to me that he's including all these people under individualist anarchism. They're in the individualist anarchism chapter. Operation Spooner 19:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Moreover, each individualist anarchist has his own specific doctrine.. unless there are two that happen to agree on everything. Operation Spooner 21:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

So there is no such thing as individualist anarchism, just individual anarchists who happen to support some kind of "market" and some kind of "property"? Doubtful. As has been noted by Libertia, there is a specific doctrine called individualist anarchism which includes a whole range of people (Tucker, Lum, Yarrows, Green, etc.). That developed in the 19th century and considered itself part of the wider socialist/reform movement. This was the same with social anarchism (Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin). In the 20th century, Rothbard came along and invented "anarcho-capitalism" (which selectively took elements of individualist anarchism, although the major influence seems to be Austrian economics). He explicitly refused to call his ideology "individualist anarchism" precisely because he recognised it was a different theory. Equally important, most anarchists who hear about "anarcho-capitalism" reject it as a form of anarchism. Now, to ignore all this and lump individualist anarchism and "anarcho"-capitalism together as "individualist anarchism" not only will bred confusion, it ignores the fact that there is no consensus that it is so. So there is no consensus that a merge should happen. It is not factually correct, for a start, given the fact that many anarchists (including individualists) reject such a merging. BlackFlag 10:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

No, you still don't understand. "Individualist anarchism" is not a doctrine anymore than "anarchism" is a doctrine. It's a category. If you're a radical individualist, meaning you oppose the control of collectives over individuals, such as the control that social anarchists which to exercise over the individual to restrict his liberties to self-ownership and to own the fruits of his labor, then you are an individualist anarchist. That's basic individualist anarchism. Anyone who believes that is an individualist anarchist. Other than that each individualist anarchist have more complex or developed doctrines. Some of them call their individualist anarchism by unique names, such as Tucker calling his "anarchistic socialism," Rothbard calling his "anarcho-capitalism," and Stirner calling his "egoism," and so on. Operation Spooner 19:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Individualist Anarchism and "Anarcho-capitalism"

I see that certain editors are seeking to make individualist anarchism nothing more than an earlier and flawed version of "anarcho-capitalism" regardless of the fact that there is no consensus that this is the case. Yes, I know that "anarcho-capitalists" want this to be the case, but sadly for them it is not. As it stands, the section on "anarcho-capitalism" already indicates the influence of individualist anarchism on it so there is no need to have a paragraph tagged onto individualism anarchism repeating the "anarcho-capitalist" claim that it is a modern form "individualist anarchism." So as well as repetition, it is also presenting as fact a certain point of view which is disputed by many (including individualist anarchists). Given the length of the article as well as the non-consensus nature of the claims, I have removed it (and used a footnote in the individualist anarchist section to show that this is an issue). Perhaps it can be added to the "issues in anarchism" page? BlackFlag 10:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

But there is a consensus. Look: your disputed POV isn't relevant here. That anarchocapitalism came out of individualist anarchism is established. Is there some repetition? Perhaps. Sometimes repetition isn't a bad thing, especially if only a couple sentences. We can also dispute everything about anarchism, since there are communist anarchists who don't accept individualist anarchists as anarchists, and vice-versa, and so on. If I wanted, as an anarchocapitalist, I could dispute that "communist anarchists" or "collectivist anarchists" or any so-called "anarchist" not of the individualist bend isn't a real anarchist (and note that I'm using your style of quote marks around the words). So please: don't try to bring that war here. Knight of BAAWA 14:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not that "individualist anarchism nothing more than an earlier and flawed version of "anarcho-capitalism," but that anarcho-capitalism IS individualist anarchism. Operation Spooner 19:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Interesting allegation that you make there, that are individualist anarchists who dispute that anarcho-capitalism is a form of individualist anarchism. Can you name one and provide a quote from him that explictly says that anarcho-capitalism is not an individualist form of anarchism? I don't believe you can. Most individualist anarchists are anarcho-capitalists, you know? So you're going to have to look pretty hard. Operation Spooner 19:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

It's going to end up being just like with Bob A, and it will be one giant No True Scotsman fallacy. Knight of BAAWA 20:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Working on it... Much of the literature avoids the term anarcho-capitalist as implying undue legitimacy. My other browser's frozen so I'll post thus right now:

• Akai, Laure, Individualism vs. Individualism, does not use the exact phrase "anarchocapitalism" but makes an argument exclusive of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacob Haller (talk • contribs) 21:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

How about a quote then? Operation Spooner 23:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

No exact quote. It's perfectly clear but not citable under NOR. Jacob Haller 16:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• Burton, Daniel, What is Individualist Anarchism?, "Individualist anarchism, however, has always held far more positive views towards private property than any other part of the left, embracing the market economy, though not embracing full-blown capitalism."
• Burton, Daniel, Anarcho-Capitalism vs. Individualist Anarchism, expands on this, including A-C in IA, but stating that "Anarcho-capitalism is a type of individualist anarchism, but most people who are anarcho-capitalists don't identify primarily with individualist anarchism, and most people who explicitly identify themselves as individualist anarchists consider themselves class war anarchists, or anti-capitalists." Jacob Haller 17:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

So he agrees that anarchocapitalism is a type of individualist anarchism. That's the main point. Knight of BAAWA 18:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, basically, anarcho-capitalism varies. Many anarchists, particularly non-capitalist market anarchists, hold that some forms of anarcho-capitalism are anarchist, and others are not. For example, Lady Aster, responding to Roderick Long's blog post [1] writes that "Murray Rothbard’s ‘Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature’ is to my mind an inherently anti-anarchistic document." Others contrast anarcho-"capitalism" to "anarcho"-capitalism. (Now, to preempt certain counterarguments, I'll note that the anarchist movement, like any movement, accepts more theoretical deviation in its formative stages than in its later stages, so that "Proudhon was a sexist" does not imply either "anarchism can include sexism" or "Proudhon was not an anarchist" or both.) Jacob Haller 21:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

We're not going to get anywhere if you use some unknown person named "Lady Aster" posting to someone's blog forum as a source. It doesn't matter what "Lady Aster" says. Operation Spooner 23:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a non-citable example. Hang on. I can't just Google anarcho-"capitalism" AND "anarcho"-capitalism and come up with something. I need time to find sources which meet RS criteria as well as NOR criteria and who's authors are known individualist anarchists. I've found each combination of two of the three criteria. Jacob Haller 16:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Really, I couldn't care less about where other people draw the line. We can reference Carson's comments about vulgar libertarianism, and the like, without arguing over whether this or that ancap is an anarchist. Jacob Haller 18:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Quick terminological query: Are the criteria for a given theory being a form of individualist anarchism merely that it is a) anarchist and b) individualist, or does the term individualist anarchism, as of 2007, entail specific commitments such as to non-sticky property? What does the recent literature suggest? If this question can be settled, it is uncontroversial to include or disallow characterisations of anarcho-capitalism as a form of individualist anarchism. Sources on a contemporary definition of individualist anarchism anyone? Skomorokh ^incite 23:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Individualist anarchism is merely anarchism that is individualist. Each individualist anarchists' property philosophy can vary, as can be seen comparing Thoreau to Godwin to Stirner to Tucker to Spooner to Rothbard, and so on. There is no specific set of doctrines that make individualist anarchism. The individualist anarchism article opens with a definition and quote from a source. It says "Individualist anarchism (also anarchist individualism, anarcho-individualism, individualistic anarchism) refers to any of several traditions that hold that "individual conscience and the pursuit of self-interest should not be constrained by any collective body or public authority." That's basically all it takes to be an individualist anarchist. Operation Spooner 23:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Without wanting to sound like a "me-too"er, I concur that "invididualist anarchism" is anarchism that is individualist. Period. Attempting to add more to the definition than is warranted by the terms might be ok for slang or colloquialisms, but not for philosophical discussion or an encyclopedia. And without wanting to go off on a Millerian rant, such is the problem that the anti-capitalist anarchists face: adding more to the definition of anarchism itself than is warranted. Knight of BAAWA 00:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you are all missing to point or have just missed it. I.e .. is Anarcho-capitalism worthy of a proper section in this article. Ask youself. How long hads it really been about... notability? Is it more than just a a handful of b-list academics and their evangelical supporters? How many mainstream academic publications refer to it as anachism? -maxrspct ping me 14:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Been around since the 1950's, so it's traditional anarchism at this point (some say since the 19th century with Molinari and a few others). I think there are more anarcho-capitalist theorists today than there are anarcho-communists theorists. There's a good-sized list of them in the anarcho-capitalism article. All mainstream academic publications refer to anarcho-capitalism as anarchism. There are a few non-mainstream polemical publications put out by communitarian anarchists that argue that it's not anarchism, just as some individualist anarchists have argued that anarcho-communism is not anarchism. Operation Spooner 14:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

http://www.nefac. net

Link is somewhere in article, cannot edit until found and deleted. I can't find it. *sigh* Zazaban 22:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

It's under Especifismo in Recent developments. Shit, can't reply with that title unchanged; added space. Jacob Haller 02:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

It looks like the site was improperly added to the Metawiki spam blocklist (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Spam_blacklist). Jacob Haller 02:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Apparently one editor cross-posting material one day is "quite a lot of cross-wiki spamming," so it has been indefinitely blocked. That doesn't invite misuse of the blacklist, that is misuse. Jacob Haller 18:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Hope you are enjoying the ongoing enclosure of Wikipedia. If you don't see the signs all around you, then it should become more obvious soon. Wikipedia is becoming a victim of its own success and the whispers of their lawyers. Thousands of entries have had pictures and graphics removed, because Wikipedia has decided that they won't even fight for a Fair Use interpretation of using photos and graphics. You can also see the end of Wikipedia in all of the new rules and regulations, such as the increasing hostility towards external links. People should think about joining alternative wiki projects, such as Infoshop's OpenWiki. Chuck0 01:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Chuck, I messed about with the Openwiki, but there are certain gaps, e,g. the lack of citation systems, which make it very hard to use. Jacob Haller 03:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

What can be done about this improper blacklist? I contacted the meta-admin who blacklisted it, User:Eagle_101 (who has a total of only 16 meta-wiki edits), and posted a request to un-blacklist it here. Is there a process for undoing an incorrect blacklist? As far as I can tell, the decision to blacklist NEFAC was done with almost no discussion and very few participants. I'm not very familiar with this aspect of Wikipedia, but this blacklist is extremely disruptive and there has to be some way of redressing this. Aelffin 05:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Should we put up an RfC on the use of Metawiki spam-blockers for censorship? Because with A-infos, NEFAC, Anarkismo, and who knows whom else, targeted, it definitely stinks of censorship. Jacob Haller 17:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think we definitely should. I don't really know how that works, but if you post the RfC and link it here, I would like to be part of that discussion. Aelffin 17:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Picture of Ayn Rand in Criticisms of anarchism

Why is Ayn Rand sitting there? There is no mention of her in the main article of Criticisms of Anarchism. Also, she was somewhat of an Anarchist herself, if more of an anarcho-capitalist (as it notes in Lyman Tower Sargent, "A New Anarchism: Social and Political Ideas in Some Recent Feminist Eutopias" in Marleen Barr (ed.), Women and Utopia: Critical Interpretations, University Press of America, New York, p. 7) Mozric 00:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Rand's criticism is only of free-market anarchism, i.e. of competing providers of defense. I guess she's as qualified as any other critic to have a picture there though. because I don't know if there is a critic of all forms of anarchism in general that would be more suited. Operation Spooner 00:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I added the picture and caption of Rand. My reasoning was as follows:

1. Each section is improved by the presence of a relevant image
2. The only two critics explicitly mentioned were Milton Friedman and Ayn Rand. I deemed Rand, as you note, "closer" to anarchism in that her philosophy shares much with anarchism in terms of personal freedom and opposition to hierarchy, but ultimately (and explicitly) rejects anarchism (see her entry at the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy and Child's famed essay on the anarchistic imperative in Objectivism). Friedman on the other hand, was primarily an economist not a political philosopher, and his critique I thought somewhat less relevant.
3. Contrary to Operation Spooners edit, Rands criticism is directed at and applicable to all forms of anarchism, in that all anarchist tendencies reject the notion of an objective final arbiter of justice as authoritarian.

I'm not dogmatically committed to the image of Rand remaining in the section; if anyone can come up with an image more descriptive and more suitable for the section, please feel free to propose it. However, I do hold that the image is appropriate and an improvement over an unillustrated body of text. Regards, Skomorokh ^incite 01:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Her criticism is specifically for market anarchism isn't it? It doesn't apply to the more common conceptions of anarchism, where there are no security services, because it's expected that everyone will be peaceful and sharing everything. I have no problem with the picture being there by the way. Operation Spooner 01:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Cool. Out of interest, I know she came out with the criticism in response to libertarian critics of Objectivism, but if you consider an-soc/anarcho-snydicalist/primitivist/mutualist forms of anarchy, none of these would allow for an objective monopoly on the use of force, would they? Even if there are no pda's or security forces and everyone peacefully shares everything, there still lacks a final omnipotent arbiter. All anarchism decentralises authority, so I think (off topic) Rands criticism counts as pertaining to anarchism universally. Skomorokh ^incite 01:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I suggest focusing on (1) liberal and (2) Marxist criticisms for starters. There are several different criticisms concerning defense, and although some parallel "natural monopoly" and "free rider" criticisms, they may have broader reach than non-defense-related "free rider" and "natural monopoly" criticisms.

• Defense-oriented criticisms - some of these are specific to market defense and others are general. Natural monopoly arguments here sometimes apply to non-market as well as market forms. In Rand's case, can someone check the original?
  • Arguments which oppose for-profit defense
  • Arguments which insist on the unification of defense forces
  • Arguments which insist on military and/or police, not militia, models
  • Arguments which oppose disassociation/secession from defense arrangements
• Free riders - particularly market elements
• Natural monopolies - market elements
• Other Market failures - market elements
• No correction of price signals - collectivist elements & geoist & Pigouvian proposals
• No economic incentives - communist elements
• Anarchism focuses on the petty-bourgeoisie, which is doomed - standard Marxist response

Anyone want to work this out? Jacob Haller 02:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Great work, but if this was all elaborated upon and properly sourced, it would be way too long for this article. I sugget moving this framework to the main Criticisms of anarchism article — once that's sorted we can cherry-pick the best material for the section here. Skomorokh ^incite 14:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

(In general response to Skomorokh): Fair enough. Looking into the matter, Rand did explicitly reject anarchism, my confusion just came from having read Atlas Shrugged without looking at what else she said. She certainly (ideologically) looks like a type of anarchist and has a lot of ideas in common with anarchists, but I guess that what she explicitly said has to take preference, even if some would say a strong rejection of anarchism is inconsistent with her other views. I'm also by no means dogmatically opposed to the inclusion of the image. As I've said, there's no mention of her in the Criticisms of Anarchism page. Also, if you follow the link to Ayn Rand's wiki page, there is no mention of the word "anarchism" on the page, and on the Objectivism page there is only one mention, in the middle of a quote arguing that her criticism of anarchism is inconsistent with her other views! I don't know of any specific anti-anarchists who it would be better to have a picture of in that section, so I guess it's better to have her picture there than nothing. As you've said, this discussion may be better of as part of the Criticisms of Anarchism page. I'd be happy to help. I'm new to editing, and I'm not sure if there's an accepted method for moving discussion to another talk page. I'll check back later and see what can be done. Regards, Mozric 01:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Update Image has been removed due to copyright concerns. Any suitable replacement? Skomorokh ^incite 14:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Haymarket Riot added!

I've just added the Haymarket Riot just above the Russian Revolution. I hope you guys like it. Reply with any other suggestions The great, TobiTo Kakshi 19:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to merge major conflicts within anarchist thought into issues in anarchism

Giving people a heads-up. Jacob Haller 17:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Done.Skomorokh ^incite 23:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Persons killed by Anarchists

• Empress Elisabeth of Bavaria in 1898
• King Umberto I of Italy in 1900
• President William McKinley in 1901
• New York City Watchman William Boehner during First Red Scare in 1919
• 2 Killed-which led to 1927 Sacco and Vanzetti execution-in 1920
• 38 killed and 400 injured in Wall Street Bombing in 1920
• Mayor Anton Cermak in 1933

What purpose does this serve exactly? It seems like heavy anti-anarchist POV. Why not make a list of people killed by lutherans? It's silly and pointless Zazaban 03:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I removed this section from the article a bit ago. It serves no purpose and should not be here. Why it is on the talk page is a mystery. --Black Butterfly 09:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

In the 19th Century in particular Anarchists assassinated many world leaders as "propaganda of the deed." In that case, the role of Anarchy in motivating these people to become assassins should be discussed, with as neutral a POV as humanly possible. --GABaker 13:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Propaganda of the deed is addressed in Issues in anarchism and the propaganda of the deed article itself, both of which are linked in the "internal issues and debates" section within this article. It is also linked to in the sidebar and to a limited extent in History of anarchism. presenting a list of individuals killed by anarchists without any context or discussion, when these things are addressed in their own articles, is POV in that it gives undue prominence to a handful of assassinations carried out during one particular period of anarchist history. This is doubly a concern given this article is already tagged as too long. --Black Butterfly 13:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Not all of the people on the list were killed by anarchists anyway... Jacob Haller 20:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Should we have a list of people killed by non-anarchists? It would have hundreds of millions of entries. Jacob Haller 20:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Pehaps we can also have a list of anarchists killed by non-anarchists? That should be much longer! BlackFlag 10:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

This article does need to discuss anarchist violence. Some anarchists, especially the Collectivists, such as Bakunin and Most advocated violence and terrorism as part of their doctrines. The section on Collectivist anarchism doesn't even mention it. Operation Spooner 21:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

And if we discuss anarchist violence, we should discuss the capitalist/state violence which provoked it. For example, the killing of pickets in strikes in America resulted in many unions arming themselves, not only collectivist anarchist ones. To discuss anarchist violence without mentioning this gives a distorted picture of both anarchism and capitalism/statism. And it should be noted that Tucker and other individualists also advocated violence, in self-defence. Just as Most and Bakunin did -- they had different notions of what was self-defence and how practical it was. Tucker was not a pacifist, in other words. Bakunin did not advocate "terrorism" and Most advocated violence in self-defence (he considered killing a dictator as self-defence). Perhaps the individualist anarchist section should also include some of Spooner's more blood-thirsty rhetoric as well, perhaps? BlackFlag 10:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

This article is already quite long (although it has been reduced as of late); as such, I'm wary of creating a new section unless there's a particularly pressing need. There's already links in the main article to:

• Anarchism and violence
• Propaganda of the deed
• Insurrectionary anarchism (often associated with violence)
• Issues in anarchism (discusses violence)

I believe it's discussed in the articles for individual traditions also - these are just the ones that immediately sprang to mind.

I wouldn't be opposed to a short section entitled "Violence" giving a brief introduction - the association of anarchism and violence in popular culture, the tradition of propaganda by the deed, more recent violence during anti-globalisation riots, dissenting perspectives (e.g. pacifism), etc.; I can just see it either not giving adequate information on any of these issues, or being *too* detailed and bloating the article. --Black Butterfly 21:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Demarchism as a form of Anarchism

Demarchism is currently listed under the category of Democracy, because it in a way is still a system of government, with a ruling body, but it is a system in which everyone has equal political power, and can be picked to serve, so I believe it belongs in the anarchy category. Does anyone agree with this? I think it's kind of hiding on the democracy page (out of place) where people of anarchist beliefs will never look. It (or at least a link to it) belongs on this page IMO. Jiminezwaldorf 06:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't be opposed to a link to it, for example in the sidebar under "Related". I'm a little wary of including it in the main article partly for size reasons and partly as it doesn't seem to have had much relation to the anarchist movement itself. Libertarian communism, for example, is much more closely associated with anarchism yet is relatively absent from the article. --Black Butterfly 09:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I'll wait a little while to see if anyone opposes it. Regarding Libertarian communism I would definitely like to see that elaborated on more on this page, but I'm sure that issue has been debated ad nauseum. Jiminezwaldorf 19:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I oppose this on the grounds that it is original research on your part. If you can find a reliable source that considers demarchism a form of anarchism, then by all means lets include it, but until then it should remain independent of references to anarchism. Regards, Skomorokh ^incite 20:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's a link to an article about demarchy that I read a few years ago: http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/95sa.html As I recall, the author argues that demarchy is a way of making decisions that is consistent with anarchism (like consensus and federations employing strictly mandated delegates), but he does not go so far as to say that it is a form of anarchism as such. -Father Inire 18:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Cultural phenomena section

This section is composed of nothing but an uncited claim, an uninformative list, and a picture of Chomsky. Given the article length, I think this section is unnecessary and drags down the quality of the article overall. Is there any objection to removing the section entirely? Alternatively, is there any referenceable, relevant content that could be used to salvage it? Skomorokh ^incite 11:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd love to see it gone entirely. Bacchiad 12:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I've moved the section here in case any of the content may prove useful:

The kind of anarchism that is most easily encountered in popular culture is represented by well-known figures who publicly identify themselves as anarchists:

American intellectual and academic Noam Chomsky (1928 — ) is a proponent of libertarian socialism.

• photographer Henri Cartier-Bresson<ref>[http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4074157481455007235 Video interview with Charlie Rose, July 6, 2000]</ref>
• MIT professor of linguistics Noam Chomsky
• feminist, author and critic Germaine Greer
• social historian Howard Zinn<ref>"Something of an anarchist", [http://perspectives.anarchist-studies.org/13zinn.htm War is the Health of the State: An Interview with Howard Zinn], 2003</ref>
• author Edward Abbey
• author and speaker Murray Bookchin
• film-maker John Milius
• graphic novelist Alan Moore
• UFC fighter and champion Jeff Monson
• actor, film director, writer and comedian Hans Alfredson
• rapper and social activist Emcee Lynx
• comedian and political activist Mark Thomas

Related articles:

• Anarcho-punk
• List of anarchist musicians
• Cypherpunk
• Anarchism and the arts
• List of fictional anarchists

Skomorokh ^incite 10:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Jiggering around with sections

I re-title "Origins" to "Early Anarchism" and moved the Proudhon and First Intnernational material up there. I also merged the Collectivist Anarchism material with the First International. Just trying to get this article in some kind of tamed order. Still not positive if this is the right way to go, so feel free to revert. Bacchiad 13:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to revert. While I see no problems merging collectivist anarchism into the First International, the early part of the article was supposed to be a history of the philosophical development of anarchism, chronologically ordered from Godwin to Mutualism to Individualist and so on; the anarchist movement was confined to the latter part of the article. While there's an argument to be made that the article could be best arranged otherwise, what you have done now is to confuse matters, so that Mutualism no longer appears as a school of thought (in spite of Kevin Carson et al), nor is the First International given mention as important to anarchism as a social movement. The Origins section was intended to give some information on the pre-modern and earliest evocations of anarchistic philosophy, before it got off the ground as a significant philosophy/movement in the 18th and 19th centuries. Do you propose an alternate structure to the article? New ideas are always welcome Skomorokh ^incite 13:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Strongly inclined to revert both the rearrangements and at least some of the cuts. I understand the purpose of the old organization - I don't understand the purpose of the new one. Jacob Haller 17:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

On reflection I think you're both right. I'll try to get it done by this evening Bacchiad 17:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Individualist anarchism section

I've removed the following from the article on the grounds of unbalanced section length:

The nineteenth century individualists argued state imposed economic regulation put the means of production in few hands,<ref>"When Warren and Proudhon, in prosecuting their search for justice to labor, came face to face with the obstacle of class monopolies, they saw that these monopolies rested upon Authority, and concluded that the thing to be done was, not to strengthen this Authority and thus make monopoly universal, but to utterly uproot Authority and give full sway to the opposite principle, Liberty, by making competition, the antithesis of monopoly, universal." Tucker, Benjamin State Socialism and Anarchism (Liberty 10 March 1888)</ref> and that by having a free-market private ownership would be dispersed.

…

While all supported private property and free markets, some, like Tucker, called themselves "socialist". (At the time, "the term socialism was a broad concept," with Tucker understanding "socialism" to refer to many ideas aimed to solve "the labor problem" by radically changing the economy.<ref>Brooks, Frank H. 1994. The Individualist Anarchists: An Anthology of Liberty (1881-1908). Transaction Publishers. p. 75.</ref>) They also called themselves anti-capitalist, defining "capitalism" as state-maintained monopolization of capital.<ref>Schwartzman, Jack. Ingalls, Hanson, and Tucker: Nineteenth-Century American Anarchists. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Vol. 62, No. 5 (November, 2003). p. 325</ref>

…

Rothbard said "individualist anarchists could easily incorporate" Austrian economics, discard their monetary theories, arguing they were flawed, and "reconsider the nature and justification of the economic categories of interest, rent and profit."<ref>Rothbard, Murray. The Spooner-Tucker Doctrine: An Economist's View</ref>

Most of this is good material, though non-essential here, worth including in the Individualist anarchism article. Skomorokh ^incite —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 13:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree in principle that this should be on the shorter side. However, I have two concerns, on major and one minor. The major one is I think the article should make it clear that Tucker considered himself a socialist. The minor one is that the section may place too much emphasis on Stirner - early Tucker, Josiah Warren and Lysander Spoooner based their ideas on natural rights, and I think the current emphasis on Stirner obscures that. Bacchiad 13:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Further cut of non-essential Stirner info:

Stirner preached self-assertion and foresaw "associations of egoists" where respect for ruthlessness drew people together. He influenced American individualist anarchists and Emma Goldman, who lectured on his thought.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/Goldman/Guide/chronology0119.html|title=Emma Goldman: Chronology 1901-1919|accessdate = 2006-05-30|publisher=Berkeley Digital Library}}</ref>

Please re-add a brief sentence on the socialist element as you see fit, I didn't think it particularly notable at the time. Skomorokh ^incite 13:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't consider it major that Tucker considered himself a socialist, because it's just terminology. It doesn't change the philosophy itself. It adds unecessary confusion if it's mentioned because socialism means something different today than it did when he used the term. So if you want to note that go ahead, but sentences will have to be added explaining what definition he was going by. Operation Spooner 15:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Further cut of individualist perspectives on labour which is out of place in the Social movement section:

====Individualist perspectives on labor====

Even though the organized labor movement has historically been most closely aligned with social anarchists, it has also historically garnered much support from individualist and mutualist anarchists. Individualist anarchist Benjamin Tucker believed that strikes should be composed by free workers rather than by bureaucratic union officials and organizations. He argued,

"strikes, whenever and wherever inaugurated, deserve encouragement from all the friends of labor…They show that people are beginning to know their rights, and knowing, dare to maintain them."<ref>Benjamin Tucker, Liberty, 15/4/1881</ref> and furthermore, "as an awakening agent, as an agitating force, the beneficent influence of a strike is immeasurable…with our present economic system almost every strike is just. For what is justice in production and distribution? That labor, which creates all, shall have all."<ref>Benjamin Tucker, Liberty, #19, 1882</ref>

Tucker's intellectual mentor, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, believed that worker-owned cooperatives would replace capitalist workplace and mutual banks replacing capitalist institutions and gave fierce support to labor union movements, arguing "every worker employed in the association [must have] an undivided share in the property of the company".<ref>quoted by James J. Martin. Men Against the State, p. 223</ref> Labor union movements and cooperative movements would form federations to allow social groups to interconnect with one another for decision-making for the common good: ''"industries are sisters; they are parts of the same body; one cannot suffer without the others sharing in its suffering. They should therefore federate, not to be absorbed and confused together, but in order to guarantee mutually the conditions of common prosperity…Making such an agreement will not detract from their liberty; it will simply give their liberty more security and force."''<ref>Proudhon, Pierre-Joseph. The Principle of Federation, p. 70, p. 67 and p. 72</ref> Some of the most prominent figures in the late 19th century and early 20th century labor movement, such as Dyer Lum, Joseph Labadie, and Joe Hill were individualist anarchists.

Skomorokh ^incite 14:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Question

Why does anyone feel the need to condense the individualist anarchism section? Individualist anarchism is an entire wing of the two main wings of anarchism, with the the other being the collectivist or communitarian wing. The individualist anarchism section should be nearly half the article. It needs more information, not less. Operation Spooner 15:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Moreover, there's some significant differences of thought within it. I think given that more people have been members of anarcho-syndicalist trade unions and anarcho-communist militias, the collectivist types should have at least a slight edge. For a brief while we had the two entirely separated. We should give the sectioning some thought; proper proportion will come out of good organization. Bacchiad 17:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Possible rough flow:

• Origins
• Anarchism in the labor movement

• Mutualism
• First International
• Anarcho-syndicalism

• Syndialist unions today
• Anti-fascism

• Anarcho-communism (sympathetic to but in tension with trades unionism)

• Russian Revolution and Platformism

• Individualist tendencies

• Stirner
• Tucker et al.
• An-cap

• Market left-libertarianism

• Other schools of thought

Just throwing it out off the top of my head. Bacchiad 17:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it makes more sense to have anarcho-captalism in the individualist section instead of having it out in its own seperate section. As to market left-libertarianism, I'm not sure that there should be a section called that, because people such as Roderick Long argue that anarcho-capitalism is left libertarian. Maybe describe the philosophies then just point out that it's arguable whether they're left or right. I've seen sources call Tucker left, some calling him right, etc. Operation Spooner 17:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I think there's too much back-and-forth for clear divisions with such-and-such schools associated with such-and-such movements. All these groups have had some involvement in the labor movement. I think the ind. anarchism and the labor movement material was originally in ind. anarchism and I moved it to anarchism and the labor movement. Someone else gave it its own subsection heading and then someone removed it.

IIRC, Long avoids using the term anarcho-capitalism.

Most of the terms on the market side have multiple interpretations. There are social anarchist Stirner fans. Are they individualist anarchists? Not in the sense of an economic model. There are strongly market-oriented anarchists who prefer non-profit defense and abhor for-profit defense agencies. Are they market anarchists? Jacob Haller 18:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

You're not a market anarchist unless you advocate defense being provided by the market. That's the definition of market anarchism. And sure, a socialist anarchist can be influenced by Stirner. Being influenced by an individualist doesn't necessarily make you one. Operation Spooner 18:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by non-profit defense. The moment you pay someone to do something, they're profiting. In other words, they're receiving something of more value to them than they're giving in return, which is why they engage in the transaction. That's all that profit fundamentlly is: receiving more than you're giving away. The 19th century individualist anarchists simply had a Marxist-type definition of profit. To them profit was you receiving more labor than the labor you pay when you engage in a transaction. It's still market defense. Operation Spooner 18:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

By focusing on one feature - defense - that definition fails for the many anarchist authors who never discuss defense, or never discuss whether it should come through market or non-market means. Most early anarchists and almost all pacifist ones simply fall through the cracks in the definition, neither known to be "market" nor known to be "non-market." Jacob Haller 19:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I mean not-for-profit. e.g. community organizations, chartered foundations, etc. Jacob Haller 19:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Radical proposal: split Schools of thought

Given that the article is taken up mostly (~40kb) with the Schools of thought section, I think it is wise to examine the possibility of an Anarchist schools of thought sub-article, which would not need to be as tightly trimmed as the section here is, could include far more schools such as philosophical anarchism, anarcha-feminism, platformism, crypto-anarchism, infoanarchism, Buddhist anarchism, Christian anarchism, Jewish anarchism, black anarchism etc. and could go into detail about the interrelationships of the schools, interlinking with the Issues in anarchism sub-articles. I've created a sandbox version to give an indication of what such an article would look like to start with: User:Skomorokh/Anarchist schools of thought (Schools of thought taken from this oldid:161766460, recent developments section based on this oldid:150015292.)

What I want to know is:

1. Do editors feel this is generally a good idea? Please reply with Support or Oppose.
2. If we create a Schools of thought sub-article, what should replace the section here?

Skomorokh ^incite 10:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Support. My personal preference would be to take a more historical approach to the article in general. I haven't yet thought of a better alternative, but I don't like the primary breakdown being a miscellany of Schools of Thought, as if Anarchism is some kind of scholastic philosophy. So a { { main article | anarchist schools of thought } } thing would be great. Bacchiad 12:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. Provisionally titled Anarchist political theory. Bacchiad 12:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. The current structure has the virtue of combining a historical approach with the "schools of thought" approach. The split is likely to leave this article essentially a duplicate of the anarchist history article. Libertatia 15:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

What I had in mind was a replacement, not removal of the section, in line with the "Issues and debates" section and Issues in anarchism. Furthermore, the vast majority of the schools of thought section references predominantly historical schools of thought barely active today Skomorokh ^incite 15:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. Creates an imaginary divide between anarchist beliefs. Owen 01:45, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

What on earth do you mean? What was proposed was a summary of the section, with the subject given its own ful article. e.g. one paragraph on mutualism, anarcho-communism, green anarchism etc. instead of three. How does that create imaginary divides? Skomorokh ^incite 11:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Section split

Since the Anarchist schools of thought section is a fait accompli, it is redundant to discuss the prospect. At present that article is a slightly longer version of the Schools of thought section here, duplicating the majority of the material. As the article length demands summary style, what should the Schools of thought section here be composed of? Would editors oppose summarizing it in the same manner as Issues in anarchism is summarized here? Skomorokh ^incite 16:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Ack. What exactly were we "discussing" above? Libertatia 17:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not it would be a good idea to do as User:Bacchiad subsequently boldly did. Skomorokh ^incite 00:15, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I would strongly oppose it. Article in its current form is no longer too long. It has 64 kilobytes, and further cutting of content would cripple it. I will remove too long tag, since it's redundant now. Article on schools of thought can, and will be, expanded so soon it won't be just a copy of this article. -- Vision Thing -- 18:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I recognize that the article is no longer too long, strictly speaking, but that's because parts of it have been summarized — namely History of anarchism and Issues in anarchism — while other sections — Cultural phenomena, Criticisms, See also — have been radically reduced or removed entirely. The upshot of this is that the two remaining extensive sections, Schools of thought and Social movement, comprise a far greater proportion of the article now (~60kb) than they were intended to in the article's original state (~120kb). Bearing in mind that there is a whole lot of information about anarchism not covered in the article that perhaps should be — for example anarchist activism, the relation of anarchism to freethinking/punk/situationism, the rise and decline of anarchist movements — I think it is uncontroversial to assert that these two sections are alloted undue weight and ought to be summarized. Thoughts? Skomorokh ^incite 19:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, schools of thought is the core section of this article because it explains how different schools see anarchism. Further reduction of that section would give undue weight to the rest of the article. -- Vision Thing -- 20:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the article was too long in the first place. Are we low on disk space or something? Operation Spooner 20:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Check it out: WP:Article size. Skomorokh ^incite 20:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Individualist anarchism

I think the individualist anarchism section needs expansion. This is a whole wing of anarchism and includes many theorists. What this has been cut down to lately, does not do it justice at all, so I plan on adding more material to it. Operation Spooner 16:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

You've contributed excellent material to the section, but now that the section has been split into Anarchist political theory. There is a potentially major discussion underway here to decide the structure of the article and the fate of the Schools of thought section - in a few days or weeks there might very well be consensus to radically re-organise the article, risking losing any new material you might want to add. Might I suggest you add any new material to Anarchist political theory, where the topic unquestionably deserves more scope and your contributions wont be at risk of removal. That way, all material is preserved, and in the case that there is consensus to expand the Ind-anarchism section here, the new material can easily be copied from Anarchist political theory. Is this acceptable? Skomorokh ^incite 16:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

That seems really strange. An article discussing only political theory? So economic theory would not be discussed there? I don't understand how political theory could be isolated from the economic theory and make a whole article out of it. Operation Spooner 17:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

If you see the discussion above, the name wasn't my idea. Like Criticisms of anarchism, Issues in anarchism, History of anarchism, it is a simple split-off of the topic hitherto referred to as "Schools of thought", so that the topic can be treated with the length it deserves (without being hacked down by the likes of me!). So do you agree to focus your extensions of individualist anarchism in that article while we decide what to do with this one? Skomorokh ^incite 18:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I want to be involved in that article. One general anarchism article is enough for me, and it seems hardly anyone read spinoff articles, so I don't think it's worth putting much effort into something that hardly anyone is going to read. I think more exhaustive detail about individualist anarchism should be in the main individualist anarchism article, and the section in this article should be expanded a bit more. I think also that there should be a communitarian anarchism section, like there is an individualist section. That way anarcho-communism and "collectivist anarchism," and some others can be all under that one main heading. Operation Spooner 19:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I think pretty much all types of anarchists are in agreement that you can't discuss one without the other. Feel free to change it the title and redirect if there's consensus on a better one. Bacchiad 18:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Naming discussion underway here Skomorokh ^incite 18:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Criticisms section removed

According to the Manual of style, articles should avoid Criticism sections. I have moved the Criticisms section of this article here:

The theory and practice of anarchism has been controversial since it came to prominence in the 19th century. Some of the criticisms made of anarchism come from the interests it opposes, such as governments. Other criticisms have been made internally by other anarchists or by political movements that appear to share similar goals, such as Marxism. Many question the idealist nature of anarchism, and have misgivings about its practical application in the real world. Some point to anarchism's historical inability to establish a viable non-state society. Some social scientists note that hierarchy appears to be synonymous with human civilization, although others note that many indigenous societies have been largely egalitarian. Others, including some adherents of Ayn Rand's Objectivism movement, claim that anarcho-capitalism is a contradiction in terms and that true capitalism requires an ultraminimal government for a military, law enforcement, and an objective judiciary. Force, according to proponents of this argument, cannot be a market service.

Also, while libertarianism is an individualist philosophy, many of the most prominent libertarian thinkers have voiced fundamental objections to anarchism.<ref>http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=10711</ref> For libertarian minarchists, the government's proper role is to create and enforce a framework of law that maximizes individual liberty, notably by prohibiting force and fraud. In Capitalism and Freedom, economist Milton Friedman made the case for economic freedom as a precondition for political freedom, while claiming that "the need for government…arises because absolute freedom is impossible. However, attractive anarchy may be as a philosophy, it is not feasible in a world of imperfect men".

It's mostly unreferenced and irrelevant, but if any valuable material from it can be integrated into the main body of the article, it's here for the taking. Skomorokh ^incite 15:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Collectivist anarchism

It seems to me that collectivist anarchism is not really a school of thought per se. It seems to be a description of Bakunin and his friends' position, coined primarily by its opponents (e.g. Kropotkin). After the First International, is anyone a Collectivist Anarchist who isn't also an Anarcho-syndicalist? Bacchiad 17:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Anarchist supporters of Parecon? Jacob Haller 19:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

anarcho-capitalism

I just editted the introduction to note that many anarchist do not consider anarcho-capitalism to be anarchist. I recognize the importance of including anarcho-capitalism in the discussion, and don't wish to have it removed, but it is unsound practice to mention it without provisos. The majority of anarchists take violent offense to being identified with anarcho-capitalists in any way, and so to gloss over their ojections entirely is to give a very false impression of the relationship between anarchism and anarcho-capitalism. I haven't posted in editing talk before, so I apologize if I am not following proper procedure here. Zweidinge 16:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Your source (AFAQ) is not valid, and anarcho-capitalism is not only disputed form of anarchism so it shouldn't be singled out in the intro. -- Vision Thing -- 16:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Vision Thing about the intro. However, I don't see why the section on anarcho-capitalism can't reflect both viewpoints. 158.223.71.65 16:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, that comment was me, not logged in (timed out), as were changes to article which sought to give such a balance. BobFromBrockley 17:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Seems to me it's already discussed in Issues in anarchism, as well as Anarchism and capitalism. The ancap writeup in anarchism is just supposed to be about ancap, not about the dispute about it. Knight of BAAWA 17:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

See especially Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism. Skomorokh ^incite 19:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

As I said, anarcho-capitalism is not only disputed form of anarchism. However, only his status is questioned in this article. Either all disputes must be mentioned in relevant section(s) or none. -- Vision Thing -- 17:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

If in doubt, and there are reliable sources, lets err on the side of inclusion. If a given section gets too long, or a subject gets undue weight, we can always summarize and move to one of the multitude of sub-articles. Skomorokh ^incite 19:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

This particular criticism is already noted in "Internal issues and debates" section. So we are erring on the side of inclusion twice. Why do we need special section for issues if we are going to mention them separately? -- Vision Thing -- 20:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I think if it's going to be included in the anarcho-capitalism section, then it should also be noted in the individualist anarchism section in general. It's individualist anarchism in general that some anarcho-communists haveed claim is not true anarchism. It's not restricted to Rothbard's doctrines. I'm wondering if it should be noted that anarcho-communism is disputed too, which it has historically been by individualists. Operation Spooner 19:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Right, status of anarcho-communism within anarchism is also heavly disputed by individual anarchists. Also, anarcho-syndicalism is seen as anachronism and obsolete by many. -- Vision Thing -- 20:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Refs? Because I've more often found sources which object to a-c without objecting to individualist anarchism in general, than ones which object to individualist anarchism in general. Jacob Haller 00:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. This discussion is either referenced or pointless; you decide which. Skomorokh ^incite 02:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, since the intro is giving a definition of anarchism, then it should be mentioned that different groups define the term differently. The prime difference being that socialist anarchists define anarchism as "opposition to all hierarchic power relationships" while laymen and ancaps use it in the more restricted sense of "opposition to nation-states". Aelffin 19:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

• "There is no logical justification, no rational explanation, and no scientific reasoning has been, is, will be, or can be advanced in defence of that unimaginable impossibility, Communistic Anarchism." Yarros, Victor S. A Princely Paradox, Liberty, Vol 4. No. 19, Saturday, April 9, 1887, Whole Number 97

• "Yes, genuine Anarchism is consistent Manchesterism, and Communistic or pseudo-Anarchism is inconsistent Manchesterism." Tucker, Benjamin. Labor and Its Pay, from Individual Liberty: Selections from the Writings of Benjamin T. Tucker

• "All Communism, under whatever guise, is the natural enemy of Anarchism, and a Communist sailing under the flag of Anarchism is as false a figure as could be invented." Appleton, Henry. Anarchism, True and False, Liberty 2.24, no. 50, 6 September 1884, p. 4.

• "One of the tests of any reform movement with regard to personal liberty is this: Will the movement prohibit or abolish private property? If it does, it is an enemy of liberty. For one of the most important criteria of freedom is the right to private property in the products of ones labor. State Socialists, Communists, Syndicalists and Communist-Anarchists deny private property." Swartz, Clarence Lee. What is Mutualism?

• "At the root of all forms of communism, compulsory or voluntary, lies a profound hatred of individual excellence, a denial of the natural or intellectual superiority of some men over others, and a desire to tear down every individual to the level of a communal ant-heap. In the name of a phony "humanism," an irrational and profoundly anti-human egalitarianism is to rob every individual of his specific and precious humanity." Rothbard, Murray. The Death Wish of the Anarcho-Communists

So, if individalist anarchists dispute anarcho-communism, then why is anarcho-capitalism singled out by noting that it is disputed by anarcho-communists? Operation Spooner 03:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Because the individualist anarchists were socialists (a left-wing branch of libertarianism). They were not capitalists in the modern sense of the term. The debate between individualist and communist anarchism was a split between two different types of socialism. However, individualist anarchism died out, and communist anarchism almost died out. The current movement evolved out of "anarchists without adjectives" with influences from both of the other historical branches. Regardless, all of these branches evolved out of socialism. Ancap, on the other hand, evolved out of neolibertarianism (a right-wing version of libertarianism). As such, it is a different movement from anarchism proper. Yes, it was influenced by one of the three branches of anarchism proper. But it also rejected some of the defining tennants of individualist anarchism, therefore it cannot properly be called a branch of individualist anarchism. It is an individualist-influenced branch of neolibertarianism. Aelffin 20:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

"The second line of descent from Godwin is responsible for the 'Pacifist Anarchist' approach or the 'Individualist Anarchist' approach that differs radically from revolutionary anarchism. It is sometimes too readily concided that 'this is, after all, anarchism'...the school of Benjamin Tucker - by virtue of their individualism - accepted the need for police to break strikes so to guarantee the employer's 'freedom'. All this school of so-called Individualists accept, at one time or another, the necessity of a police force, hence for government, and the definition of Anarchism is no government." Albert Metlzer, Anarchism for and Against. Operation Spooner 03:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

• Having gone back and read the discussion and tracked the edits, I think the current version is right: a few paras on anarcho-capitalism, brief reference to the controversy, and solid references. Readers can go to the relevant articles for more on this. BobFromBrockley 13:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Contemporary Anarchism

I've been thinking for a long time that we need either a section in this article or an entirely new article that deals with contemporary anarchism. The wiki has plenty of articles that deal with the black bloc, direct democracy, and many other facets of anarchism today, but nothing that pulls it all together in one place to give an overview. It's an extremely vibrant movement that's on the rise, so why do we devote so of our energy to its history to the exclusion of its present? After all, there's probably more material in print on the subject from the last ten years than from the whole of the last century. Aelffin 04:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

What do you think the section and/or article should cover? Jacob Haller 05:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Some of my suggestions:

• Practical organizing, organizations, tactics, etc.:
  • Indymedia
  • RRFMs
  • FNB
  • Blocs
  • anarchist perspectives on the Zapatistas
  • anarchist involvement in the counter-globalization and antu-war movements
• Theoretical issues:
  • Contemporary ideas of anarchism
  • Bookchin's sectarian SALA and the fallout from it
  • Controversies regarding Parecon

Any other must-haves? Jacob Haller 05:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

We actually should completly rewrite the article and move most of our current content to a new article on the History of Anarchism. We're discussing a very active movement, not a mainly historical one. Zazaban 05:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with that. Anarcho-communists, anarcho-capitalists, anarchists without adjectives, and so on, still exist. The sections are just defining them. Is there some new form of anarchism that's not included? I disagree with the Aelffin that anarchism is "on the rise." I believe it's on the decline and has been for quite some time. Though there are a few anarchists around the heyday of anarchism is long gone. Operation Spooner 13:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, you're right about the heyday of anarchism. That ended with the first Red Scare. However, anarchism is most definitely starting to recover from the decline of the 70s and 80s. There's no question that the movement today is much more diverse, much more influential, and much more active than it has been in decades. There's plenty in print on the subject, but as yet there have been few attempts at cataloging this information.

I think I agree with Zazaban's approach. The main article should be about present day anarchism, and the historical stuff should be its own article.

Other important topics would be anarchist participation in Battle in Seattle, the World Social Forum, and new media, the influence of Chomsky and Zinn, the debates surrounding anarcho-primitivism and anarcho-capitalism. And, off the top of my head... anarchism in pop culture, in the news, bands, recently published books, Znet, TAZ, the fallout from RAAN's breakup, NEFAC, Crimethinc, the revival of the SDS, Anti-Racist Action, Biotic Pie Brigade. Aelffin 19:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how you could say anarchism is today "more influential." In what sense? I don't see the state getting any smaller, so it doesn't appear to be influential at all in what it attempts to be influential at. The only influence on reducing the size of the state that I can see is possibily individualist anarchists voting for libertarian candidates, such as Ron Paul who want to eliminate at least 80% of the state. And individualist anarchists influenced the creation of the Libertarian Party. I don't think that socialist anarchists , when they do vote, vote for libertarians but for socialists who promise to expand the welfare state. "Battle in Seattle, World Social Forum, and so on," certainly has no effect on reducing the size of the state. So I don't know in what important sense that you can say anarchism is influential. Operation Spooner 21:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Precisely as you say. Anarchist doctrines are being adopted by non-anarchists. Right wing libertarians are becoming anti-statist. Left-wing anti-war activists are becoming anti-capitalists. "Free trade" is becoming "fair trade". That's all anecdotal, of course. It would be difficult to trace these trends precisely, but it's even more difficult to imagine this sort of thing is coming from someplace *other* than the group that has been spouting these doctrines for decades. Aelffin 22:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

But has the state become any smaller? I don't see it. As far as anti-capitalism, anti-capitalist anarchists certaintly haven't had an effect, because capitalism (though not in pure form) is engulfing the world. It's only a matter of time before every nation is one big interconnected capitalist system. Anti-capitalist anarchists have not been successful in the slightest in that respect. Operation Spooner 22:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Straw man. I said that anarchism is more vibrant and influential--in precisely the ways you enumerate. I did not say that it had moved a great distance toward achieving its goals. Anyway, the issue at hand is whether the movement is worthy of coverage, and in this Wiki, we resolve such issues not by asking how successful the group in question is in attaining their stated goals, but by asking ourselves another question: are there verifiable references? I think the answer to that is "yes". But to answer your questions... yes, the state has become larger and yes, capitalism is spreading. I am not a Marxist, but anybody who has studied communist theory can explain the likely result of those two things. In the fullness of time the unbridled growth of a system is, more often than not, its own demise. Why? Because opposition to a ruling power is itself most powerful in places where that ruling power is most burdensome. Aelffin 02:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Aelffin I agree that more needs to be said about the contemporary anarchist movement, do you have any of the print sources you mention at hand? I'd be prepared to write a section but I don't have the sources. Regards, Skomorokh ^incite 16:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

As long as it's recognized that there is not a "contemporary anarchist movement," but several contemporary anarchist movements, including anarcho-capitalism. Operation Spooner 19:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I agree that there are several groups using the term "anarch-" but my feeling is that the left anarchists are a movement while the anarcho-capitalists are more accurately described as a philosophy. I also think that the left anarchists are grouped together as a series of related movements while the anarcho-capitalists are an independant group. Those are the terms I would use, but I'll be satisfied as long as the article uses whatever terminology we find in reliable sources. Skomorokh, I can probably dig up some print sources, but there's nothing wrong with using online sources as long as they fit the criteria set out in wikipolicy. Aelffin 21:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Try a search engine. There's goobs and googles on line information. And maybe someone could actually ad a section on anarchist feminism since there's a lot on line about it and yesterday I just added the wiki link - anarchist feminism - but it deserves own section. Carol MooreUser:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc —Preceding comment was added at 18:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem is to find balanced coverage; however, almost all the sources for present-day anarchism are disputed, unlike the sources for 19th-century anarchism. In particular, AAFAQ has been challenged as non RS, "unreliable," and "extremist," although it's the single most widely-accepted source on contemporary anarchism. Jacob Haller 20:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

What makes you say it's the single most widely-accepted source on contemporary anarchism? It appears to me to be focused on historical anarchism. Secondly, with few if any citations referring to it in scholarly literature, I don't know how you can say it's widely accepted. By whom? Operation Spooner 20:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Looking over Wikipedia:Verifiability, it doesn't appear to meet the criteria for verifiability, so there's probably no point in arguing over it. Operation Spooner 20:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a closer look at AAFAQ, but I think we need to have a debate about its reliability before we dismiss it out of hand. I seem to recall many references to scholarly sources in the parts I've read. But I'll agree that it's debatable. Aelffin 21:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say that it doesn't reference scholary sources. I said the FAQ itself isn't widely cited by scholarly sources, so I don't see how it could be argued that it's a "widely-accepted source on anarchism. Operation Spooner 21:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I see. Well, my suggestion for dealing with AAFAQ and other sources is below. Aelffin 21:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

It's pretty hilarious to read a comment saying that contemporary anarchism is on the decline. That's just divorced from reality. Anarchists may not make the newspapers as much as we did 5 years ago, but the anarchist movement is bigger and more widespread than it was 5 years ago. Anybody can visit Infoshop News, Indymedia, or any number of anarchist news sites to see how much stuff is being done by a growing anarchist movement. Our website, Infoshop.org, is more popular than ever, to the extent that today I was talking to another member of our collective about setting up another server to handle all of the traffic our site is getting. Or take something like the fact that some anarchists from Iowa are visiting our infoshop in Kansas City tomorrow. Or look at all of the anarchist book fairs, including one happening next week in TACOMA, Washington. Tacoma? That's not some socialist hotbed. :-) Chuck0 05:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

US House Resolution 1955

Anarchists may be interested in US House Resolution 1955. It has grave implications for Anarchists, Activists, Communists, Socialists, Labor organizers, everyone. If the Bill passes the senate, I want it on the front page. Any assistance would be appreciated. Vert et Noir^talk 04:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Peacock terms

Despite the cast improvement in references this article has experienced in the past year, it is still replete with peacock terms. Examples include "Some claim anarchist themes can be", "which led some to call him the founder of", "some see mutualism as", "many workers and activists saw Bolshevik success as", "some anarchist communist oppose", "according to George Orwell and other foreign observers", "many syndicalist organizations are active today". Peacock terms obscure verifiable claims with pseudo-authority ( the unnamed "some" "many" "others") and should be avoided where possible; if we could attribute points of view to their holders, it would make it much clearer which points of view deserve attention and which have simply been smuggled in under deceptive language. Skomorokh ^incite 18:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I've removed this template once; I will comment here and leave the matter to others. I note that the guideline cited by Skomorokh lists about 50 "peacock terms", none of which are "some", "many", or "other".

I removed the template because I felt it was incumbent upon an editor posting this template to provide details on the article talk page, and said so to Skomorokh on his talk page. In response he said "As for peacock terms, the template links to a clear and simple to understand definition." Nevertheless, he has gone to the effort of actually posting examples, which I appreciate. Based on those examples, I believe that he wanted to cite the guideline Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words, which says Usually, weasel words are small phrases attached to the beginning of a statement, such as "some argue that..." or "critics say...". -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)