Talk:Anarchism/Archive 57

Archive 50

←

Archive 55

Archive 56

Archive 57

Archive 58

Archive 59

Archive 60

this page is all ancient history

id like to see it updated with information relating to the recent worldwide (tho isolated) occurances of people rising up against their government. Iceland, Russia, Greece, Oakland... today Lativans started violently resisting... does anyone else think this would be appropriate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.123.172.52 (talk) 15:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I remember not long ago someone complaining about that too. At the time, there was some agreement that there was a need to include more recent information about the movement. If you have any proposal, you should come forward with it. It will be greatly appreciate it. On the other hand, the type of information you may be looking for can be most suitable for the article History of anarchism. This article is more concerned with the ideological issues. Maziotis (talk) 16:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I have added AI - IFA - IAF approved content to this article.

I have added AI - IFA - IAF approved content to this article.

The homepage of the Anarchist Internatonal, www.anarchy.no , is not nonsensensial. Try to prove it and you will fail. The article Anarchist International on Wikipedia is objective and to the point.

The organizations/networks associated to the Anarchist International are found at the link-page of www.anarchy.no , and then there is a big network of networkmembers/subscribers related to the different organizations/networks.

As for Zazaban I have problems with taking him seriously. In a discussion on Anarchism.net he answered with the following "intelligent" and a bit ochlarchical statements: "You're one to talk. - And, just to see how you react; FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK. FUCK FUCK. FUCK." Source [1]. I would not put too much weight on what he means. I don't think such comments are funny.

Anarchist Greetings Anna Quist

MiszaBot, please eat this at your earliest convenience. Regards, Skomorokh 00:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Archons?

Anarchos actually translates pretty directly to "without archons". Archons can't be defined strictly as leaders or chiefs. "Ruler" is a more accurate translation of archon. It is a principal teaching of anarchism that society be without rulers specifically. A change in the etymological introduction is in order as it tampers heavily with the very foundation of anarchism.

Cite please. Skomorokh 00:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Request for Comments: Anarchism and Libertarianism

Please comment on whether and where in the article a statement concerning the relationship between anarchism and libertarianism should be placed.

*Place it in a new paragraph, immediately after the lede, titled Terms & Definitions and including all other well-sourced synonyms along with a clear explanation of the differing definitions of anarchism as used by different groups. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 05:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Support I'm changing my stance per quotations below. "Libertar-ian/ianism" is apparently a current and widespread synonym for "anarch-ist/ism" and therefore belongs in the lede, where most other Wikipedia articles handle synonymous terms. The American use of the term "libertarian" appears to be a relatively recent colloquialism. This should also be noted in the lede on Libertarian. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 04:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Support, per above discussion. It seems there is consensus from all editors for this position. I'm just not sure where to place this new section, or paragraph, in the article. We can always discuss this afterwards. Maziotis (talk) 14:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Support, see my contributions to the "discussion" above. If no one wants to write this new paragraph, then I suggest to either stick to the sources gathered by Costho and put something like „libertarian is frequently employed as a synonym for anarchist“ at the end of the lead section, or just remove it altogether.--Koroesu (talk) 21:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• 'Support - I propose that the statement be initially placed in a footnote, and once it is expanded to a full paragraph put as an additional section as proposed above. This avoids having a stub-section and instead allows the article to grow organically. Skomorokh 21:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Support, in the interests of short term vs. long term goals. I wouldn't want to see a stub-section appear on the page, as it would act as another barrier to GA/FA status down the line. If it never expands beyond a size long enough to require its own section, future editors will not need to reconcile it with the demands of a high quality article. If it does expand to such a size, it will be easily shifted into a section. Further, this subdued display of synonyms decreases the risk of undue weight referred to by Costho (below). With a reduced presence, there is no immediate risk of undue weight if uncommon synonyms are listed closely with those more commonly known. I feel this works towards the best of both ideas. --Cast (talk) 03:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Support; that the issue is controversial enough to warrant this extended discussion and an RfC tells me that this statement doesn't belong in the lede, regardless of its merits.Simon Dodd (talk) 02:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• "All" sourced synonyms shouldn't be featured in the article. Only synonyms that have sources that explicitly say that the synonym is used "often" or "frequently" or "commonly" should be featured in the article, with any infrequent synonyms relegated to a footnote. These synonyms should be right up there next to the term "anarchism," as you see in other articles on Wikipedia showing terms sometimes or often used as synonyms. An argument against it I've seen here is that it may confuse some people. I say so what if someone confuses the term "libertarian" with the American popular usage of the term? If they're that stupid to think that "libertarianism" in the popular American usage and anarchism are the same thing, that's not our problem. Anyone with half a brain seeing the term listed as a frequent synonym can quickly realize "Ah, the term "libertarianism" has more than one use." The opposition I've seen against the the term being prominently displayed is mind boggling. I haven't seen any legitimate justification against it yet, from anyone here. Costho (talk) 06:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Why only often-used synonyms? What's wrong with noting less common synonyms too? Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 23:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm talking about placement in the article. Putting rarely used synonyms right in the first line is I believe "undue weight." Rarely used synonyms should probably be in a footnote. Frequently used synonyms should be listed up there next to "anarchism." Costho (talk) 23:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Costho, I'm sorry if you've already done this, but could you provide the complete quotes from the sources you cite? I haven't seen the actual quotes in context and I would be surprised if they describe libertarianism as a synonym for anarchism without providing context on where and when this use has been considered "common". Again, apologies if you've already provided this and I just overlooked them. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 05:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose including libertarianism as a synonym for anarchy. These two words mean different things. Overlaps should be explained, but saying they are synonyms is grossly misleading. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

They are synonyms. The sources say so. There is no "overlap." They mean exactly the same thing. This of course does not preclude libertarianism from having another meaning in another context. You're just thinking in the wrong context where libertarianism means something else. In anarchist literature libertarianism means anarchism. Jadabocho (talk) 04:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Nobody said it meant the same thing as anarchy, which is itself not a synonym for anarchism. ChildofMidnight, I do not know what has possessed to be part of a discussion on a subject you are so grossly misled on. Zazaban (talk) 04:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I corrected my statement, although anarchism is simply the ideology underlying a support for anarchy. Liberalism and anarchy have some overlap, but to call them synonymous is grossly misleading. Please make sure you quote in the citation any assertion to this affect. Because I find it hard to believe any credentialed academic would be so confused as to make that wild assertion. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Strong Oppose to all of the many and exceedingly undue provisions of this RFC.

The one citation that I could find online to back this assertion, on the Libertarianism page, was an Anarcho-Capitalism page. Anarcho-capitalism does indeed have points in common with a particular form of libertarianism, but neither of those are representative of their wholes. Such a sweeping generalization should be better documented before it is included at all.
Furthermore, it is most certainly too contentious to be included as a definition of anarchism.
There is a very good place for such a statement, should it be sufficiently verified, especially since it is a recent definition (most of the cites are from the turn of this century, and the earliest is 1968): the section entitled 'Recent schools of thought'. Anarchangel (talk) 00:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

See the source quotes below. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 16:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy

Lest anyone doesn't realize, Wikipedia is not a democracy: "Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy or any other political system. Its primary but not exclusive method of determining consensus is through editing and discussion, not voting. Although editors occasionally use straw polls in an attempt to test for consensus, polls or surveys sometimes impede rather than assist discussion. They should be used with caution, and are no more binding than any other consensus decision." from: WP:NOT So while this poll above may be useful, this is just a reminder for any would-be majoritarians here that nothing here is binding. No one has to go with what the majority wants. Costho (talk) 00:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Libertarianism

The opening sentence equating the term libertarianism to anarchism seems very strange. Anarchy, and a state without a central government are nto the same thing. I know it's sourced, but this seems like saying party and riot mean the same thing. My understanding of anarchy is that it's a free for all and people can do what they want, but that libertarianism has a rule of law whereby you can't harm other people or other's people's property. Am I way off here? I don't think libertarians want to do away with property laws, but anarchists do, so I'm kind of shocked to see them equated, and the sources aren't online so I can't read what they say. But even sourced this needs to be clarified. Can anyone quote the bits from the sources? ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Your usage of Libertarianism is regionally specific and historically contingent upon changes within US neo-classical economics / anti-communist Partisanship in the 1960s. Please see the Oxford English Dictionary, particularly the first recorded usages, for a better understanding of the variety of uses of Libertarianism.Fifelfoo (talk) 02:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The idea that anarchy is a free-for-all is completely and utterly wrong. Please read this article. Zazaban (talk) 02:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

If by "regionally specific" you mean the United States (and possibly other regions like Great Britain) I think providing a definition inconsistent with the meaning of the words as used in those areas without disctinction is a pretty big oversight. I'm not arguing that anarchy doesn't fall under a broad umbrella of libertarianism, but to equate the two? No way Jose. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Libertarianism has been often used as a synonym for anarchism, and in fact this use predates the philosophy currently known as libertarianism. Zazaban (talk) 03:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course, before we get into a repeat of the controversy in above sections, it should be noted that the most common form anarchists have been referred to as "libertarian" is in the phrase "libertarian socialist". Libertarian socialism is noted in the very article you, ChildofMidnight, link to in your opening post.

During the century long rivalry anarchism has had with Marxism, anarchists have referred to strains of "socialist" thought which emerged from it as "authoritarian socialism" -- a socialism dependent on presupposition that the state can be used as a neutral tool to progress a socialist project. If, the argument goes, the state represents its constituants correctly, it can be transformed from an oppressive agent of aristocracy, to one of proletarian liberation. Anarchists countered that no state could be used as a tool for liberation, as the existence of a state is an inherently corrupting effect on its member politicians, and so such politicians could not be said to be representatives of the revolutionary masses. These anarchists, and those other socialists who allied with them in opposing this view of the state (council communists, left communists, etc) countered authoritarian socialism with libertarian socialism. This was strengthened when, in France during the 1880s, it was forbidden for anarchists to print the term "anarchism", "anarchist" or "anarchy" in their propaganda, and so used "libertarian" in its stead. It is in light of this history that this article cannot ignore its historical association with the term "libertarian" and, thus, it ought not be removed. Feel free to investigate corresponding articles for corroborating citations. If anyone would care to correct any historical errors I have made, please do so. --Cast (talk) 04:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Bingo. Excellent explanation. But, seeing as you know your anarchist history so well, why do you oppose creating a subsection to discuss it in the conversation above? Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 05:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Pardon, I thought I made it clear. If the section isn't well cited, it won't be very long, or will be long and will have multiple "citation needed" tags; if it is short, it may be a rather "stubby" section. Either scenario would hurt the article eventually reach GA or FA status. It's a matter of long term development. I think that a footnote could substitute for stub section, and could be transformed into a complete-section once the footnote is suitably long and cited. --Cast (talk) 05:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Okay, I support that, although I don't think it would be difficult to source such a section. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 16:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I can only assume y'all are in Britain. Socialism doesn't mean here in the states what you are saying it does, and neither does anarchism. Socialism and anarchism are nearly antithetical. Please someone clarify this article to make it clear that the definitions and meanings ascribed to words in this article are based on understandings in Great Britain and have nothing to do with the United States. I would call this discussion surreal, but I'm afraid to look at that article and see how that term is defined... ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Nope, I think most of us here are american, and I assure you anarchists here use the same defenition as Britain or anywhere else. And anarchism is, and always has been a subset of socialism, and has been everywhere in the world. Furthermore, I'd like to ask you what planet you are from. Zazaban (talk) 07:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Zazaban, be nice. I'm sure you know that most non-anarchists in the United States are not familiar with traditional use of the word "socialism". That said, Zazaban is right. Most of the people here are probably Americans, including myself, and almost all American Anarchists consider themselves socialists. While there are some differences in American and British (not to mention Continental) uses of terms, this is one that virtually all anarchists agree on worldwide. Unfortunately, most people in the United States only learn about socialism through propaganda against socialism. In the US, it's common to hear people define socialism as "government controlled economy", which of course would be antithetical to anarchism. However, anarchists still use the original, accurate definition, "advocating equalization of wealth". So, the anarchist perspective as anti-state socialists would be something like "advocating the equalization of wealth without any state or other coercive institutions". Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 16:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Nathan, on what basis do you propose "equalization of wealth" as defining "socialism"? It is probably the case that most socialists have predicted that some equalization of that sort would take place in a free, rationally ordered society, but I can't, off the top of my head, think of particularly compelling definitions built around it as a central tenet. The broad agreement, which I do not at all contest, that anarchists are socialists seems a little more complicated in its origins. Libertatia (talk) 03:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

How are you defining socialism, then, Libertatia? Socialism is traditionally defined as common ownership of the means of production. Is there some other definition you have in mind? Costho (talk) 06:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

How can you say that individualists are socialists, while saying that socialism is defined by "advocating equalization of wealth?" Individualists are not for that. So which is it? Are they socialists or is your definition of socialism wrong? Costho (talk) 01:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The mainstream of the individualist anarchist movement, to a greater or lesser extent, advocated the equalization of wealth (often through worker-owned means of production), and many of them called themselves socialists or communalists. The neo-libertarian philosophy called anarcho-capitalism is viewed as exception by some sources, however this philosophy is not considered part of the anarchist movement by the mainstream of anarchism. (cf. Jews for Jesus and Scientific creationism) Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 13:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Then what do you say about anarcho-capitalists that advocate worker-owned means of production? Private ownership of the means of production is capitalism, whether it's worked owned or not, you know? Costho (talk) 15:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

In my reading, I have encountered two main positions held by self-proclaimed anarcho-capitalists who advocate worker-owned means of production. Both positions start with the proposition that all people own themselves, therefore own their labor, therefore own all the products of their labor. The two positions diverge in what the result of such a system would be. The most common position is that this ownership of the means of labor will allow competition among workers, such that more efficient workers will prosper and less efficient workers will fail, thus leading to a wealth distribution that reflects true meritocracy. This is an extremely capitalist position--essentially social darwinism--and in the terminology of mainstream anarchism, this is not an anarchist position at all because it allows hierarchical power (in other words, it's plutocracy). The second position is that worker ownership of the means of production will level the playing field in such a way that workers will be in some sort of fair competition that will produce roughly equal wealth. This second position, in my opinion (although not necessarily the opinion of the anarchist mainstream) is is a form of market anarchism, very much in the tradition of the 19th century individualist anarchist movement. However, this second position is a very small minority on the fringe of anarcho-capitalism, and furthermore, it is not truly a capitalist position because capitalism is defined in the original Marxist meaning as "ownership of the means of production by a wealthy capitalist class", and in any case it doesn't address currently existing wealth inequity and is at odds with the historical data as seen in the pre-capitalist mercantile economies of Europe. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 19:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

You're wrong about 19th century market anarchists believing that the system they advocate would result in roughly equal wealth. See the individualist anarchism article which directly refutes that with sources. Individualist anarchists have no interest in equal wealth. That comes with the whole idea of "individualism." Capitalism is private ownership of the means production, period, whether one works his means of production by himself or if someone asks to help him run it for pay. Costho (talk) 23:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say that was the position of 19th century individualist anarchists. I said I've run across anarcho-capitalists making such a claim, and that this position would be consistent with traditional individualist anarchism, but not that the individualists themselves supported such ideas. The mainstream individualists were much more socialist than that, in fact they were very nearly Proudhonian mutualists. Yes, there were some minor figures on the fringe who had ideas that were non-egalitarian. Most suggestions that individualists supported anything like anarcho-capitalism have resulted from a few 20th century writers who have slapped the label "individualist anarchist" on anybody from the 19th century who supported their own ideas, even if the person in question didn't call themselves an anarchist (many of whom would be rolling in his grave at the suggestion) ...which is just poor scholarship and circular argument. Their understanding of capitalism (ownership of the means of production by an opulent minority) was virtually identical to the social anarchists of their day, they simply differed on the question of joint ownership versus individual ownership. Tucker even called himself a socialist. Warren and Spooner were both communalist to an extraordinary degree. It wasn't until Nock, that you see anything like lassaiz-faire capitalism coming out of the mouth of somebody who called themselves an anarchist and Nock was, by all accounts, a minor figure. As for the individualist anarchism article; it's in even worse shape than this one, full of dubious statements and unsourced claims. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 01:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, now I'm convinced you're not versed in this stuff. Warren and Spooner communalists?! That's the most uninformed thing I've ever heard. Warren advocated complete individualization of all decision-making and all property. Spooner was just as individualist as well. Costho (talk) 04:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Benjamin Tucker wrote: "That the work of this interesting trio should have been done so nearly simultaneously would seem to indicate that Socialism was in the air, and that the time was ripe and the conditions favorable for the appearance of this new school of thought. So far as priority of time is concerned, the credit seems to belong to Warren, the American, a fact which should be noted by the stump orators who are so fond of declaiming against Socialism as an imported article." The trio he was talking about were Warren, Marx, and Proudhon, so according to Tucker, not only was Warren a socialist equal in prominence to Marx himself, but he actually deserves credit for the invention of socialism. I disagree with Tucker, but the fact remains that Warren founded two communes and believed everybody should get paid exactly the same hourly rate. So, perhaps I should have used the term communist instead of communalist. And Spooner thought that large businesses should be broken up, that nobody should be employed as wage laborers, that every person should have a right to enough working capital to own his own means of production, that his system would lead to "a more just and equal distribution of wealth", he was extremely class-conscious and stood stridently for the breakdown of economic stratification....I could go on. So, perhaps I shouldn't have called him a communalist, but he's a textbook socialist. Just because he believed in individual decision making doesn't mean he was a capitalist. Again, I think you and I just have different understandings of the meaning of "socialism". Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 08:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Warren did not believe that "everybody should get paid exactly the same hourly rate." He believed, in fact, that only the laborer could accurately gauge the cost of his labor, and so left the subjective valuation of wage to the laborer himself. Then, according to the cost principle, equal costs, not durations of labor, would be exchanged. William Pare, one of the best contemporary commentators, wrote: "cost (or burden) goes to determine the price, and is solely cognizable by the seller or producer—by him who renders." There was a discussion of this on the talk page for the Warren entry. Warren came to socialism via Robert Owen, with whom he disagreed only really on the question of unity/individualization of interests. The "socialism" of the early 19th century was defined, not by any dogma about ownership, but by the belief that "the social problem" (variously formulated) could be solved by social science. "Capitalism," which was not a marxist notion, but a more broadly socialist one (with quite a number of appearances prior to those in the OED, originally meant "rule by capital." Of course, "libertarian" originally meant a believer in free will. That sort of libertarianism was, of course, important to all the early anarchists. Apparently, though, Proudhon resisted the word "libertaire," which Dejacque adopted, because there seemed to be an "amoral resonance" to it. He did use it in the "Political Contradictions," but in a broad sense. Libertatia (talk) 19:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, but Warren did issue pay in hour-notes at the Cincinnati Time Store (i.e. everybody gets paid one hour per hour), and he did believe that the valuation of an object must be limited by it's actual cost (not by any old estimation by its creator). As you recognize, today's ideas about the lines between socialists, communists, and anarchists had not been clearly formed at the time, so any claim that he was or was not a socialist is debatable at best. Both socialists and non-socialists see him as one of their progenitors, for good reason, because he used lots of socialist ideas, though he diverged in lots of ways as well. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 21:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the notes of the Cincinnati Time Store were denominated in bushels of corn, and individuals were to determine how many average corn-production hours their labor in a particular field was worth. These details are unimportant here, of course, except for the fact that you and Costho are engaged in a debate where none of the strongly held definitions seem to correspond in any very strong way to the facts, or to historical usages. Has anyone looked at the standard account for most of this stuff (Arthur E. Bestor, Jr., "The Evolution of the Socialist Vocabulary," Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. 9, No. 3. (Jun., 1948)) to see if "libertarian" is covered there? Libertatia (talk) 06:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Be that as it may, his "cost is the limit of price" is socialist enough in spirit to earn my respect. No, I haven't read it, but I'll be picking up a copy ASAP! Thanks for the tip. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 18:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Haymarket Martyrs, Voltarine DeCleyre, Emma Goldman, IWW, Beatnik Party, Yippies, Love and Rage, NEFAC. Anarchism has always meant anarchism in the United States until a set of neo-classicals disagreed so strongly with the Republican Party that they went outside and set up their own little hut. Guess what: Anarchism still means Anarchism in the US. Socialist Labor Party, Daniel DeLeon, CPUSA, CIO, Wildcats, Wildcats and yet more Wildcats. Socialism has always meant socialism in the US.Fifelfoo (talk) 07:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it's great that we clarify the socialist roots of anarchist thought, in the article. I think nobody here in the talk page has disputed that. But we are talking about the first, defining line. What about all those anarchists "without adjectives", individualist and post-left anarchists who don't believe that anarchism should be considered a form of socialism, much less identify the ideology as "libertarian socialism"? Please consider the definition of anarchism in its most broaden sense, with a variety of theories and attitudes, as we have written in the article.

My position is still that we should not include the synonym "libertarianism" in the beginning of the article, for reasons of style and organization, and that we shouldn't include the synonym "libertarian socialism" because it would constitute a misleading assertion. Maziotis (talk) 15:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

There were only a few prominent "anarchists without adjectives" and they were pretty clearly socialist, though they might have avoided the word "socialism" for various reasons. Individualists were also clearly socialists, and most of them even used the word "socialism" to describe themselves--with the exception of anarcho-capitalists, who drastically depart from all other definitions of anarchism, and are not even considered anarchists by the mainstream. Post-left anarchists are a very tiny minority. While the mainstream of anarchism tends to maintain careful neutrality about whether post-leftists should be considered anarchists, they are certainly considered fringe. So, again if we're talking definitions, we need to stick to the mainstream use (mainstream anarchist use, not mainstream public use). IF we stuck to that standard (as Wikipedia does in other areas), anarchism should be defined as "radical anti-hierarchical egalitarianism", or some similar description of libertarian socialism. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 16:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

There were only a few prominent "anarchists without adjectives" and they were pretty clearly socialist, though they might have avoided the word "socialism"

If you choose to use this fact to support the synonym of "libertarian socialism", then you are clearly in violation of WP:SYNTH. Again, the issue here is not wheather there are socialist roots in anarchism, but if we can classify, at the top of the article, "libertarian socialism" as a synonym for anarchism. Giving a justification for doing that based on the history of thought in anarchism, is WP:OR. My point was that if not all anarchist authors are confortable in caliming to be " libertarian socialists" we shouldn't define anarchism as another word for "libertarian socialism". Maziotis (talk) 17:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Just so that we're clear, I had absolutely NO intention of promoting the idea that anarchism is solely a socialist tradition, and in the interest of full disclosure, while I am an anarchist, I do not consider myself a socialist for a variety of reasons. I merely intended to trace the connection of the term "libertarian" as anarchists utilize it. Further, while anarchists have used "libertarian socialism" as a synonym for "anarchism", it would be more accurate to place certain variants of anarchist thought in the umbrella of Libertarian socialism. That is, syndicalist, communist, and collectivist anarchists of the classical era are libertarian socialists, as are non-anarchist council communists, who are of the Marxist tradition. Individualists anarchists are best not placed under the banner of libertarian socialism, for a variety of reasons. Similarly, anarchists without adjectives, such as myself, would also best not be placed under such a category. I recommend that the use of "libertarian socialist" as a historical synonym be acknowledged, but that it also be explained that non-anarchists are also libertarian socialists. The libertarian socialism article has more information and possible sources for citation. Anarchists cannot claim sole domain over it. --Cast (talk) 17:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Mazoitis, I can support anything I please on a discussion page. I'm only in violation of policy if I try to put my ideas in the article without sufficient citation. Cast, I'm not saying that "libertarian socialist" is the domain of only anarchists. Clearly, many non-anarchists, fall within the libertarian socialist tradition. However, it should be noted that the actual term "libertarian socialism" is rarely used outside anarchism. It should also be noted that the mainstream of anarchism is--if not socialist--then egalitarian, communitarian, anti-capitalist, or whatever synonym(s) are most common in mainstream anarchist sources. Exceptions, of course, should also be noted in the proper context. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 18:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you name someone that calls themselves a libertarian socialist that is not an anarchist? Costho (talk) 16:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

No, as I said the term "libertarian socialist" is used almost solely to describe anarchists. However, there are many people who are socialists who are also libertarians. For example, many people who identify as Greens would be libertarian socialists, as would many Europeans who identify as Social Democrats or Socialists, and even the extreme left wing of the American Democratic party could be considered libertarian socialist... not to mention some Trtotskyist and other non-Leninist, non-Maoist Marxist groups. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 19:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The "libertarian" in "libertarian socialism" means "anarchist." The term was created to differentiate from state socialism by those who use "libertarian" as a synonym for anarchism. There is no such thing as a libertarian socialist who is not an anarchist. Costho (talk) 23:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

As I said, you are correct in saying that virtually only anarchists use these two terms together to describe themselves. You are also correct that the term "libertarian socialist" was popularized by anarchists with exactly the meaning you explain. However, anarchists did not invent the word "libertarian", nor did they succeed in changing its original meaning in popular use. The term "libertarian" has always had a broader meaning than just "anarchist". Since the late 19th century, the word "libertarian" has been used to describe anybody who advocates personal self-determination. There are plenty of socialists who advocate personal self-determination but do not advocate the dissolution of hierarchical power, thus there are plenty of non-anarchist libertarian socialists, even if they don't describe themselves with that term. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 02:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

What I was discussing was the identification of "libertarian socialism" as a synonym, directly pointed side by side with anarchism, in the beginning of the article, and the supposed arguments that you might use to endorse such a position. Please don't take this personally. I know you haven't done anything yet, but I don't think I am in violation of WP:CIVIL for discussing hipothetical scenarios. Maziotis (talk) 19:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

No offense taken. Just pointing out that generally, what I'm discussing here is what I think makes most sense in the real world, not necessarily what makes sense according to Wikipedia policy. I think it's good to use the bulk of the available data (in this case, all anarchist literature) as a guide to what direction Wikipedia should aim, and then turn to policy to develop the article within Wikipedia's internal guidelines, rather than using Wikipedia guidelines as a limiting factor on what sorts of real-world data you can look at to form your view of the subject matter. In other words, just because I can't find a reliable source that says "the Pope is not a lizard man" doesn't mean I have to accept the legitimacy of sources that claim he is--at least, not for the purposes of a talk page. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 19:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I still don't agree that we should reflect what a majority trend within a movement refers to itself. I mean, it is one thing to talk about excluding the views of a minority, when it is not recognize by the majority as even being part of the group. This would be the case, for example, of changing the definition on the relation between anarchism and race because of so-called "anarcho-fascists" or "national-anarchists". I would find the speech on jews for jesus adequate for this. When it comes to the identification of socialism, frankly, I find all of this quite insulting. Maziotis (talk) 19:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't mean to be insulting. I also don't mean to apply the "Jews for Jesus" argument to all anarchists who don't consider themselves socialists, but mainly to the extreme fringe who include decidedly non-anarchist concepts--like capitalism or, perhaps primitivism--within their definitions. I think debates about socialism within the anarchist movement revolve mainly around differing definitions of socialism (specifically, interference from the pop culture meaning of socialism). Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 20:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Another thing I believe we would have to discuss is the definitio of "often". I understand it is relevant that a lot of anarchists refer to anarchism as "libertarian socialism", but how often is anarchism thought as "libertarian socialism". What is the universe? Society, political science, "anarchist scene"? That is another reason why I find that statement, as it was written, misleading. Is "libertarian socialism" often used as a synonym, as something that someone would expect to find in political discussions across the world, without any inclination on anarchist trends? Maziotis (talk) 19:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Good points. I don't have a complete answer, except to say that the mainstream of anarchism should be defined by the majority of self-proclaimed anarchist publications. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 20:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

No it shouldn't. It should be defined by independent sources, that is secondary and tertiary sources. Costho (talk) 01:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, for the very good reason that most independent secondary and tertiary sources disagree with most primary sources. Thus it's a perfect example of the rules getting in the way of improving the article, according to the first rule of Wikipedia, WP:IAR. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 13:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Costho (talk) 23:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I assumed as much. :) Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 02:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

References for "libertarianism"

We've been debating the following section for a while now, but I don't think anybody has provided the relevant quotes from these books. My feeling is that this terminology is either outdated or regional, and thus should not be so prominent in the article opener. My apologies if the relevant quotes have been previously provided, but I haven't seen them and it would give all of the editors more information with which to discuss, and hopefully develop consensus. The line and references follow. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 15:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Since the nineteenth century, the term "libertarianism" has often been used as a synonym for anarchism.

• Ward, :Colin. Anarchism: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press 2004 p. 62
• Goodway, David. Anarchists Seed Beneath the Snow. Liverpool Press. 2006, p. 4
• MacDonald, Dwight & Wreszin, Michael. Interviews with Dwight Macdonald. University Press of Mississippi, 2003. p. 82
• Bufe, Charles. The Heretic's Handbook of Quotations. See Sharp Press, 1992. p. iv
• Gay, Kathlyn. Encyclopedia of Political Anarchy. ABC-CLIO / University of Michigan, 2006, p. 126
• Woodcock, George. Anarchism: A History of Libertarian Ideas and Movements. Broadview Press, 2004.
• Skirda, Alexandre. Facing the Enemy: A History of Anarchist Organization from Proudhon to May 1968. AK Press 2002. p. 183. Note: the term "libertarianism" has other meanings as well.</ref>

There is no policy requiring quotes be provided. You can look them up if you want in the library and Google books. I have. Jadabocho (talk) 15:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not that hard to find books where the term is used to refer to anarchism. For example, see the book The Anarchist Papers, published in 1989, in the essay "John Stuart Mill and Liberty: A Libertarian Critique" by William McKercher. If you read it he's referring to anarchism. He calls Kropotkin a "libertarian" in this essay. Jadabocho (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC).

Quotes would be helpful. We have no idea what these sources say or how they say it and in what context. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes quotes are helpful, but why do you want others do your work? Even if somebody brings a quote here it could be fabricated or distorted, so you still have to look them up to verify that they're accurate. Instead of asking others do look them up for you, all you have to do is look them up online in books.google.com. It's free. Or walk over to the library on your campus. Jadabocho (talk) 17:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out that these are available at Google books--I didn't know that. I will look them up. While it is not required by Wikipedia that quotes be provided, it is common courtesy that if you claim that a book says X, then you should should quote the passage where X is claimed. After all, the editor who wants that info in the article ought to have no problem showing where they got that info from, since they've supposedly already done the work of looking it up. It makes no sense for everybody to do all the work of looking everything up all the time. That's just inefficient and unduly time-consuming. If another editor doubts your ability to quote accurately, then they will likely prefer to look it up themselves, but as long as all we want is context, I don't see why anybody would make such a fuss about going and yanking the quote when you already know exactly where to look. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 00:13, 30 January 2(UTC)

I'm not the one that put them there. I did what you're going to have to do. Look them up to verify them. It doesn't seem courteous to ask other people to look them up and copy and paste them here for you. By the way I had to go to the library to verify one of sources because I didn't see it online. Surely you're not asking me to go back there for you are you? Jadabocho (talk) 00:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Jadabocho, I wasn't referring to you, I was referring to the original editor who cited these sources. Anyway, told you I will look them up. I'm glad you took the time to look them up, but having gone through that, don't you see my point here that the original editor could have saved both you and I quite a lot of redundant work when they could simply have quoted the relevant passages in the first place? Here are the first three, with full-page quotes (that I typed by hand, so feel free to re-verify them if you feel like wasting more time). Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 01:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• Ward, Colin. Anarchism: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press 2004 p. 62

"For a century, anarchists have used the word ‘libertarian’ as a synonym for ‘anarchist’, both as a noun and an adjective. The celebrated anarchist journal Le Libertaire was founded in 1895. However, much more recently the word has been appropriated by various American free-market philosophers – David Friedman, Robert Nozick, Murray Rothbard, and Robert Paul Wolff – so it is necessary to examine the modern individualist ‘libertarian’ response from the standpoint of the anarchist tradition. [...]

• Goodway, David. Anarchists Seed Beneath the Snow. Liverpool Press. 2006, p. 4[2]

“....closely related to liberal thought. In the description of Gerald Brenan, who had lived among the anarchists of Andalusia, it is 'a wildly expansive and liberty-loving form of socialism'. This bipolar nature of anarchism helps, in fact, to explain anarchism's failure to flourish in Britain with its deeply entrenched liberal traditions and strong radical liberalism. John Stuart Mill, the great and generous theorist of liberalism, and Herbert Spencer, a major exponent of laissez-faire individualism, whose writings appealed immensely to the Spanish anarchists, can be – and have been – rightly designated as 'libertarians'. In consequence of Victorian liberalism, the dominant ideology of the second half of the nineteenth century, shading into libertarianism, varieties of state socialism were here intrinsically more attractive to those hostile to the existing order. 'Libertarian' and 'libertarianism' are frequently employed by anarchists as synonyms for 'anarchist' and 'anarchism', largely as an attempt to distance themselves from the more negative connotations of 'anarchy' and its derivatives. The situation has been vastly complicated in recent decades with the rise of anarcho-capitalism, 'minimal statism' and an extreme right-wing laissez-faire philosophy advocated by such theorists as Murray Rothbard and Robert Nozick and their adoption of the words 'libertarian' and 'libertarianism'. It has therefore now become necessary to distinguish between their right libertarianism and the left libertarianism of the anarchist tradition. But 'libertarian' and 'libertarianism' also tend to be used as softer, less extreme terms than 'anarchist' and 'anarchism' and that is the manner in which I propose to employ them in this book. Hence I describe, entirely conventionally, William Morris and E.P. Thompson as 'libertarian communists' (Thompson's self-description, in fact) and George Orwell as a 'libertarian socialist', meaning that they exhibited some or even many anarchist characteristics without signing up for the full anarchist programme. That programme, as already stated, I take to consist of three elements – the rejection of the State and parliamentarianism, the utilization of direct action, and the advocacy of co-operative and federal organization – of which the first is entirely distinctive, the second typifies revolutionary ideologies and the last is shared with most other forms of socialism as well as trade unionism and co-operation. On the other hand, I regard as 'anarchiistic' and 'libertarian', but not necessarily 'anarchist', such features as autonomy, direct democracy, self-management, and workers' control, decentralization, opposition to war, sustainability and environmentalism.”

• MacDonald, Dwight & Wreszin, Michael. Interviews with Dwight Macdonald. University Press of Mississippi, 2003. p. 82[3]

“KURTZ: Why have you abandoned socialism? MACDONALD: Because the socialist thinks that if he can solve the economic problems he has solved everything. Marx didn't speculate much about what would happen after the bourgeoisie was dispossessed. He should have, but he didn't. We see Soviet Russia as an example where things are certainly as bad as they were under the Czars in almost every way. But an anarchist believes that the problem of power is not an economic one but a political one and that the state is the enemy and not the system of production. He does not believe that things will be solved by the working class disappropriating the bourgeoisie and taking over the state and running it as their state. I think that the experience of Russia shows that Bakunin was right and Marx was wrong in their famous debate. KURTZ: But before you said that we need a redistribution of wealth to some extent, so you are allowing for economic factors? MACDONALD: Oh, yes. Man has to eat. KURTZ: You think the real problem is of freedom versus the state? MACDONALD: Yes, of course. I see anarchism as the most valuable way to approach political problems. That is to say, as a method of criticism. But the reason there is no possibility for anarchism is the same reason it is needed now more than ever. It is because there is so much concentration of power economically and politically, and that's also why it's impossible to apply anarchism in practice. KURTZ: Would you use the term “libertarian” to describe your position? MACDONALD: Yes, I would think it's a kind of synonym. KURTZ: What would it mean in more concrete terms? MACDONALD: Well, “anarchism” (or libertarianism) does not mean “chaos” as the New York Times and most American editorialists, think. It just means “without a leader” and it means that decisions are made from below and not from above. It's a form of cooperation. DURTZ: Decentralized democracy? MACDONALD: Yes. Decentralization is actually implicit. You couldn't have an anarchist country run from a central power. KURTZ: But it would involve democracy, too? MACDONALD: Yes. In the sense of a town meeting or a factory. For example, the Soviets in the early days of the Bolshevik revolution—that was strictly an anarchist idea. In fact, that was exactly what the anarchists used to advocate in Spain, taking over the factories directly by the workers.”

• Bufe, Charles. The Heretic's Handbook of Quotations. See Sharp Press, 1992. p. iv

"Editor's Note: The words "libertarian" and "libertarianism" occur frequently in this book. These terms do not refer to members of the so-called Libertarian Party. Since the late 19th century "libertarian" and "libertarianism" have been used as synonyms for "anarchist" and "anarchism." These words are employed in this sense by all writers quouted in The Heretic's Handbook of Quotations."

• Gay, Kathlyn. Encyclopedia of Political Anarchy. ABC-CLIO / University of Michigan, 2006, p. 126

"The Libertarian Party (KP) was established in 1971, and its views are often confused with the libertarian philosophies espoused by anarchists. (The terms libertarian and anarchist have often been used synonymously)."

• Woodcock, George. Anarchism: A History of Libertarian Ideas and Movements. Broadview Press, 2004. pages 7-10 (Uses the terms interchangeably throughout the book)

""The spread of the circle A, and of the libertarian fraternity it represents, is merely one manifestation of the resurgence of anarchist ideas that has made it necessary to revise this book, since one can no longer validly argue that anarchism in any final sense came to an end in 1939, though the old traditional anarchism did...In what happened Anarchism itself played a role as the first comprehensive history of libertarian ideas and movements; it is still the fullest."

• Skirda, Alexandre. Facing the Enemy: A History of Anarchist Organization from Proudhon to May 1968. AK Press 2002. p. 183

"One considerable problem to be resolved relates to the usage of an elastic terminology which is occasionally dated in historical terms and occasionally mutilated in translation, for precise equivalents are not readily available. Purely anarchist jargon also creates problems. "Anarchist" and "libertarian," two synonyms of roughly the same vintage - from 1840-1850 - are in common currency: on the other hand, with regard to "anarchist communist" and "libertarian communist" - likewise contemporary terms, from 1876 and 1881 - we have chose to favor the latter, meaning both "common ownership and the free commune," over the former, which has become vaguely equivalent to "anarcho-Bolsehevik." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jadabocho (talk • contribs) 02:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• Fernandez, Frank. Cuban Anarchism. The History of a Movement. See Sharp Press, 2001, page 9

"Throughout the text the author uses the term "libertarian" in its original sense: as a synonym for "anarchist." Indeed, it was used almost exclusively in this sense until the 1970's when, in the United States, it was appropriated by the grossly misnamed Libertarian Party. This party has almost nothing to do with the anarchist concepts of liberty, especially the concepts of equal freedom and positive freedom - the acess to resources necessary to the freedom to act..Thus, in the United States, the once exceedingly useful term "libertarian" has been hijacked by egotists who are in fact enemes of liberty in the full sense of the word. Fortunately, in the rest of the world, especially in the Spanish-speaking countries, "libertarian" ("libertario") remains a synonym for "anarchist." It is used in that sense in this book."

Thanks for your work Jadabocho. I was not aware that the word still had such currency. Per the above quotations, "libertar-ian/ianism" is apparently a current and widespread synonym for "anarch-ist/ism" and therefore I now think it belongs in the lede, where most other Wikipedia articles handle synonymous terms. The American use of the term "libertarian" appears to be a relatively recent colloquialism. This should also be noted in the lede on Libertarian. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 04:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it's good in the lead to, for the reason that I've been confused sometimes reading things that use the term "libetarian" until realizing that they were using the word to mean anarchist. I'm sure other people come across this in their readings too. I think it's mostly in material from writers outside the U.S., a lot of them British writers. Jadabocho (talk) 05:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I've been following this discussion for some time now and have to repeat some things mentioned earlier in this discussion:

1. libertarian=anarchist doesn't mean libertarianism=anarchism:

Now that the sources have been cited, it is clear that the libertarianism=anarchism claim is only backed by 3 sources.

2. Putting the term in the lede doesn't reflect its relative importance:

Is the alleged synonym mentioned in standard books on anarchism? No. Let's come back to the 3 sources that support the claim: The Chaz Bufe book is not a book about anarchism as a political philosophy. The claim that anarchism is synonymous to libertarianism is merely mentioned in a short editors note to help the readers of the book understand what follows. The Dwight MacDonald Interview book is a very poor source and beyond that, the only thing supporting the claim (anarchism=libertarianism) is when D. MacDonald responds: "anarchism (or libertarianism) does not mean “chaos” as the New York Times and most American editorialists, think." And in the case of Goodways book it is not an exact synonym: "'libertarian' and 'libertarianism' are frequently employed by anarchists as synonyms for 'anarchist' and 'anarchism', largely as an attempt to distance themselves from the negative connotations of 'anarchy' and its derivatives [...] But 'libertarian' and 'libertarianism' also tend to be used as softer, less extreme terms than 'anarchist' and 'anarchism'." But all in all this is the one and only source that could be used to support the claim.

3. It isn't more relevant than other synonyms

It was shown by Aelffin earlier in this discussion that there is a myriad of synonyms for anarchism used at different times and places.

This discussion is going round in circles and I hope someone out there will ultimately take on the noble task of writing a "terms and definitions" section (or something like that) to end this discussion as quickly as possible. --Koroesu (talk) 16:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The Bufe source is indeed an editors note, and it is actually a powerful sources because there are several quotes in that book from different people who are using the term to mean anarchism. So this can actually count as several sources. Your claim that libertarianism doesnt mean anarchism if libertarian means anarchist, and vice versa, is not even worth of a response. Jadabocho (talk) 16:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

And here we are again at the beginning. Well, it's easy to create more and more Costho and Jadabocho sock puppets for POV pushing and thus avoiding the three-revert-rule. But it's hard to argue with a person that picks something out of my argument and calls it "ludicrous" or "not worthy of a response". I hope someone will put an to this disruption of the article.--Koroesu (talk) 17:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Calling me a sock puppet is not worthy of response either. Jadabocho (talk) 17:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Koroesu, your parsing of the sources above is well-considered, but in an article that makes much more radical claims with far less backing, I think we can call these sources fairly solid--with an eye toward expanding the list. I don't think we'd have to look too hard to further support the synonymy of the terms (I'm thinking we can dig up some Chomsky, Bookchin, and other old lefties to add to the list of references). Also, while the ism/ian/ist distinction is theoretically significant, the sources seem to use them interchangeably, and at least one of the sources specifically equates both versions of both terms. As far as the other synonyms I mentioned in my off-the-cuff list above... Yes, some of the more common ones ought to be added to the lede (as synonyms are handled elsewhere on Wikipedia), once they've been cited in a few reliable sources. Others would probably be better handled in a "Terms & Definitions" section. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 17:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)