Talk:Anarchism/Archive 65

Archive 60

←

Archive 63

Archive 64

Archive 65

Archive 66

Archive 67

Archive 68

On why "anarchocapitalism" should not be identified as "libertarian anarchism" in this article

The wikipedia article on "libertarianism" has acknoledged the fact that using "libertarianism" to denote pro-capitalist views is mostly a US tendency while in the rest of the world "libertarian" has been used since the 19th century as a synonym for "anarchist". A long discussion there has come to this agreement as so this is something that informs the current state of that article. As such saying that there is only one type of "libertarian anarchism"-namely anarchocapitalism-will be highly problematic since in the rest of the world and even in the US anarchists have used "libertarian" to refer to themselves. I say even in the US since currently there exists a platformist organization there which is called Common Struggle – Libertarian Communist Federation. So as examples of this there are current and past anarchist newspapers such as the current venezuelan and argentinian newspapers called El Libertario and the past french from the 19th century Le Libertaire who did not use "anarchist libertarian" but just "libertarian" to refer to themselves. In this sense saying something like "libertarian anarchism" will be a bad case of redundancy in a word similar to saying something like "fascist nazism" or "socialist communism". All anarchism is libertarian by definition just as all nazism is fascist as well as all communism is socialist. So saying there is one particular position which will be THE "libertarian anarchism" will be absurd.--Eduen (talk) 19:34, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

A reference was provided. If you do not like the fact that a reference was provided--well I suppose that's your problem. But a reference was provided, and on Wikipedia we use verifiability. The reference can be verified, as it is real, tangible, published book. Not some blog. Not some self-published screed. But a real, verifiable book. Your dislike of capitalism aside: what is wrong with the provided reference? - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 22:50, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

The problem here is of logic and of actual use of the word "libertarian". This is why there is a book in the english language written by the canadian George Woodcock called Anarchism: A History of Libertarian Ideas and Movements and a more recent one by Robert Graham called [http://www.amazon.com/Anarchism-Volume-Three-Documentary-Libertarian/dp/1551643367/ref=pd_sim_b_3?ie=UTF8&refRID=07CDDECQYVCSKW01S9SC Anarchism Volume Three: The New Anarchism (1974-2008) (Anarchism: A Documentary History of Libertarian Ideas)]. Neither of these books include pro-capitalist ideas as part of anarchism and so they don´t include "anarchocapitalism" yet they identify all of anarchism as "libertarian". So that is how we can say ALL anarchism is libertarian. Saying "libertarian anarchism" is like saying "christian catholicism", "islamic suunism", "budhist theravada" or even "Metal Black metal". As far as the strange discussion on how anarchocapitalism has been called "libertarian anarchism" i think that will be the subject of the "anarchocapitalism" article and not of this one.--Eduen (talk) 23:54, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

You didn't explain what's wrong with the provided reference. And you keep using scarce-quotes with anarchocapitalism. So: could you explain what precisely is wrong with the provided reference? - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 01:25, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Quoting Wikipedia:Sources#Verifiability_does_not_guarantee_inclusion: "While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article."--Eduen (talk) 02:28, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

So what's wrong with the reference? - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 17:28, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Read again this wikipedia policy i just presented. But in fact identifying the highly controversial and many times not taken seriously as an anarchist position-anarcho-capitalism-is also a case of Wikipedia:Undue_weight#Due_and_undue_weight. Being also a very recent position and one which only seems to appear in the United States is giving too much importance to a highly minoritarian view. The wider and majoritarian view will be one which identifies all anarchism with libertarianism, as i showed before, and not only a single position within it. But also the wikipedia libertarianism article also recognizes anarchism as a whole as a form of libertarianism so in fact saying only one form of anarchism is "libertarian anarchism" will also go againts the consensus reached in the main libertarianism article.--Eduen (talk) 03:10, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for actually providing a real argument, rather than your bias. It's a refreshing change, Eduen. Now if only you could see your way to stop using scarce-quotes. Or perhaps I'll just use them in response. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 01:06, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

As i check the reference provided to support "anarchocapitalism" as the ONLY "libertarian anarchism" i see that it is from a single author so its being a neutral third party source can be also questioned. It is also a very recent text from 2012. As i see it, at most the fact that a single author calls "anarcho-capitalism" "libertarian anarchy" should guarantee a debate only in the "anarchocapitalism" article itself. It clearly does not deserve mention in the main anarchism article. This also since "anarchocapitalism" on itself has been very controversial whether it should be mentioned at all in this article.--Eduen (talk) 03:18, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

The provided source says "The form of anarchism that accepts this radical notion of freedom, our freedom to bind ourselves, I call libertarian anarchism." That is, the author is referring to his own use of the phrase "libertarian anarchism", not making any claim that that phrase is commonly used. Indeed, the fact that the author writes "I call" rather than "is called" suggests that he is introducing a novel or unusual phrase, and that "libertarian anarchism" is not commonly used to refer to this position. We should only include the phrase "libertarian anarchism" in this article if it is widely used, and the provided source does not say that the phrase is widely used. So, on the basis of that source, I don't think we should include the phrase "libertarian anarchism" as a synonym for "anarchocapitalism" in the article.VoluntarySlave (talk) 13:03, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

In regards the OP, the violent strand wouldn't be libertarian in terms of its disregard for classicial liberalism (non-aggression principle holding primacy). Also minarchists are on the fenec here.

All Nazism likewise is not inherently fascist as the latter has centralizing corporatist tendencies in its foundation (that is the antithesis of anarchism) the neo-Nazi variety/strain does not follow that (although im hard pressed to find an intellectual neo-Nazi, at least by self proclamation). Logically it follows then that all fascism is not Nazism, but I don't think you intended to touch that.Lihaas (talk) 14:45, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Incomplete/POV

the article is rated as "good" (but I don't know who reviewed). Its more than a little POV to gloss over the various aspects of anarchism such as the more right-leaning anarcho capitalism. I don't even see it as a section, yet the more FRINGE "free love" geta mentioned. Im not tagging or questing review yet, but we need to sort this out(Lihaas (talk) 14:39, 26 April 2014 (UTC)).

On all of that check archives on the discussion on the issue of anarchocapitalism. Anarchocapitalism is mentioned nevertheless in "postclassical" schools of thought alongside other recent lines of thought such as insurrectionary anarchism or green anarchism which get also the treatment of recent developments according to Wikipedia:Due weight. But also the idea of a "right wing anarchism" is highly problematic since anarchism is centrally an idea of anti-authoritarianism and the right wing in politics is associated with authoritarianism or beliefs in defense of authority.--Eduen (talk) 23:03, 26 April 2014 (UTC).

Well that's a POV issue because it dilutes one for the other. Right wing need this differentiations because it is NOT only as you say authoritarian...that's a Eurocentric view. fi the otherstrands get its own section this means that the other should to in order to balanace it out it is clearly significant and notableLihaas (talk) 01:03, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

From what you wrote here i only understood "eurocentrism". Hardly something that only happens in Europe. Since Europe colonized most of the world at some point in the XIX century, it also exported much of its form of viewing politics everywhere. And in the case of latin america, there is a tendency to count them as more or less part of the Western World since they share a catholic and iberian culture.--Eduen (talk) 01:13, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

possible Anarchism in the Middle Age in Spain: Castile and Aragon

Hello, people. Important pages of the history of Spain are very little known, even in Spain herself. And some of them include that since very ancient times we have traditional institutions that well could be calified of "Anarchist". These institutions were created after the Moors invasions of 711, between the centuries 8 and 9, but some experts say that before the Roman conquest of Spain there could have been some similar institutions among the Celt and Iberian tribes in Spain. These institutions may be called "Anarchist" because in them people had community of properties, decisions were taken in popular meetings, and the laws or Constitutions (Fueros in Spanish) were very popular. In these lands the kings had very few rights, only 3 or 4 rights. These institutions lasted many centuries and were originated in the kingdom of Castile. Soon, they were carried to Bascony (or Basque Country), and the kingdoms of Navarre and Aragon. For more information, you can go to the Wikipedia in Spanish and read articles like "Comunidad de Villa y Tierra", "Behetria" and "Anselmo Carretero". For the version in Aragon, you can read "Comunidad de Aldeas". thankyou !!--83.61.78.86 (talk) 16:27, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

You would need a source that links these societies to anarchism. It is unlikely any would actually call them anarchist, because they existed before the ideology was developed. TFD (talk) 20:46, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

if you would not call them "Anarchist", then, what would you say they were ? - Socialist ? democratic ? communist ? communers ? or what ? - some scholars have called them democratic, others scholars Socialist... i think the word Anarchist may be appropiate, although it is of course not a dogma. - thanks --81.44.231.242 (talk) 15:58, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

IP, I think TFD's point is not what we would call them, but that reliable sources specifically connect these communities with anarchism. If you have these sources, please add the information. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:29, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Occupy Movement??

Why in the world is the Occupy Movement listed under the "History" dropdown menu of the Anarchism pages? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.219.170.95 (talk) 19:56, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Is there a better place for it? -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 20:37, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

"Anarchy"

FYI, the scope and purpose of the anarchy article is under discussion, see talk:anarchy where it is proposed to be merged to stateless society -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 06:23, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

removal of satirical link from the 'external links' section

In my view, the satirical article is a good addition to the 'external links' section. It provides an interesting, fresh perspective and a relevant, important view. I believe this WP article is well-written, interesting, informative and useful, but it is also somewhat dry, humorless and could benefit from an external link to a small dose of humor. I don't see anything wrong with adding the satire to the article.

Humanity Surprised It Still Hasn’t Figured Out A Better Alternative To Letting Power-Hungry Assholes Decide Everything (2014-06-25), The Onion.

Thanks and regards, IjonTichy (talk) 23:21, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

This is not an entertainment site, it's an encyclopaedia. Humor isn't really appropriate. — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 14:06, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Wiki markup errors

There are 3 markup errors (no last bracket):

[[Murray Bookchin]. replace with [[Murray Bookchin]].
[[Murray Bookchin]. replace with [[Murray Bookchin]].
[[Sébastien Faure]. replace with [[Sébastien Faure]].

I have fixed these. Thanks for the notification! — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 14:49, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 November 2014 - removed duplicate sentence

The central tendency of anarchism as a social movement has been represented by anarcho-communism and anarcho-syndicalism, with individualist anarchism being primarily a literary phenomenon which nevertheless did have an impact on the bigger currents and individualists have also participated in large anarchist organisations. Many anarchists oppose all forms of aggression, supporting self-defense or non-violence (anarcho-pacifism), while others have supported the use of some coercive measures, including violent revolution and propaganda of the deed as means to achieve anarchist ends. 99.130.166.85 (talk) 07:02, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

You need o propose a specific change to the article and provide sources. TFD (talk) 07:18, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 November 2014 - REMOVAL OF SEMI-DUPLICATE SENTENCE

PLEASE CHANGE: Many anarchists oppose all forms of aggression, supporting self-defense or non-violence (anarcho-pacifism), while others have supported the use of some coercive measures, including violent revolution and propaganda of the deed, on the path to an anarchist society. Many anarchists oppose all forms of aggression, supporting self-defense or non-violence (anarcho-pacifism), while others have supported revolution and propaganda of the deed as means to achieve anarchist ends.

TO: Many anarchists oppose all forms of aggression, supporting self-defense or non-violence (anarcho-pacifism), while others have supported the use of some coercive measures, including violent revolution and propaganda of the deed as means to achieve anarchist ends.

BECAUSE OF SEMI-DUPLICATE SENTENCE 99.130.166.85 (talk) 07:19, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Done Stickee (talk) 08:31, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 November 2014

the link [[Category:Anarchism| ]] should be changed to [[Category:Anarchism]] Sleepyteddybear (talk) 13:35, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Done. Thanks! — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:28, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I undid the edit. The use of a blank space as a sort key makes this article appear first in Category:Anarchism, which is where it should be. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:59, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

User Leosylvester

I will have to ask user Leosylvester mainly this question. ¿Why does he think green anarchism deserves more, and even preferential space, over other non classical currents? As a secondary question i will have to ask him ¿why would he think green anarchism has been more influential or important than the other currents mentioned in "post classical currents"? Frankly i don´t see how green anarchism is more influential or important than, say insurrectionist anarchism, anarcha-feminism, synthesis anarchism or platformism. I cannot think that also while thinking in the main general sources on anarchism, or mentions or entries of anarchism in political or general encyclopedias. There more or less i have given user Leosylvester places where to look for support for his proposal. Clearly he has to answer these questions here with that kind of support, otherwise his proposals just cannot go.--Eduen (talk) 22:17, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi there. I think you are right, I am unaware of a basis for arguing that green anarchism should be given particular credit as a post-classical anarchist school of thought.

My latest edit proposed that individual subsections be added for some of the different post-classical schools of thought . This article has failed to give proper attention to these schools of thought, which are hugely influential in contemporary anarchism. In particular, the individual subsections that have so far been created have been primarily dedicated to explaining economics-focused schools of thought, whilst neglecting non-economic ones.

I propose adding individual subsections to: green anarchism, anarcha-feminism, anarcho-pacifism, and anarcho-capitalism, whilst explaining all others in a single subsection, and revising this based on the justified merit of each school of thought. However, my opinion is not strong on which of the post-classical schools of thought should have their own subsections. Where my opinion is strong, however, is that we should add some of these subsections.

- Leosylvester / 14:59 15 January 2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.139.174 (talk) 14:59, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

The fact is that this article is already too big in weight. This has been pointed out by other users before and so this limits any significant addition to this article. As such this article cannot support adding what you propose since it will just make us get calls to reduce article size. Anyway the article "anarchist schools of thought" already exist so users can go look at that big article which is more detailed in recent post classical currents as tendencies of thought. But also i will have to remind you that a political position is not only composed of thought but, as anything political, it will have attempts to influence society and to organize towards that goal. As such this article also has to deal with history at a significant lenght. Post classical currents happen to be currents which mostly appeared within the mid to late 20th century while anarchism exists since the mid 19th century. As such also Wikipedia:WEIGHT tells us to give aspects of a subject their weight on the article according to their importance to the whole history of the subject. That is why the classical currents (anarcho-communism, mutualism, anarcho syndicalism, collectivist anarchism and individualist anarchism) will have to get more space than post classical currents since these classical currents have existed continously since the mid 19th century while post classical ones only from the mid to late 20th century and only recently they have gained some importance within anarchism as a whole. Any major general work on anarchism will tell you that and will give them that bigger weight while dealing with post classical currents with less space as more recent phenomena, if they are dealt at all. I advise you to bring general sources on anarchism which point to the contrary that i have argued here so as to support your proposal.--Eduen (talk) 07:58, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Individualist anarchism and the anarchist movement as a whole

This mainly to respond to user Zosz and i will be glad to have an exchange with him here on this issue. In the first source it is described how CNT workers and FAI members read individualist anarchist publications in 1920s and 1930s Spain. We are speaking mainly of publications such as Iniciales, La Revista Blanca, Nosotros and others which are dealt in the work by catalan historian titled El anarquismo individualista en España: 1923–1938. (Individualist anarchism in Spain). I understand if he does not speak spanish but anyone can check this book which is on a copyleft license on the internet. So the individualist anarchist publications were read by people from those two organizations and if one read more this work one will see that the eclectic nature of those publications included treatment of issues beyond workerist matters and so they dealt with sexuality and birth control, religion and freethought, as well as with literature and the arts and more specific themes within spanish anarchism such as anarcho-naturism, among other themes. That is clearly an inpact on the wider spanish anarchist movement. This historical work also mentions how individualist also established infoshops-or as they call them there "Ateneos libertarios"-and the fact that J. Elizalde was even a secretary general of the Iberian Anarchist Federation. In the case of the postwar Italian Anarchist Federation, the individualist anarchist Cesare Zaccaria was one of the main personalities in its establishment. All of this shows that individualist anarchist have not just participated in the big anarchist organizations but also could have important roles in them. An individualist anarchists like Emile Armand was also an important name beyond the french anarchist movement and his influence and notoriety could go as fas as Argentina such as when the lover of italian-argentinian anarchist Severino Di Giovanni, America Scarfó, actually wrote a letter to Armand asking for his advice as far as his relationship with Di Giovanni. This shows Armand was considered a sort of authority on matters of love and sex within the anarchist movement of his time. In general individualist anarchists have not just voiced their opinions in forums but also published maganizes, newspapers and books and gave conferences and all of these were not only listened by individualist anarchists but by a big part of the wider anarchist movements of their time. This since Max Stirner published his main work The ego and his own until more recent times when a big name in anarchism like Murray Bookchin had to go as far as to write the book Social Anarchism or Lifestyle Anarchism in order to criticize a self described individualist anarchist like Hakim Bey along others anarchists belonging to the post-left anarchy tendency incluiding the stirnerist author Bob Black. As such, clearly individualist anarchism is having an impact on the wider anarchist movement through all of these activities and interventions. As far as the second affirmation i already mentioned how individualist anarchists could also join the bigger important anarchist organizations of their time. I can also add how the spanish individualist anarchist Miguel Giménez Igualada was also a member of the CNT trade union and the source which supports these affirmations mention how the french individualists Charles-Auguste Bontemps, Georges Vincey and André Arru also belonged to the post war Fédération Anarchiste. In the end the mere acknoledgement of the fact of the existence of individualist anarchism as a tendency is already a fact of impact in the anarchist movement as a whole. This so much so as to motivate a sector of the anarchist movement to come up with the label "social anarchism" in order to distinguish itself from individualist anarchism. But in general its existence caused an important debate over it in which anarchists as prominent as Errico Malatesta and Emma Goldman intervened, and in the case of Goldman in defense of individualism and of individualist authors like Stirner and Nietzsche.

To user Zosz i can say that i can very well respond to any of his doubts and i invite him to express his criticisms to these contents in this space where they should be dealt with and not just in edit summaries of editions. This is the second time that same user deletes these contents from the introduction and so i think we can ask him to support and to debate his views here, and this especially since his edits are in the introduction. I also advise that user to check the wikipedia article on individualist anarchism in order to assess the place and influence of individualist anarchism within the wider anarchist movement.--Eduen (talk) 08:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

(1) The reference used to cite "which nevertheless did have an impact on the bigger currents" is obviously original research, which in any case is invalid. There needs to be a reliable, non-primary source which specifically says exactly that "anarchist individualism had an impact on the bigger currents". Even in the case that this source existed, the rules on undue weight must be applied, and the "impact", a word which could mean anything, must be quantified. (2) The fact that individualist anarchists have participated in anarchist organizations is self-evident, redundant and does not belong in the lead. (3) Saying that revolution is 'coercive', 'a form of aggression', or not a form of 'self-defense', is POV. (4) Pacifist anarchism has been historically irrelevant, and only exists as a lifestylist tendency disassociated from actual anarchism. The rules on undue weight must be applied. (5) In my opinion, any mention of non-left anarchism simply does not belong in the lead, because despite existing, it does not have enough weight by any reasonable measure. Zozs (talk) 17:28, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

The affirmation "which nevertheless did have an impact on the bigger currents" is just a logical inference from the data provided. So if individualist anarchism was able to motivate a large scale debate within anarchism and even some anarchists of coming up with a term such as "social anarchism", it is obviously having an impact. It also motivated the proposals of "anarchism without adjectives" and "synthesis anarchism". Afterwards synthesist national federations such as Fédération Anarchiste, Iberian Anarchist Federation, Italian Anarchist Federation, and Nabat were created and so synthesism grew to constitute itself as the largest current within anarchism from an organizational point, after perhaps only anarchosyndicalism while platformism and insurrectionist currents have not been as large or as influential socially and historically. I will even argue that insurrectionism has been more influential than platformism for example since after all the likes of Luigi Galleani assasinated many heads of state and even bombed the building of Wall St which are clearly events with nationwide impact in the countries in which they happened and so they are mentioned in historical books not dedicated to anarchism. As far as the affirmations on revolution i really have not touched or edited them so i could be open to a change on that affirmation if user Zosz proposes something different. As far as the affirmation on anarcho-pacifism, it clearly has to come up in a discussion over tactics. Anarcho-pacifism became an important tendecy within anarchism after World War I but i will have to ask user Zozs to tell us what is he comparing anarcho-pacifism to so as to say it has had "no historical relevancy". Anyway, anarcho-pacifism is not that much mentioned and occupies less space in the whole article than the main classical currents so it clearly is given its due place within anarchism. Nevertheless anarcho-pacifism will tend to be mentioned in all the general works on anarchism listed in the bibliography. Now as far as "non-left anarchism" i seriously do not know what user Zozs is talking about here and i will be grateful if he could tell us which "right wing tendency" of anarchism is being mentioned in the introduction.--Eduen (talk) 22:04, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

is just a logical inference from the data provided - that's THE definition of a violation of WP:OR, so yeah, that sentence quite obviously violates the policy on original research. You need to cite a source which has made that inference for you. We're not here to discuss our views, we're here to discuss which reliable sources to use to give which information. individualists have also participated in large anarchist organisations - why should this be mentioned at all in the lead? Tendencies of a certain ideology always have some representation in parties of that ideology, and this is nothing special. Note the word 'primarily' in the sentence "individualist anarchism being primarily a literary phenomenon", which eliminates the necessity of these two latter sentences. Pacifist anarchism should not be mentioned in the lead (no weight at all), and lifestylist anarchism (though it is not being called by this term) should not be talked about in an article about anarchism. Zozs (talk) 22:43, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I don´t think you can deny the reliability of the works which show individualist anarchism has influenced the bigger currents of it. You can discuss with us that if you want anyway. A more crucial point in all of this is that both affirmations that "The central tendency within anarchism has been ...." and "individualist anarchism has been primarely a literary phenomenon" are supported by the same single source. I happen to have a copy of the book by Skirda which supports both this affirmations. I have come to the fact that this particular affirmation is not something written by Skirda himself but that relies from what is said in a manifesto by "The Group of Russian Anarchists Abroad...(from) March 1926)." If there are any doubts check a version of this book which is freely avalilable at [[2]]. The page which the reference provides for both affirmations appear in the same page 191. This manifesto, by a "Group of Russian Anarchists Abroad" is just being reprinted in this text by Skirda as a sort of addendum titled "Text and documents". As such this does not count as a reliable source since it is not something coming from the body of an academic general work on anarchism but from a manifesto by a particular group of anarchists at a particular time. I will then proceed to delete both affirmations which says that "the central tendency of anarchism..." and "individualist anarchism is primarely a literary phenomenon" since both come from this single bad source.--Eduen (talk) 07:31, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Now as to the issue which you point to about "lifestylist anarchism" i frankly don´t know what you are talking about. If you seriously want to raise this issue please point us to reliable general works on anarchism as a whole where the issue of "lifestylism" is dealt. From my knowledge, the problematic of "lifestylism" within anarchism has only taken some importance mostly within the US anarchist milieu after the publication by Murray Bookchin of the book Social Anarchism or Lifestyle Anarchism. That book was written in the 1990s and as such it cannot be taken as an important general historical problematic to be taken into account within the introduction of anarchism, a political position which exists at least from the mid 19th century. Anyway i invite you to argue otherwise and so that will mean that you will show us how "lifestylism" was a concept of discussion and importance before the 1990s within anarchism. Still, what a single anarchist author thinks about anarchism in aclearly polemical political intervention is not good enough to show us this has been an important problematic within the whole history of anarchism and so counter arguments to the "lifestylism" thesis can be brought here also. Frankly that whole discussion seems to me only belongs in the Lifestyle anarchism article and not in the english wikipedia "anarchism" article.--Eduen (talk) 08:16, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Eduen, I'm fairly certain I have comprehensive secondary sources on anarchism that will support the claim that "the central tendency within anarchism" is communism and syndicalism. I will research this and reinstate the material if I am correct about the reliable sources. I will agree with you about lifestyle anarchism though: it is a recent critique that doesn't appear except through the writings of Murray Bookchin and therefore should not receive much, if any, attention, due to Wikipedia's policy on WP:DUE WEIGHT. (And I'm a social ecologist!) — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:37, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, I can't seem to recall which source it was that stated almost exactly what was recently removed, i.e., that the dominant currents were communism and syndicalism, despite a strong individualism in America (and other places, though to a lesser degree). I did find these quotes though:

Of the two, social anarchists (communist-anarchists, anarcho-syndicalists and so on) have always been the vast majority, with individualist anarchism being restricted mostly to the United States.

— McKay, Iain (2011). The Anarchist FAQ. The Anarchist Library. p. 138.

Although anarchist communism was perhaps the most influential anarchist doctrine, soon spreading throughout Europe, Latin America and later Asia, the First International had bequeathed to the anarchist movement another doctrine of comparable significance, anarcho-syndicalism (Chapter 1 2), a combination of anarchism and revolutionary trade unionism based on direct action (Chapter 1 0) and anti-parliamentarianism.

Of lesser significance were anarchist collectivism (Selections 36 and 55), where distribution of wealth was to be based on labour, and individualist anarchism (Selections 42 and 6 1 ), which for the most part was but a footnote to Max Stirner (Selection 1 1 ).

— Graham, Robert (2005). "Preface". In Anarchism: A Documentary History of Libertarian Ideas, Volume One: From Anarchy to Anarchism (300CE to 1939). Montréal, CA: Black Rose Books. p. xiii.

I'm not sure if these would support a restoration of the deleted material as is, or if some modification is appropriate. I will think on this and return. — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 22:10, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

What has to replace that is a good paragraph summarizing anarchist history. Not discussions on what currents of thought have been bigger or smaller. I suggest checking the other articles on major political ideologies in wikipedia such as socialism, conservatism, fascism or liberalism. They all tend to have a historical summary at the last paragraph of the intro.--Eduen (talk) 08:15, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Revert by User:Helpsome of my insertion of dictionary definition

There is a difference between the generally-accepted, standard dictionary definitions and the apparently largely personal definitions by some academics given here, so I made this change:

1st edit: addition of the dictionary definition of “anarchism” with a reference listing six dictionary definitions to that effect:

Anarchism is a doctrine advocating the abolition of government. Some use the term to mean...[resumes from previous material].

2nd edit: addition of connecting material to an already-given individual academic definition:

In that definition, ...[resumes from previous material].

This was a straightforward addition of one reliable source reference (and minimal connecting material) totalling only 486 characters (most of which were taken up by the reference), without removing any previous material, but was reverted by User:Helpsome on the grounds that “a change this large needs discussion”. Do many others share Helpsome’s objection before I re-insert it? FivePillarPurist (talk) 20:20, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Your change was larger than adding a dictionary definition.

Original text.

Anarchism is a political philosophy that advocates stateless societies often defined as self-governed voluntary institutions, but that several authors have defined as more specific institutions based on non-hierarchical free associations. Anarchism holds the state to be undesirable, unnecessary, or harmful. While anti-statism is central, anarchism entails opposing authority or hierarchical organisation in the conduct of human relations, including, but not limited to, the state system.

Your changes with relevant alterations in bold.

Anarchism is a doctrine advocating the abolition of government. Some use the term to mean a political philosophy that advocates stateless societies often defined as self-governed voluntary institutions, but that several authors have defined as more specific institutions based on non-hierarchical free associations. In that definition, anarchism holds the state to be undesirable, unnecessary, or harmful. While anti-statism is central, anarchism entails opposing authority or hierarchical organisation in the conduct of human relations, including, but not limited to, the state system

By putting all those qualifiers in, you are making it sound like the dictionary definition is the "accepted" definition and the wider definition is simply what "some" people think. It is disingenuous and it takes more than a sentence from a dictionary definition to describe a political philosophy. Helpsome (talk) 21:59, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Hopefully we will rely also on encyclopedic and general work definitions and not just in dictionary definitions. Anarchism has never reduced itself to "anti-statism". In that form even the word "government" has been used. Dictionary.com defines "government" as "6.; control; management; rule: the government of one's conduct." [3] Merriam Webster says that "2. obsolete : moral conduct or behavior : discretion". In that way an individual can "govern" himself or can excercise "self-government". This is clearly linked with the idea of autonomy while heteronomy will allude to being "governed". So George Woodcock points to anarchism saying that "All anarchists deny authority; many of them fight against it." In that way anarchism opposes "authority" and authority is not only present in the state system but in other spheres of life as pointed out by the encyclopedic and general works on anarchism provided in this introduction. An encyclopedia intends to provide more profound and extensive analysis of the objects dealt within it and so we cannot rely here on dictionary definitions only who tend to provide only one sentence definitions anyway. But we also must consider that "anarchy" itself is not defined only as "absence of state". As such Dictionary.com says "4. lack of obedience to an authority; insubordination: the anarchy of his rebellious teenage years."[4]. The Free dictionary says "3. Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose" which is something which can occur in any type of grouping besides the existence or not of the state form.[5] Merriam Webster says that " a : absence or denial of any authority or established order b : absence of order : disorder <not manicured plots but a wild anarchy of nature — Israel Shenker>"[6]. As such also in dictionary definitions the rejection of authority appear linked to "anarchy" just as Woodcock links anarchism to rejection of authority.--Eduen (talk) 03:25, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

After a few days, it seems most are largely indifferent to my change. Leaving aside my alleged disingenuousness, the policy on dictionaries is that we don’t attempt to limit articles to a dictionary definition - which is why I didn’t - but that nevertheless an article is supposed to begin with a good definition, (as is made clear here, here, and here). A “good definition” is one that reflects the majority definition, as per all these Neutral point of view policy stipulations:

• Due and undue weight
• Due and undue weight: Balancing aspects
• Due and undue weight: Giving ”equal validity” can create a false balance
• Balance
• Impartial tone
• Bias in sources.

As for what constitutes the majority definition, it’s probably the one that’s found in the world’s dictionaries. FivePillarPurist (talk) 15:31, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

The current version incorporates both rejection of the state and of social hierarchies in general in a balanced form. Anyway the word "government" cannot be seen as synonymous with the state form. My previous intervention here shows how even dictionary definitions, which usually present a list of short sentences, go beyond a definition of "anarchism" and "anarchy" as mere anti-statism. This version presents a definition which not only includes what one sentence dictionary definitions state but also what encyclopedias and general works on anarchism say.--Eduen (talk) 04:05, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

References

Very Small Change to Introduction

Surely describing anarchism as subtle goes against a NPOV? My shorter OED 5th edition defines subtle as "(of a thing) ingenious, cleverly designed, skilfully contrived". I very slightly modified the wording to remove subtle from the introduction but this change has been reverted twice. I would be interested to hear what descriptive power you think subtle adds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enlightened editor (talk • contribs) 14:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Anarchism a right-wing ideology too?

The opening of this article says, "Anarchism is usually considered a radical left-wing ideology." This statement is no doubt true, although the person who wrote it saw fit to include the qualifier "usually" so as not to make the statement absolute. I call attention to the statement because more and more frequently I see the term "right-wing anarchist." For example, the publisher's description of T.C. Boyle's new novel calls its characters "right-wing anarchists who refuse to acknowledge the laws and regulations of the state, considering them to be false and non-applicable." Should this article cover "right-wing anarchism"? I'd like to know more about this strain of anarchism. Chisme (talk) 17:40, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

In order to include something new here, we clearly need a better reference than something mentioned in a novel. Statements present in novels are not acceptable sources of support within wikipedia.--Eduen (talk) 05:38, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Small historical paragraph for the intro

I propose the following in order to keep this article in similar standards to those of other political ideologies within english language wikipedia such as conservatism, socialism, liberalism and fascism. All of these articles have a short historical paragraph in the intro and the anarchism article also had that but the historical paragraph was taken out due to a debate which showed important weakenesses in it. I propose this draft of a paragraph for consideration with the hopes of improving it and adding the needed references to support the affirmations within it. As such I am open to hearing opinions and contributions to it but also having in mind that it cannot be significantly different in lenght to this proposal which i present here:

"Anarchism as a modern political movement and theory appeared clearly within the post-enlightenment and french revolution european environment soon also developing a tendency within the :United States in the early 19th century. The classic shaping works of authors :such as Pierre Joseph Proudhon, Mikhail Bakunin and Peter Kropotkin appeared within the contexts of mid to late 19th century :european social uprisings and events such as the Revolutions of 1848, the Commune of Paris and the establishment of the First socialist workers international and the rising workers movment in which anarchism participated as a literary and as a social movement. Something :similar happened in the 20th century within the context of the revolutions and social uprisings of the early 20th century from the Russian revolution to the World War II eras after which anarchism also expanded to other continents and regions such as Latin america, Asia and Africa. After that period anarchism returned under new tendencies also playing activist and theoretical roles in events in the late 20th century and early 21st century such as in the 1960s social unrest events, in new social movements such as feminism and ecologism and the later alter-globalization/anti-globalization movements until today."--Eduen (talk) 05:38, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I suggest merging the article Criticisms of anarchism with anarchism to avoid a POV fork. criticismS (multiple) is just showing that the article is a different POV than Anarchism which is not NPOV. The article is small only a few hundred words we can easily work it into the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bryce Carmony (talk • contribs) 19:34, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

It sounds like your reasons for a move could be equally applied to all of the articles in Category:Criticisms by ideology. I suggest you propose this for all of them. I'm not sure a support the idea, but I definitely think it merits wider discussion.  Liam987(talk) 23:01, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey Liam, I'm looking at a list on advance search and it gives me "Criticism of" 150ish of them. the reason I made one for anarchism is that it's only 100 words long (so it would be the easiest to merge) I have suggested mergers for a lot of "Criticism of" articles. Google, Microsoft, Apple Inc., eBay, Dish Network, Comcast, and a few others. I think that we are straying from NPOV when we say "critical goes one article non critical goes to another." I think articles are best when they have one article with both sides represented NPOV, not giving undue weight to criticism but not burying it either. Bryce Carmony (talk) 23:42, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Oppose - the Anarchism article is quite long. That article could have a summary of criticisms with a link to this article. (BTW I changed the talk page heading to Merger proposal, this makes the merger template link directly to this section). Jonpatterns (talk) 20:51, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I disagree, the Criticism of Anarchism is only 4 paragraphs. this article has a very long "history of anarchism" despite the fact we have a "History of Anarchism" article. so we can trim down the history here ( maybe even expanding the history article ) and then that could create easily 3-4 paragraphs of space for the "criticism of anarchism" Bryce Carmony (talk) 21:13, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

The Criticism of Anarchism article is four paragraphs as it stands. However, I believe there is a lot more than could be added. Ideally, the Anarchism main article should have sections that give an overview, which are then linked the the fuller articles. This allows readers new to the subject to get an overview, while making available more detailed information if desired. I believe this is the best approach with subjects as broad as Anarchism.Jonpatterns (talk) 21:55, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

That would create 2 articles of 1 topic to have 2 POVs which is against NPOV. There are a lot of ways we can divide a big topic into smaller topics. but we don't get to treat the same topic twice with 2 povs Bryce Carmony (talk) 23:21, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose - On lengthy philosophical articles such as this one, it's very helpful for readers to have an easily to find and navigable criticism section, just as you see here: (Socialism#Criticism) --- (Capitalism#Criticism) --- (Communism#Criticism) ---- (Libertarianism#Criticism). -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 07:14, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - The anarchism article, just like any political ideology article, should deal mainly with descriptions of the political position. Also the article Criticisms of anarchism is not very good. Additional space should be used in the anarchism article towards this previously mentioned description. Also the articles on other political ideologies such as conservatism or liberalism do not include a criticisms section either. If this article is going to include that, the articles on conservatism and liberalism should also be made to include a criticism section.--Eduen (talk) 07:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Criticism of Communism has already been merged into "communism" The all of the ideology "criticism of" articles are going to get moved in because keeping them separate violates NPOV by unfairly presenting the information and disproportionately conveying the information. NPOV can't be overwritten by consensus. We are talented editors we can weave 4 paragraphs into an article. keeping the good sources that are verifiable and bad sources we can ditch. Bryce Carmony (talk) 07:26, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - The wikipedia articles on other political ideologies such as conservatism, socialism, liberalism or fascism don´t do this. Why should this one be different?--Eduen (talk) 05:41, 20 October 2015 (UTC)