Talk:Individualist anarchism: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 12:42, 18 August 2024

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.

Anarchism

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anarchism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of anarchism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnarchismWikipedia:WikiProject AnarchismTemplate:WikiProject Anarchismanarchism

Anarchism WikiProject open tasks
watch · edit · history · talk · purge

Recognized content · Drafts & requests · Subscribe · Member list · Resources · How can I help?

Did you know

11 Jan 2025 – Los Solidarios (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Grnrchst (t · c); see discussion

Articles for deletion

08 Jan 2025 – Kevin Carson (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Grnrchst (t · c); see discussion (6 participants)

Good article nominees

28 Nov 2024 – Alt Llobregat insurrection (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Grnrchst (t · c); start discussion

Peer reviews

26 Oct 2024 – Lucy Parsons (talk · edit · hist) has been put up for PR by Mujinga (t · c); see discussion

Articles for creation

13 Dec 2024 – Draft:José de Molina (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by MexicanSoda (t · c)

Cleanup (0) · Potentially related articles · Recent edits · Recent Commons images · Stub expansion project (515)

Economics Mid‑importance

	Business and economics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Philosophy: Social and political / Modern / Contemporary Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Social and political philosophy
	Modern philosophy
	Contemporary philosophy

Politics: Libertarianism Mid‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Libertarianism portal This article is supported by WikiProject Libertarianism (assessed as High-importance).

Sociology Mid‑importance

	Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6

This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by when more than 3 sections are present.

Anarchism Tree Diagram

Sock, now indeffed. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 01:29, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Anarchism Tree

It helps to have a diagram of the various schools of anarchism. PhilLiberty (talk) 20:51, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BeŻet, you should discuss things rather than unilaterally deleting my edits. PhilLiberty (talk) 20:56, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@PhilLiberty: Could you please stop vandalizing pages using some diagrams you created. Per WP:BRD, you are making a bold change that warrants discussion. There is a large number of sources indicating that anarcho-capitalism has nothing to do with anarchism, let alone individualist anarchism. If you disagree, discuss this first before engaging in an edit war. BeŻet (talk) 20:58, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm pretty good at the bold, revert, and discuss cycle. By the definitions given in Wikipedia articles and this article, anarcho-capitalism qualifies as individualist anarchism. This is supported by Benjamin Tucker and Voltairine de Cleyre among others. It is true that a large number of sources, virtually all sectarian anarcho-socialists, that cite the old "true Scotsman" aka dildo fallacy. I would say that this position was refuted long ago in essays like this: http://www.ozarkia.net/bill/anarchism/library/rg-anarcho-cap.html Now I will boldly revert again. PhilLiberty (talk) 21:16, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But that's not true. Benjamin Tucker wasn't even alive when Rothbard came up with his ideology. Stop edit warring, or you will be reported. BeŻet (talk) 21:18, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is an unreadable mess

I don't even know where to start with this. This article is so absurdly long due to its apparent commitment to throw everything but the kitchen sink in. There is no rhyme or reason to its structure, it just bounces randomly between sub-subjects, individuals and areas even remotely associated with the subject. The sources also appear to be a mix of clearly reliable sources, primary sources and random blog posts from even more random authors. I don't understand how any of this is remotely useful to anyone, whether they be unaffiliated casual readers or dyed-in-the-wool Stirner fans. Does anybody have any idea for how we could improve this article that doesn't involve just blowing it up and starting over? Grnrchst (talk) 11:22, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I don't see how it's salvagable. WP:TNT it is. czar 14:58, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After many hours of massive cleanup, wow. So many entire paragraphs or sections had no bearing on the article topic. One of the best examples is special:diff/1240739832. Probably why it took so long to address.

Something I noticed about the content is that there largely aren't (at least in the current version) narrative threads that connect any of the article sections. The main threads are the influence of Stirnerism (moreso than "individualist anarchism" tradition), debates over definitions, and loose connections between individuals who prominently identified as individual anarchists. Now that all that irrelevant "kitchen sink" biographical detail has been excised, I think a lot of the topics would be better off merged elsewhere and that this overview would be best if much shorter, giving the broad strokes of the topic. czar 15:24, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for taking the time and effort to clean this up. I can't say I'm surprised to find out how much of it was based on sources that had no relation to the subject, given how many of these ideology articles I've come across where anywhere up to 90% of the text is synthetic waffle. I'm sure there's more to be done on cutting the crap out of this one, but at the very least this article is more readable now. Thanks again. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:42, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many anarcho-communists regard themselves as radical individualists

Many anarcho-communists regard themselves as radical individualists,^[1] seeing anarcho-communism as the best social system for the realization of individual freedom.^[2]

References

^ Baginki, Max (May 1907). "Stirner: The Ego and His Own" Archived 2017-09-07 at the Wayback Machine. Mother Earth (2: 3). "Modern Communists are more individualistic than Stirner. To them, not merely religion, morality, family and State are spooks, but property also is no more than a spook, in whose name the individual is enslaved — and how enslaved! [...] Communism thus creates a basis for the liberty and Eigenheit of the individual. I am a Communist because I am an Individualist. Fully as heartily the Communists concur with Stirner when he puts the word take in place of demand — that leads to the dissolution of property, to expropriation. Individualism and Communism go hand in hand."; Novatore, Renzo (1924). "Towards the Creative Nothing" Archived 2011-07-28 at the Wayback Machine; Gray, Christopher (1974). Leaving the Twentieth Century. p. 88; Black, Bob (2010). "Nightmares of Reason" Archived 2010-10-27 at the Wayback Machine. "[C]ommunism is the final fulfillment of individualism. [...] The apparent contradiction between individualism and communism rests on a misunderstanding of both. [...] Subjectivity is also objective: the individual really is subjective. It is nonsense to speak of "emphatically prioritizing the social over the individual," [...]. You may as well speak of prioritizing the chicken over the egg. Anarchy is a "method of individualization." It aims to combine the greatest individual development with the greatest communal unity".

^ Kropotkin, Peter (1901). "Communism and Anarchy" Archived 2021-10-23 at the Wayback Machine. "Communism is the one which guarantees the greatest amount of individual liberty — provided that the idea that begets the community be Liberty, Anarchy [...]. Communism guarantees economic freedom better than any other form of association, because it can guarantee wellbeing, even luxury, in return for a few hours of work instead of a day's work."; Truda, Dielo (1926). "Organisational Platform of the Libertarian Communists" Archived 2011-07-28 at the Wayback Machine. "This other society will be libertarian communism, in which social solidarity and free individuality find their full expression, and in which these two ideas develop in perfect harmony."; "My Perspectives" Archived 2020-04-15 at the Wayback Machine. Willful Disobedience (2: 12). "I see the dichotomies made between individualism and communism, individual revolt and class struggle, the struggle against human exploitation and the exploitation of nature as false dichotomies and feel that those who accept them are impoverishing their own critique and struggle."; Brown, L. Susan (2002). The Politics of Individualism. Black Rose Books; Brown, L. Susan (2 February 2011). "Does Work Really Work?" Archived 2012-06-13 at the Wayback Machine.

Moving this claim here for consideration as (1) it's way too heavy for the lede, and (2) is unclear whether it's original research. If this is noteworthy for the lede, this evidence should be presented in the article body and summarized in the lede. If this claim holds, it should not require any of the primary sources (or synthesis between them) and should be reduced to the reliable, secondary sources that confirm the claim. czar 14:18, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[Stirner:_The_Ego_and_His_Own-1] Baginki, Max (May 1907). "Stirner: The Ego and His Own" Archived 2017-09-07 at the Wayback Machine. Mother Earth (2: 3). "Modern Communists are more individualistic than Stirner. To them, not merely religion, morality, family and State are spooks, but property also is no more than a spook, in whose name the individual is enslaved — and how enslaved! [...] Communism thus creates a basis for the liberty and Eigenheit of the individual. I am a Communist because I am an Individualist. Fully as heartily the Communists concur with Stirner when he puts the word take in place of demand — that leads to the dissolution of property, to expropriation. Individualism and Communism go hand in hand."; Novatore, Renzo (1924). "Towards the Creative Nothing" Archived 2011-07-28 at the Wayback Machine; Gray, Christopher (1974). Leaving the Twentieth Century. p. 88; Black, Bob (2010). "Nightmares of Reason" Archived 2010-10-27 at the Wayback Machine. "[C]ommunism is the final fulfillment of individualism. [...] The apparent contradiction between individualism and communism rests on a misunderstanding of both. [...] Subjectivity is also objective: the individual really is subjective. It is nonsense to speak of "emphatically prioritizing the social over the individual," [...]. You may as well speak of prioritizing the chicken over the egg. Anarchy is a "method of individualization." It aims to combine the greatest individual development with the greatest communal unity".

[Communism_and_Anarchy-2] Kropotkin, Peter (1901). "Communism and Anarchy" Archived 2021-10-23 at the Wayback Machine. "Communism is the one which guarantees the greatest amount of individual liberty — provided that the idea that begets the community be Liberty, Anarchy [...]. Communism guarantees economic freedom better than any other form of association, because it can guarantee wellbeing, even luxury, in return for a few hours of work instead of a day's work."; Truda, Dielo (1926). "Organisational Platform of the Libertarian Communists" Archived 2011-07-28 at the Wayback Machine. "This other society will be libertarian communism, in which social solidarity and free individuality find their full expression, and in which these two ideas develop in perfect harmony."; "My Perspectives" Archived 2020-04-15 at the Wayback Machine. Willful Disobedience (2: 12). "I see the dichotomies made between individualism and communism, individual revolt and class struggle, the struggle against human exploitation and the exploitation of nature as false dichotomies and feel that those who accept them are impoverishing their own critique and struggle."; Brown, L. Susan (2002). The Politics of Individualism. Black Rose Books; Brown, L. Susan (2 February 2011). "Does Work Really Work?" Archived 2012-06-13 at the Wayback Machine.

[1]

[2]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-{{Vital article|class=C|level=5|topic=Society}}
 {{Controversial-issues}}
+{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|vital=yes|1=
-{{WikiProjectBannerShell|
-{{WikiProject Economics|class=C|importance=mid}}
+{{WikiProject Anarchism}}
-{{WikiProject Libertarianism|class=C|importance=top}}
+{{WikiProject Economics|importance=mid}}
-{{WikiProject Philosophy|class=C|importance=mid|political=yes|modern=yes|contemporary=yes}}
+{{WikiProject Philosophy|importance=mid|political=yes|modern=yes|contemporary=yes}}
-{{WikiProject Politics|class=C|importance=mid}}
+{{WikiProject Politics|importance=mid|libertarianism=yes|libertarianism-importance=high}}
-{{WikiProject Sociology|class=C|importance=mid}}
+{{WikiProject Sociology|importance=mid}}
-{{WikiProject Anarchism|class=C|importance=mid}}
 }}
 {{User:MiszaBot/config
@@ Line 20: / Line 18: @@
 {{archives|age=180}}
-== External links modified ==
+== Anarchism Tree Diagram ==
+{{hat|1=Sock, now indeffed. <span class="nowrap"> <span style="font-family:courier">-- [[User:Tamzin|<span style="color:deeppink;">Tamzin</span>]]</span><sup>[''[[User talk:Tamzin|<span style="color:deeppink;">cetacean needed</span>]]'']</sup> (she/they)</span> 01:29, 29 January 2022 (UTC)}}
-Hello fellow Wikipedians,
+[[File:AnarchismTree10.jpg|560px|Anarchism Tree]]
+It helps to have a diagram of the various schools of anarchism. [[User:PhilLiberty|PhilLiberty]] ([[User talk:PhilLiberty|talk]]) 20:51, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
-I have just modified 7 external links on [[Individualist anarchism]]. Please take a moment to review [[special:diff/811343838|my edit]]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:
-*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081210202509/http://tmh.floonet.net/articles/carlson.html to http://tmh.floonet.net/articles/carlson.html
-*Added {{tlx|dead link}} tag to http://libertariannation.org/a/f62m1.html
-*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120404134143/http://www.regards.fr/culture/interview-des-lecteurs-michel to http://www.regards.fr/culture/interview-des-lecteurs-michel
-*Added {{tlx|dead link}} tag to http://savoir.pingouin.org/index.php/Albert_Libertad
-*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081120083916/http://www.defenestrator.org/roblosricos/writings/illegalism.htm to http://www.defenestrator.org/roblosricos/writings/illegalism.htm
-*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722043805/http://www.novatore.it/Una_biografia.html to http://www.novatore.it/Una_biografia.html
-*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090909052618/http://www.anarchaos.it/?p=184 to http://www.anarchaos.it/?p=184
-*Added {{tlx|dead link}} tag to http://libertariannation.org/a/f62m1.html
-*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101028163000/http://flag.blackened.net/liberty/libertarians.html to http://flag.blackened.net/liberty/libertarians.html
-*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111110194505/http://ardentpress.org/enemiesofsociety.html to http://ardentpress.org/enemiesofsociety.html
+BeŻet, you should discuss things rather than unilaterally deleting my edits. [[User:PhilLiberty|PhilLiberty]] ([[User talk:PhilLiberty|talk]]) 20:56, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
-When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
+:{{Ping|PhilLiberty}} Could you please stop vandalizing pages using some diagrams you created. Per [[WP:BRD]], you are making a bold change that warrants discussion. There is a large number of sources indicating that anarcho-capitalism has nothing to do with anarchism, let alone individualist anarchism. If you disagree, discuss this first before engaging in an edit war. [[User:BeŻet|BeŻet]] ([[User talk:BeŻet|talk]]) 20:58, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
+::Yes, I'm pretty good at the bold, revert, and discuss cycle.  By the definitions given in Wikipedia articles and this article, anarcho-capitalism qualifies as individualist anarchism. This is supported by Benjamin Tucker and Voltairine de Cleyre among others. It is true that a large number of sources, virtually all sectarian anarcho-socialists, that cite the old "true Scotsman" aka dildo fallacy. I would say that this position was refuted long ago in essays like this: http://www.ozarkia.net/bill/anarchism/library/rg-anarcho-cap.html Now I will boldly revert again. [[User:PhilLiberty|PhilLiberty]] ([[User talk:PhilLiberty|talk]]) 21:16, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
+:::But that's not true. Benjamin Tucker wasn't even alive when Rothbard came up with his ideology. Stop edit warring, or you will be reported. [[User:BeŻet|BeŻet]] ([[User talk:BeŻet|talk]]) 21:18, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
+{{hab}}
+== This article is an unreadable mess ==
-{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}
+I don't even know where to start with this. This article is so absurdly long due to its apparent commitment to throw [[scope creep|everything but the kitchen sink]] in. There is no rhyme or reason to its structure, it just bounces randomly between sub-subjects, individuals and areas even remotely associated with the subject. The sources also appear to be a mix of clearly reliable sources, primary sources and random blog posts from even more random authors. I don't understand how any of this is remotely useful to anyone, whether they be unaffiliated casual readers or dyed-in-the-wool Stirner fans. Does anybody have any idea for how we could improve this article that doesn't involve just [[WP:TNT|blowing it up and starting over]]? [[User:Grnrchst|Grnrchst]] ([[User talk:Grnrchst|talk]]) 11:22, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
-Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 01:10, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
+:Agreed. I don't see how it's salvagable. [[WP:TNT]] it is. <span style="background:#F3F3F3; padding:3px 9px 4px">[[User talk:Czar|<span style='font:bold small-caps 1.2em sans-serif;color:#871E8D'>czar</span>]]</span> 14:58, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
-== Anarcho-capitalism section ==
+::After many hours of massive cleanup, wow. So many entire paragraphs or sections had no bearing on the article topic. One of the best examples is [[special:diff/1240739832]]. Probably why it took so long to address.
-The long-standing section on anarcho-capitalism seems quite balanced in treating the views of those who do and do not consider it a form of anarchism, and there are sources though I mostly don't have them at hand to check their quality.  I think it should be restored, albeit possibly with improved sourcing.  The action by Davide King to remove it does not strike me as adhering to the neutral point of view. --[[User:Trovatore|Trovatore]] ([[User talk:Trovatore|talk]]) 01:39, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
+::Something I noticed about the content is that there largely aren't (at least in the current version) narrative threads that connect any of the article sections. The main threads are the influence of Stirnerism (moreso than "individualist anarchism" tradition), debates over definitions, and loose connections between individuals who prominently identified as individual anarchists. Now that all that irrelevant "kitchen sink" biographical detail has been excised, I think a lot of the topics would be better off merged elsewhere and that this overview would be best if much shorter, giving the broad strokes of the topic. <span style="background:#F3F3F3; color:inherit; padding:3px 9px 4px">[[User talk:Czar|<span style='font:bold small-caps 1.2em sans-serif;color:#871E8D'>czar</span>]]</span> 15:24, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
+:::Thanks so much for taking the time and effort to clean this up. I can't say I'm surprised to find out how much of it was based on sources that had no relation to the subject, given how many of these ideology articles I've come across where anywhere up to 90% of the text is synthetic waffle. I'm sure there's more to be done on cutting the crap out of this one, but at the very least this article is more readable now. Thanks again. --[[User:Grnrchst|Grnrchst]] ([[User talk:Grnrchst|talk]]) 12:42, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
+== Many anarcho-communists regard themselves as radical individualists ==
-Addendum:  I completely disagree with Davide's edit summary that says we should not include it if a "majority" of sources do not.  That is entirely the wrong standard.  If a significant minority include it, then it should be included, but with a mention of the sources that agree and disagree.  Which is pretty much the way the section was prior to removal. --[[User:Trovatore|Trovatore]] ([[User talk:Trovatore|talk]]) 01:42, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
+<blockquote style="background:#f5faff; border: 1px solid black; padding: 1em;">
-Looking at the other edits that Davide had complained I reverted at the same time:  The removal of the "agorism" section was similarly unjustified.  The removal of the bit about Borges was possibly justified on the basis of being out of place there and maybe a little trivial, but should have been in a separate edit and justified separately.  The section on Joe Peacott, I agree, should be restored, but when there's a complicated edit like that with problematic parts, in my opinion the best thing is to undo the whole edit, and then treat the pieces separately. --[[User:Trovatore|Trovatore]] ([[User talk:Trovatore|talk]]) 01:56, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
+Many [[anarcho-communists]] regard themselves as radical individualists,<ref name="Stirner: The Ego and His Own">[[Max Baginski|Baginki, Max]] (May 1907). [http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/goldman/ME/mev2n3.html#142 "Stirner: The Ego and His Own"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170907103320/http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/goldman/ME/mev2n3.html#142 |date=2017-09-07 }}. ''[[Mother Earth (magazine)|Mother Earth]]'' (2: 3). "Modern Communists are more individualistic than Stirner. To them, not merely religion, morality, family and State are spooks, but property also is no more than a spook, in whose name the individual is enslaved — and how enslaved! [...] Communism thus creates a basis for the liberty and [[wikt:Eigenheit|Eigenheit]] of the individual. I am a Communist because I am an Individualist. Fully as heartily the Communists concur with Stirner when he puts the word take in place of demand — that leads to the dissolution of property, to expropriation. Individualism and Communism go hand in hand."; [[Renzo Novatore|Novatore, Renzo]] (1924). [http://www.theanarchistlibrary.org/HTML/Renzo_Novatore__Toward_the_Creative_Nothing.html "Towards the Creative Nothing"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110728093004/http://www.theanarchistlibrary.org/HTML/Renzo_Novatore__Toward_the_Creative_Nothing.html |date=2011-07-28 }}; Gray, Christopher (1974). ''Leaving the Twentieth Century''. p. 88; [[The Abolition of Work|Black, Bob]] (2010). [http://www.theanarchistlibrary.org/HTML/Bob_Black__Nightmares_of_Reason.html#toc22 "Nightmares of Reason"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101027102331/http://theanarchistlibrary.org/HTML/Bob_Black__Nightmares_of_Reason.html#toc22 |date=2010-10-27 }}. "[C]ommunism is the final fulfillment of individualism. [...] The apparent contradiction between individualism and communism rests on a misunderstanding of both. [...] Subjectivity is also objective: the individual really is subjective. It is nonsense to speak of "emphatically prioritizing the social over the individual," [...]. You may as well speak of prioritizing the chicken over the egg. Anarchy is a "method of individualization." It aims to combine the greatest individual development with the greatest communal unity".</ref> seeing anarcho-communism as the best [[social system]] for the realization of individual freedom.<ref name="Communism and Anarchy">[[Peter Kropotkin|Kropotkin, Peter]] (1901). [http://www.revoltlib.com/?id=141 "Communism and Anarchy"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211023194643/http://www.revoltlib.com/%3Fid%3D141 |date=2021-10-23 }}. "Communism is the one which guarantees the greatest amount of individual liberty — provided that the idea that begets the community be Liberty, Anarchy [...]. Communism guarantees economic freedom better than any other form of association, because it can guarantee wellbeing, even luxury, in return for a few hours of work instead of a day's work."; [[Dielo Truda|Truda, Dielo]] (1926). [http://www.theanarchistlibrary.org/HTML/Dielo_Truda__Workers__Cause___Organisational_Platform_of_the_Libertarian_Communists.html "Organisational Platform of the Libertarian Communists"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110728092719/http://www.theanarchistlibrary.org/HTML/Dielo_Truda__Workers__Cause___Organisational_Platform_of_the_Libertarian_Communists.html |date=2011-07-28 }}. "This other society will be libertarian communism, in which social solidarity and free individuality find their full expression, and in which these two ideas develop in perfect harmony."; [https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/various-authors-willful-disobedience-volume-2-number-12#toc18 "My Perspectives"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200415141921/https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/various-authors-willful-disobedience-volume-2-number-12#toc18 |date=2020-04-15 }}. ''Willful Disobedience'' (2: 12). "I see the dichotomies made between individualism and communism, individual revolt and class struggle, the struggle against human exploitation and the exploitation of nature as false dichotomies and feel that those who accept them are impoverishing their own critique and struggle."; [[L. Susan Brown|Brown, L. Susan]] (2002). ''[[The Politics of Individualism]]''. Black Rose Books; [[L. Susan Brown|Brown, L. Susan]] (2 February 2011). [https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/l-susan-brown-does-work-really-work "Does Work Really Work?"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120613181303/http://theanarchistlibrary.org/HTML/Petr_Kropotkin__Communism_and_Anarchy.html |date=2012-06-13 }}.</ref>{{reflist-talk}}
-: {{u|Trovatore}}, thanks for your comments and apologise for any inconvenient. I think and hope to have found some [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Individualist_anarchism&type=revision&diff=946558679&oldid=946541949 compromise]. I've moved the Anarcho-capitalism section to Criticism. I think it makes more sense as it fits well with Peacott's criticism. As for agorism, I don't know; I thought it's more relevant as the anti-statist wing of libertarianism in the United States rather than to anarchism, same for anarcho-capitalism. While some authors and anarcho-capitalists may see ''individualist anarchism'' and ''market anarchism'' as synonyms, I don't think that's really true as far as I'm aware. What do you think?--[[User:Davide King|Davide King]] ([[User talk:Davide King|talk]]) 23:25, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
+</blockquote>
-:: I think we need a balanced treatment, one that does not assume that anarchism is the same as left-anarchism just because left-anarchists think so.  We should include anarcho-capitalism and agorism, while acknowledging that one major current of anarchism does not accept them as being part of anarchism. --[[User:Trovatore|Trovatore]] ([[User talk:Trovatore|talk]]) 03:02, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
+Moving this claim here for consideration as (1) it's way too heavy for the lede, and (2) is unclear whether it's [[WP:OR|original research]]. If this is noteworthy for the lede, this evidence should be presented in the article body and summarized in the lede. If this claim holds, it should not require any of the primary sources (or synthesis between them) and should be reduced to the [[Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources|reliable, secondary source]]s that confirm the claim. <span style="background:#F3F3F3; color:inherit; padding:3px 9px 4px">[[User talk:Czar|<span style='font:bold small-caps 1.2em sans-serif;color:#871E8D'>czar</span>]]</span> 14:18, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
-::: I'm not sure there's such a thing as ''left-anarchism'' and it's not {{tq|just because [so-called] left-anarchists think so}}; I believe this should be discussed at [[Anarchism and capitalism]], [[Anarcho-capitalism]] and [[Issues in anarchism]] as it's already done; and I think there should be some consistency between the related articles. Anarchism is an anti-capitalism movement, if not outright broad libertarian socialism, including co-operative, labour and socialist economic theories like collectivist, communism, free-market, mutualism and syndicalism. This doesn't necessarily mean that it's against free market and property; after all, market socialism is a thing and certainly more than just the Lange model or other type of market socialism that retains the state (mutualism is one form of market anarchism/socialism). It's not even the LTV vs. the STV. It's whether anarcho-capitalism supports profit, interest, rent, leasing and other forms of usury; it's whether someone should own things like factories or land as long as one uses it or whether someone can not only be an absentee-owner of such things but even earn a profit by the virtue of merely owning them; it's whether employers and employees would be co-equal business partners, not master and servant based on amount of property; it's whether everyone would actually own property and basically be an independent producer who could come together and merge properties to form privately-owned producer cooperatives whilst not having any power over his co-producers and not being paid more than them because there would be no profit, leasing or rent, with the surplus going to all producers involved and they would sell their products on a decentralized, freed market, or whether there would still be the have and the have nots, with the only difference from modern-day state capitalism being there would be no regulation, no public state, etc. So it's not just the name. However, one thing that I think many people don't get is that anarchism isn't merely a philosophy, it's an actual movement and that has to be considered. Both agorism and anarcho-capitalism seem to be much more relevant and related to the modern libertarian movement in the United States than to the anarchist movement, much less individualist anarchism.--[[User:Davide King|Davide King]] ([[User talk:Davide King|talk]]) 09:39, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
-:::: See, this claim that anarchism is an "anti-capitalism movement" is a position specific to left-anarchists, not all anarchists.  It's a violation of NPOV to state it in Wikipedia's voice.  It's fine to give it with attribution to particular thinkers or currents. --[[User:Trovatore|Trovatore]] ([[User talk:Trovatore|talk]]) 17:47, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
-::::: {{u|Trovatore}}, that's not really true. The anti-capitalist tradition of classical anarchism has remained prominent within contemporary currents. Furthemore, if anarcho-capitalism is considered part of anarchism, it would be because it's anti-capitalist. Just because it's called anarcho-''capitalism'' it doesn't mean much, really; it seems they use different definition of ''capitalism'' and both are opposed to (state) capitalism; however, it just makes no sense to use ''capitalism'' as free markets when the anarchist movement, whether communist or individualist, has agreed on capitalism itself resulting from state privileges accorded to capital, something which was supported by Rothbard himself. So the issue is whether anarcho-capitalism is anti-capitalist and anarcho-capitalist principles are in line with anarchy or whether it results in private-state capitalism; and whether the society advocated by anarcho-capitalism is basically the same as that advocated by individualist anarchists (who supported free(d) markets, ''laissez-faire'' and free competition because it would result in anarchy; as can be seen by Tucker's later doubts about whether it can end concentrated capital, etc.), or whether it's pretty much modern-day capitalism and all its privileges but without any government (which isn't the same thing as a state), regulation and keeping all its resulting hierarchies in place.--[[User:Davide King|Davide King]] ([[User talk:Davide King|talk]]) 23:36, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
-:::::: See, here you're arguing internal theory.  I'd be happy to argue that with you in a different venue.  But the important thing here from an NPOV perspective is that to exclude anarcho-capitalism and agorism would be to accept one anarchist tradition's claim to be the whole of anarchism.  By way of an imperfect analogy, it would kind of like not including the Jehovah's Witnesses as a Christian school because they have a very incompatible Christology from more well-known branches Christianity.  I don't think that would fly, and this shouldn't either. --[[User:Trovatore|Trovatore]] ([[User talk:Trovatore|talk]]) 23:48, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
-::::::: I think the issue is still that in reliable sources they're much more relevant and related to the modern libertarian movement in the United States, so I don't think your example apply. Again, the anti-capitalist tradition of classical anarchism has remained prominent within contemporary currents (Williams 2018, p. 4) and anarchists oppose {{tq|all centralized and hierarchical forms of government (e.g., monarchy, representative democracy, state socialism, etc.), economic class systems (e.g., capitalism, Bolshevism, feudalism, slavery, etc.), autocratic religions (e.g., fundamentalist Islam, Roman Catholicism, etc.), patriarchy, heterosexism, white supremacy, and imperialism"}} (Jun 2009, pp. 507–508). Are anarcho-capitalism and agorism actually discussed as important and notable in reliable sources that talk about the anarchist movement and its history, other than a passable mention that basically says what we already write [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Individualist_anarchism&diff=946558679&oldid=946541949#Criticism here]?--[[User:Davide King|Davide King]] ([[User talk:Davide King|talk]]) 00:00, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
-== Contradiction of labels ==
-The page is very well-sourced in general, but I consider it a bit flawed regarding a few labels for certain thinkers and the ideology itself. To begin with, the ideology is labeled as a Libertarian Socialist ideology, to which by itself I don't have any issue with since many of its important writers identified themselves with that term (say, Benjamin Tucker or Pierre-Joseph Proudhon), but it also, in the second paragraph calls Herbert Spencer part of the Individualist Anarchists. It completely contradicts itself since, after all, Herbert Spencer was a supporter of Laissez-Faire economics and was staunchingly oppossed to Socialism, even going as far to call it enslavement to the community.
-To which I also find contradictory the exclusion of Rothbardian Anarchism/Anarcho-Capitalism from the ideology because it "Individualist Anarchism is a Socialist movement", while having a staunching anti-socialist as one of the examples. Furthermore, it also fits the fourth type of Individualist Anarchism which "retains a moderated form of egoism and accounts for social cooperation through the advocacy of market relationships" and "anarchist individualists 'are firm in the idea that the system of employer and employed, buying and selling, banking, and all the other essential institutions of Commercialism, centred upon private property, are in themselves good, and are rendered vicious merely by the interference of the State'. It seems to me that the exclusion of Capitalist Anarchism is a mere issue of semantics, specifically about the meaning of Capitalism, for the most part.
-Furthermore, and this would be more of a semantics issue as well, Lysander Spooner is also included (which by itself I have no issue with), but I think it also conflicts the idea of Individualist Anarchism being part of the Libertarian Socialist category. First off, there is no actual source of Lysander Spooner ever calling himself a "Socialist", and the claim of him being part of the First International is dubious at most, the only source being a book written in the 60s by George Woodbook with no citations; and second off, calling Lysander Spooner a Socialist contradicts the very definition of Socialism exposed in its respective page, the only thing that could make Lysander Spooner a Socialist is his criticism of wage labor, which he didn't oppose from a legal standpoint.
-Unless Lysander Spooner is the first ever Socialist to be pro-usury<ref>Spooner, Lysander (1846). Poverty: Its Illegal Causes and Legal Cure. Boston: Bela Marsh.</ref>, pro-market, pro-interest, & pro-rent,<ref>Spooner, Lysander (1855). The Law of Intellectual Property; or An Essay on the Right of Authors and Inventors to a Perpetual Property in their Ideas. Boston: Bela Marsh. Section VI</ref> then either the Individualist Anarchism page being part of the category of Libertarian Socialism or both Lysander Spooner and Herbert Spencer being exposed as Individualist Anarchists should be changed, and I don't think anybody would say that Lysander Spooner isn't an Individualist Anarchist nor anyone would deny Herbert Spencer's influence. Thus, and also due to it being impartial (giving the opinion of authors in favor of the idea of Individualist Anarchism being Socialistic more importance than those that don't) I'd like to eliminate Individualist Anarchism from the Libertarian Socialist category. -- [[User:Coindorni|Coindorni]] ([[User talk:Coindorni|talk]]) 15:10, 24 August 2021 (UTC) -- Edited: 02:11, 30 August 2021 (UTC)