Talk:Anarchism

My recent edits

Eduen, I've provided (albeit brief) explanations for my recent edits. What are your objections and what do you think would be better? I think the article currently has a very awkward structure. I'll be sure to not make any more edits (other than very small ones pertaining to grammar, etc). Thank you for being so passionate about this article. I look forward to working with you on this (since we're apparently the only two people who are interested in restructuring this page right now). Byelf2007 (talk) 13 February 2012

On my recent edits I have to question again some things that Byelf2007 never responded to. Instead he just went and edited the article as he wanted.

I will talk about his version visible here which I reverted some things back to their previous state.

1. Lets consider this sentence Byelf2007 added in the introduction. The individualist wing of anarchism emphasises negative liberty, i.e. opposition to state or social control over the individual, while those in the social wing emphasise positive liberty to achieve one's potential and argue that humans have needs that society ought to fulfill, "recognizing equality of entitlement"

It was from the "Anarchist Schools of Thought" section, so I just assumed this wouldn't be an issue (I was only moving content, not adding any). Byelf2007 (talk) 13 February 2012

The language of "negative liberty" and "positive liberty" is of relevance within liberalism and it comes from there and is it used mainly there (also not too important for example in marxism). Within anarchism there is not an important use of those terms as it can be seen in main historical works on anarchism as written by anarchist historians such as George Woodcock, Max Nettlau and Daniel Guerin. It is also not present within the main classical theorists of anarchism such as Proudhon, Stirner, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Malatesta, Tucker, etc. If these concepts have been applied to anarchism, they nevertheless do not belong to the anarchist tradition and so they don´t deserve a mention in this introduction. But even if we were to aplly the concepts of "negative liberty" social anarchism is also obviously an anti-state position and so it could also be said to be a negative liberty position in a way since it want liberty FROM the centralized nation state. And so for example the catalan anarchists during the Spanish Civil War tried to end connection with the Spanish Republican State after they took over Barcelona and adjecent areas. The Ukranian anarchist did the same in respect to the crumbling Tsarist Russian State and also rejected the Bolchevik Soviet state. And so at most these concepts become problematic in a context for which they were not designed.

2. Byelf2007 Deleted from the introduction this very importance parragraph "Anarchism as a social movement has regularly endured fluctuations in popularity. The central tendency of anarchism as a mass social movement has been represented by anarcho-communism and anarcho-syndicalism, with individualist anarchism being primarily a literary phenomenon[25] which nevertheless did have an impact on the bigger currents[26] and individualists also participated in large anarchist organizations.[27][28] Most anarchists oppose all forms of aggression, supporting self-defense or non-violence (anarcho-pacifism),[29][30] 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.[31]

I didn't delete it--I moved it to overview. Byelf2007 (talk) 13 February 2012

I don´t want to guess why he did that. My point here is that this paragraph that User:Byelf2007 deleted shows anarchism has reached at some points mass movement status and even big anarchist militias and continues in some form or other to be an activist and radical direct action and organized movement. Anarchism cannot be reduced as a mere literary philosophical phenomenon as his proposed version of an introduction does.

3. As can be seen in this talk section of this article and in previous editions of this article (and not just because of my opposition), user Byelf2007 never got a consensus for his proposal for an "Overview" section. Nevertheless he continues to insist on this.

You didn't get consensus for your recent edits either (which taken together, amount to a big change), so what's the rub? Did you really object to every edit I made, or just some of them? Personally, I don't care about your editing without consensus because I'm a "be bold" editor, so I'm fine with other people doing this, as I can always revert if I have a problem with changes (I usually don't, and didn't with respect to your recent edits).

Furthermore, I already said I wouldn't do any more big edits without your permission, so I'm not sure how your point-3 comments are constructive. Byelf2007 (talk) 13 February 2012

4. On the inclusion of specific sections for the classical schools of thought of anarcho-communism, collectivist anarchism and anarcho-syndicalism, he seemed to agree with me and so I only made small changes to those parts.

On the mention here of "anarcho" capitalism

I think, alongside most people inside the anarchist movement, that "anarcho"-capitalism cannot be considered a part of the anarchist movement due to basic definitional reasons since anarchism is a movement againts hierarchies and capitalist enterprises are some of the most hierarchical things even created by humans. "anarcho" capitalism is clearly a right wing movement which belongs and mainly collaborates with neoliberal and conservative movements and politics and so it can be considered a political enemy by most anarchists as much as fascism is. That is the reason why anarchism has historically and in contemporary times been one of the main actors of anti-capitalist movements alongside marxism. This went as far as motivating the followers of italian-american anarchist Luigi Galleani to put a bomb in the building of the Wall Street Sock Exchange in 1920. I am aware that one can find neoliberal authors (mainly in the US) that self label themselves "anarchists" so i could not stop anyone from placing a mention here of "anarcho" capitalism even if I consider that word ridiculous and gravely ignorant of the history of anarchism, even if all the serious historical works on the history and philosophy of anarchism as well as the Encyclopedia Britannica article on anarchism don´t mention it and even if the mention of it in this article will look misplaced alongside all the communist and expropriatory authors authors mentioned in this article . So according to the policies of wikipedia we can mention here "anarcho" capitalism just as there exists a fascist author in England who is fusing anarchism with fascism who was allowed to have an article of his bizarre idea here in wikipedia and even if in the outside world in anarchist spaces "anarcho" capitalists are not taken seriously as anarchist and if they show up in an anarchist event they are thrown out immediately. I found out that exact thing happened once in the US in an anarchist bookfair where they asked [to leave an "anarcho" capitalist group who tried to exhibit their books there. Also in the US based internet forum anarchy101 they don´t let "anarcho"-capitalists answer questions.

For these reasons I think is necesary to mention here the controversy regarding anarcho-capitalism after the mention of it. Also the reason why i moved anarcho-capitalism to the end of the section "post-classical currents" is since it is a very recent and small phenomenon alongisde other recent developments like anarcho-primitivism or post-left anarchy while a current like anarcha-feminism exists since the XIX century and platformism and synthesis anarchism from the 1920s onward and they have motivated big national federations in countries like Italy, France, Spain, Cuba and Mexico.--Eduen (talk) 04:46, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

No, it is not a movement against hierarchies at all. It simply means "without rulers". That's the proper definition; anything else is just adding more than is actually there, like some people thinking that atheism is the same as communism. And historically, only catholics can be christians, yet clearly there are more than just catholics in christianity. IOW: the fallacious appeal to "historically" just won't work. Look--we all know you dislike anarchocapitalism; we get it. But please stop trying to push your very narrow POV on to the rest of the people, ok? - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 13:45, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

well, if the CEOs and the bosses in your workplace are not rulers inside the workplace and towards the rest of society certainly then the word "rulers" is meaningless. As far as me "trying to push my point of view" your particular struggle is not really againts me but againts history and the definition of anarchism. i bet someone also invented satanic christianity but that person cannot expect to deserve the same respect and attention in the wikipedia articles on christianity or satanism.--Eduen (talk) 15:16, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Eduen, I understand the arguments that ancap is non-anarchist, and it obviously is not a part of anarchism in a traditional sense. I would like to reiterate that as long as most reliable sources provide a definition which is consistent with an-cap, then an-cap ought to be anarchist according to this site.

I approve your changes and your reasoning for them make sense. It's important that we have that in there. Otherwise, the reader might assume that an-cap is very old and almost always considered anarchist. Byelf2007 (talk) 17 November 2012

Anarcho-capitalism and individualist anarchism

The continuity between individualist anarchism and "anarcho"-capitalism seems to me is weak at best. US individualist anarchism more or less dissapeared after Benjamin Tucker went into exile to France in 1909. On the other hand the writings of the creator of the word "anarcho-capitalism" Murray Rothbard in which he uses that word date from the 1960s so we have an important problem of discontinuity and most likely a divergence of lines and traditions of thought. In oppossition to the theories of Benjamin Tucker (who at some point embraced Max Stirner´s egoism) he continues believing in natural rights theories and his problematics owe more to the neoclassical economic theories of the Austrian School and his relationship with the US laissez faire liberal pro-capitalist movements which there at some point decided to call themselves "libertarian". Also Benjamin Tucker economic views could be summarized as follows "There are three forms of usury; interest on money, rent of land and houses, and profit in exchange. Whoever is in receipt of any of these is a usurer. And who is not? Scarcely any one. The banker is a usurer; the manufacturer is a usurer; the merchant is a usurer; the landlord is a usurer; and the workingman who puts his savings, if he has any, out at interest, or takes rent for his house or lot, if he owns one, or exchanges his labor for more than an equivalent, — he too is a usurer. The sin of usury is one under which all are concluded, and for which all are responsible. But all do not benefit by it. The vast majority suffer. Only the chief usurers accumulate: in agricultural and thickly-settled countries, the landlords; in industrial and commercial countries, the bankers. Those are the Somebodies who swallow up the surplus wealth...The usurer is the Somebody, and the State is his protector. Usury is the serpent gnawing at labor’s vitals, and only liberty can detach and kill it. Give laborers their liberty, and they will keep their wealth." Benjamin Tucker. Individual Liberty. This is more or less the same views of Pierre Joseph Proudhon, a name in the pantheon of classical writers of anarchism alongside Bakunin and Kropotkin, also a clear anti-capitalst author just as Benjamin Tucker but unlike Rothbard. Now if i wanted to point out writers from outside anarchism who have been influenced by anarchists i could mention how Proudhon influenced some sectors of the french far right (see Cercle Proudhon) as well as anarchists. As such this issue of continuity between individualist anarchism and anarcho-capitalism seems very vague on top if we decide to point out the fact that the relationship with european individualist anarchism could be even farther away or as related to it as with marxism or fascism. Where I do see a line of continuity (though still a little too distanced in time scope) is that which will connect a contemporary neo-mutualist author like Kevin Carson and his adherence to both Proudhon and Benjamin Tucker. It is not the same case with "anarcho" capitalism and this can be seen by reading the bibliography of Murray Rothbard provided by the wikipedia article on him. His whole problematic is of neoclassical economics and as such more closely related with economists like Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek of which we should consider Rothbard just a more radical version. In one book Rothbard even dedicates himself with a lament, from a clear inside point of view, with what he sees as a bad thing in a betrayal of the contemporary US right wing of what he sees as the Old Right (see The_Betrayal_of_the_American_Right). I could think this is as far as one can get from being in distance from anarchist problems and objectives as one can be unless one can find a self-described anarchist lamenting that Deng Xiaoping betrayed the Chinese Revolution and Mao Tse Tung or another complaining that Hitler betrayed the origins of National-Socialism or another saying that Margaret Thatcher deviated from old true conservatism or another saying complaining that Tony Blair betrayed old Labour Party ideals.--Eduen (talk) 05:53, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I decided check out once again the anarcho-capitalism article. As it stands now the section on US individualist anarchism in that article mostly points out that Murray Rothbard read Benjamin Tucker and ended up disagreeing with him a lot so as to make one wonder why do they mention them at all and not the marxists and the welfare state advocates as well that they also dissagree with. In the crucial aspects of the disagreement is precisely in the anti-capitalist aspects of Tucker. In the same way Emma Goldman read Leon Trotsky and ended up criticizing him a lot (see this article of hers)and no one has argued that because of that Goldman is a marxist. Rudolf Rocker had a work on nationalism (Nationalism and Culture and for it he must have read nationalist and fascist authors and works and no one ended suggesting Rocker was a nationalist and a fascist. In the same way if Benjamin Tucker is an individualist and supports a market of sorts just like Murray Rothbard, Emma Goldman is an anti-capitalist like Leon Trostky and she also ended up opposing the URSS regime just like Trotsky after the rise of Stalin. Oh, both Emma Goldman and Trostky were born in the Russian empire just as both Tucker and Rothbard in the US. So ¿where is the continuity between individualist anarchism and the positions of Rothbard? It seems to me that if we decide in this article to say that anarcho-capitalism follows or is in continuation with US individualist anarchism of the 19th century we also will have to include Leon Trostky here as an anarchist using the same vague logic.

For a deeper and more rigorous analysis on why anarcho-capitalism cannot be considered a form of individualist anarchism and why there is no continuity between these two theories check G.3 Is "anarcho"-capitalism a new form of individualist anarchism? inside An Anarchist FAQ.--Eduen (talk) 19:22, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Anarchism

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Anarchism's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "ideology":

• From Individualist anarchism: "Spectres of Stirner: a Contemporary Critique of Ideology"
• From Anarchist schools of thought: "Post-Left Anarchy: Leaving the Left Behind Prologue to Post-Left Anarchy" by Jason McQuinn

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 22:29, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Anarchism

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Anarchism's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "graham":

• From Yangism: Graham, Angus Charles (1981). Chuang-tzǔ: The Seven Inner Chapters and other writings from the book Chuang-tzǔ. Allen & Unwin. p. 223. ISBN 978-0-04-299010-1.
• From History of anarchism: Graham, Robert (2005). "Preface". Anarchism: a Doasdasdasdcumentary History of Libertarian Ideas: from Anarchy to Anarchism. Montréal: Black Rose Books. pp. xi–xiv. ISBN 1-55164-250-6. Retrieved August 11, 2010.
• From Anarchism in Cuba: Graham, Robert (November 11, 2008). "Enrique Roig de San Martin - The Motherland and the Workers (1889)". Robert Graham's Anarchism Weblog. Wordpress. Archived from the original on 24 March 2009. Retrieved February 21, 2009. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
• From Agriculturalism: A. C. Graham (1979). "The "Nung-chia" 農 家 'School of the Tillers' and the Origins of Peasant Utopianism in China". Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies. 42 (1): 66–100. JSTOR 614828.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 00:55, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Talk on edits I'd like to make in opening paragraphs (greybirch)

"However, anarchism has always included an individualist strain, egoist strain, and free market strain.[19][20][21]"

I propose this sentence is removed. To say anarchism has always included an individualist, egoist and free market strains is a dubious claim, especially when considering the unclear origins of an "anarchist" culture and existence. Also, none of the references suggest that these elements have always been included in anarchism.

Update: removed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greybirch (talk • contribs) 05:44, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

"Some individualist anarchists are also socialists or communists[22][23] while some anarcho-communists are also individualists.[24][25]"

Whether "some individualist anarchists are socialists or communists" seems a strange thing to put in the opening of the article. I propose relocation (suggestions to where?) or removal. Also, one reference for this information is from Renzo Novatore, where the point being conveyed is that some anarchists favour communal use, not a state of communism (quote:"Because revolution is the fire of our will and a need of our solitary minds; it is an obligation of the libertarian aristocracy. To create new ethical values. To create new aesthetic values. To communalize material wealth. To individualize spiritual wealth." Renzo Novatore. Toward the Creative Nothing)

"There are many types and traditions of anarchism, not all of which are mutually exclusive.[14]"

Sentence implies that there are types and traditions of anarchism which are mutually exclusive. Whether or not this statement is "true" (I think it isn't), I'm going to check the referenced document at my next library trip. I really doubt that it provides evidence to support such a statement.

"Many anarchists oppose all forms of aggression, supporting self-defense or non-violence (anarcho-pacifism),[30][31] 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.[32]

Strange sentence for opening paragraphs because it brings concepts of "aggression" and "violence" into play without a real context (i.e. how do anarchists define these terms, why are they opposed or in support of these things? An exploration of this topic might better be explored in the Internal issues & debates section?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Greybirch (talk • contribs) 18:52, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I support the deletion of the mention of "a free market strain" in the introduction done by user Greybirch. Mutualism is covered in the article and it was an important current in the mid 19th century but it tended to lose support as time passed and it was almost nonexistent by the time of the Spanish Revolution. In contemporary times it is a literary phenomenon of sorts (Kevin Carson) but it is not really that influential in anarchist organizations belonging to International of Anarchist Federations which are the biggest contemporary anarchist organizations besides anarchosyndicalist trade unions. It seems to be also that this particular mention (of "a free market") might have been pleasing to a follower of the bizzarely titled US phenomenon known as "anarcho"-capitalism but certainly mentioning that in the introduction of this article will be againts the wikipedia policy dealing with fringe theories. In this case the claim that there can be an "anarcho" capitalism is certainly a fringe theory which cannot expect too much consideration if it gets some at all in this article.--Eduen (talk) 01:31, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

As i check the paragraph again it seems that there was an implication that being individualist runs counter to being left wing. For those with doubts about left wing individualism can check the article individualism and the essay by Oscar Wilde called The Soul of Man Under Socialism.--Eduen (talk) 01:45, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Individualism, free market anarchism, anarcho capitalism

I've just added links to pre-eminent anarchists in the individualist classical liberal tradition. These people include the greatest economists of the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries as well as the authors of political philosophy behind the libertarian movement. I'm aware libertarian anarchism or free market propertarian anarchism may conflict with the egalitarian contributers of this page but this isn't about editors political philosophy. The fact is these writers thought and wrote about market anarchy and theorised the state as illegitimate. There inclusion isn't a matter of weight at all.

I'm reverting these unexplained edits: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Anarchism&diff=531472624&oldid=531457606 People can use the talk page (but I don't want to hear about editors political philosophy. That's obviously irrelevant) Rothbardanswer (talk) 17:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

It's a matter of WP:UNDUE and linkspam, not political philosophy. Please explain why this article—a general introduction to anarchism—needs so many links to one site? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:30, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Adding links to these books from this article is spamming. TFD (talk) 17:43, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

How?