Talk:Anarchism

Archives

A descriptive list of talkpage archives can be found here:Talk:Anarchism/Archives

Split the topic!

I seriously think that this page is far too long. I think it should be split into smaller pages. (I did try and start this once, but a nasty edit war meant my work was undone and I couldn't finish it.)

For example, the different schools could be cut down to a few sentences.

And the "issues" that have their own pages could be cut back as well.

This page should be providing a general overview. Not all the information.

Thoughts? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AFA (talk • contribs) 16:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

Oh, didn't I sign it last time? Anyway, also the section on "Cultural phenomena" should be dropped into a new article and most of the content here deleted. 16:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)16:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)~~

I stumbled onto this article at random and my first thought was pruning it down some. I know it is tricky as this is one of those topics that you can easily write books on, but do we need an entire page on Mutualism when it has its own article? The "Schools of anarchist thought" section could easily be made into just a list... Nitwit005 05:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Intro cleanup

Right now the intro reads [minus links and references]:

Anarchism is a political philosophy or group of doctrines and attitudes centered on rejection of any form of compulsory government (cf. "state"[1]), and supporting its elimination.[2][3]. The term "anarchism" derives from the Greek αναρχία ("without archons" or "without rulers"[4]). Thus "anarchism", in its most general meaning, is the belief that authoritarian relationships are undesirable and should be abolished.

There are a variety of types and traditions of anarchism with various points of difference.[5][6] However, the varieties are not particularly well characterized and not all of them are mutually exclusive.[7] Other than the description above, "there is no single defining position that all anarchists hold, and those considered anarchists at best share a certain family resemblance."[8] Different anarchists prefer several different economic systems.[9] Starting with the early theorists, the issue of property and its use and control has been a major concern.

I've made various changes already, tightening some prose and removing the now-rendundant reference to "involuntary servitude." I suggest more radical changes. Sentences 1 and 3 provide two different definitions, and "without archons" is pretty much redundant. I suggest rearranging and trimming this, so that: Jacob Haller 09:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Anarchism, in its most general sense, is the belief that authoritarian relationships are undesirable and should be abolished, and the corresponding political philosophy which rejects any form of compulsory government (cf. "state"[1]), and supports its elimination.[2][3]. The term "anarchism" derives from the Greek αναρχία ("without rulers"[4]).

There are a variety of types and traditions of anarchism[5][6]; however, the types are not all mutually exclusive.[7] Other than the description above, "there is no single defining position that all anarchists hold, and those considered anarchists at best share a certain family resemblance."[8] Different anarchists prefer several different economic systems.[9] Starting with the early theorists, the issue of property and its use and control has been a major concern.

"authoriarian relationships" is too vague, besides this notion is unsourced and thus original research. Intangible2.0 01:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I still think there is work to be done on it. As of now, it doesn't really say much. All it says is that anarchists are against compulsory government. So does that mean we would possibly be in favor of voluntary government? It also doesn't say what else we are opposed to, the majority of anarchists are opposed to much more than that. I think a few of the earlier versions were more explanative, this one seems too broad and can be interpreted to mean just about anything. Full Shunyata 04:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

As a matter of fact anarchists do support voluntary government. And as the Oxford Companion to Philosophy source says "there is no single defining position that all anarchists hold." I bet for every position you can find an anarchist against I can find an anarchist who is not against it. Even when it comes to the state, which is involuntary government, Max Stirner does not necessarily want the state eliminated. He just feels he isn't morally obliged to obey it but says he will use it to coerce others if self-interest calls for it. Operation Spooner 15:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why the line about hierarchical relationships keeps getting removed, in the intro. "Operation Spooner", I think it would more accurately be called "voluntary organisation" as opposed to "volun govt" - "govt" implies involuntary, to an extent. There's a quote by Proudhon starting off "To be governed is to... " etc which i think demonstrates this nicely. -- infinity0 20:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Infinity0. This is anarchism, not Objectivism or Nozickian minarchism which you seem to be describing, OpSpooner. Full Shunyata 23:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Article restructuring

We need to shorten the article. Plain and Simple. Let's brainstorm ways to do this. Vert et Noir^talk 03:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• There are many, many schools, or sects, or what have you, of Anarchism. They all warrant a paragraph, two at most, on this page. That's why we have multiple articles. Vert et Noir^talk 03:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• The social movement should have it's own article. It should have several paragraphs on this page, at most, not subsections of it's own. There can be vast, lengthy subsections on it's own article, but there's little need for such content on this page. Not to mention the whole section reads like a history. Perhaps it would even do better as part of the History of anarchism article? Vert et Noir^talk 03:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I second merging it into History of anarchism, but if we do so, we should (1) keep syndicalism in the schools section and (2) copy much of the labor movement section into anarcho-syndicalism in the schools section here. Jacob Haller 00:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• The issues section could be shortened immensely. Each issue should have at the very most one short paragraph devoted to it. We might consider shortening each section to a single sentence. We need an article like Issues in Anarchism. Vert et Noir^talk 03:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• The "Cultural phenomena" section is a bit sloppy. It might even be removed from the page entirely. It could make an interesting article of it's own, however. We've no need to list prominent Anarchists in the article. That's simply a poor cry for attention. Vert et Noir^talk 03:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

These are all very good ideas. :) I'm not sure about completely splitting the article though, because everything is related. It's hard to talk about a school of anarchism without explaining its origins. But everything could be much shortened, with detailed content moved into subarticles (most of which already exist). We could have the following:

• Anarchism - summary of history, schools, and issues
• History of anarchism - is a bit bloated at the moment, actually. I think a lot of the history in the Anarchism article could be merged and condensed with the stuff in the History article.

I'd help more, but I'm not an expert in these matters; I wouldn't know where to start. Also, I've got other stuff on my plate atm. Anyone else? -- infinity0 09:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Since the article is already too long, I think [the issues] section is a prime candidate to be plunked. Issues can be discussed in the various types of anarchism. Anything can be an issue, from feminism, to free love or atheism. But this has little to do with anarchism in general, which is what is discussed in this article; certain issues are important for certain types of anarchism, so why not discuss them in these separate articles? Intangible2.0 01:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the issues section was intended for issues which involve several traditions. If an issue is closely linked to one school, I suggest the issue section and the specific school should be merged, preferably in the issues section. Except for green anarchism, however, this has already been done. Jacob Haller 00:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The claim that the article is too long has been brought up before. I fully support splitting the article up, leaving only a paragraph for each part. So, take the origins section, it could be ripped into a new article, leaving only a stub behind with brief comments on pre-19thC and Godwin (Proudhon shouldn't even be in that section...). Each of the schools could be reduced to just a few paragraphs (and that bit about Peter Kropotkin could be pulled altogether...). I think the Individualist Anarchist section is about the correct size, sorry not it isn't... The introduction is good, but then there is far too much on "Nineteenth century United States", and far far far too much on that not anarchism "anarcho"-capitalism. It already has it's own article, you don't need to pollute other articles with that crap... Green anarchism can also be shortened. The anarchism without adjectives section is almost as long as the main article! Each of the social movement sections could be shortened by a paragraph or two as well. Issues in anarchism should be split into a new article, again leaving only a stub behind (example: There are a number of different issues in anarchist thought. These range from discussions on "means and ends", to capitalism, environmentalism [etc.].), though the section on "Race" should be eliminated altogether. It simply isn't relevant historically or now. (Off topic, if there is an article on Black_anarchism, why isn't it on the side bar?) Recent developments within Anarchism also deserves its own article, again leaving only a stub behind. Criticisms of anarchism is perhaps a sufficient length, and I'd happily leave it like that. So, while I'm not doing it today, I might come back and cut out the sections that I mentioned that deserve a new article above, and make new articles for them. I'm going to be bold... I ate jelly 08:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I suggest merging anarcho-syndicalism into anarchism and organized labor, because they both discuss most of the same issues. Jacob Haller 11:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Do we need this paragraph (from pre-19th century)? 11:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

James Harrington in The Commonwealth of Oceana (1656) uses the term anarchy to describe a situation where the people use force to impose a government on an economic base composed of land monopoly by one person (absolute monarchy), or by a few (mixed monarchy). He distinguishes it from a commonwealth, the situation in which both land ownership and government are shared by the population at large, seeing anarchy as a temporary situation arising from an imbalance between the form of government and the form of property relations.

No, that is a pointless inclusion and should be excised immediately. if the pre-19th section needs anything it would be a short discussion on the Free Spirit movement, the diggers, the ranters. Blockader 15:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

This article whitewashes socialist anarchism. There are several who advocated violence and terrorism as an essential part of their philosophy. Operation Spooner 06:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

AFAIK the laissez-faire capitalists advocated plenty of violence against "non-civilised" peoples, no? You have a point; however please don't go overboard and try to paint anarchists as terrorist psychopaths. I know Peter Kropotkin never ruled out that violence sometimes may be necessary, but he never found it to be necessary during his life. -- infinity0 21:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Exactly why does it need to be shortened? Unless there are clear reasons, this articles length is irrelevant. It's well written and referenced, and of comparable length to socialism, communism and capitalism. The suggestions here are reasonable, but the length of the entry really doesn't seem to be a problem. I say the tag at the top should go - the entire article is of reasonably good quality, well referenced and succinct. A topic of this complexity needs an in-depth analysis.Nazlfrag 12:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

After the Russian revolution

I'm not that familiar with CGT history, but I know that the IWW did not align itself with the Comintern. Indeed, the IWW's refusal to do so prompted many of the pro-Bolshevik members to leave. Jacob Haller 06:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

You are correct. --Tothebarricades 08:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

disputed tag

I've added a disputed tag to the article. Self-published sources are not WP:RS. WP:NOR also stipulates that analytical claims have to come from secondary sources, which Malatesta, Bakunin, and Kropotkin are not, these are primary sources. There is also an issue of POV, as all these sources talk about communist anarchism, not anarchism in general. Intangible2.0 16:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:OR discusses primary, secondary, and tertiary sources, and says that:

Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it's easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source.

WP:OR also says (emphasis in original):

any facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, and arguments published by Wikipedia must already have been published by a reliable publication in relation to the topic of the article.

It encourages the use of secondary sources, and also encourages the use of the best sources available. It discourages readers from over-interpreting primary sources, but does not forbid the citation of what is plainly stated in the primary sources.

The sources reflect many tendencies in anarchist thought: Bakunin, collectivist (a), Tucker, individualist (a), Kropotkin and Malatesta, communist (a)s, and so on. Bakunin clearly distinguishes between different forms of authority, and the other authors present similar views without such extended discussion. Jacob Haller 17:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

From WP:PSTS: "Although most articles should rely predominantly on secondary sources, there are rare occasions when they may rely on primary sources. An article or section of an article that relies on a primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Contributors drawing on primary sources should be careful to comply with both conditions." (emphasis mine) Intangible2.0 17:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The claims are right there in the sources. Jacob Haller 17:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

"The claims are right there in the sources." The claims made in the lede are not descriptive, and thus require secondary sources. Intangible2.0 18:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

That rules makes sense. An anarchist is going to tailor definitions around his own philosophy. I wouldn't expect much objectivity. But if an anarchist writes about anarchism and it's included in a secondary source about anarchism, for example socialist anarchist Ostergaard wrote the "anarchism" entry in Blackwell Dictionary of Modern Social Thought, then it has been reviewed for objectivity. Operation Spooner 17:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

OS, this discussion [about social/socialist] is going on other articles. Please stop adding it to multiple articles before people have a chance to talk about it. -- infinity0 18:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Int2, sources are fine, you're just nitpicking. Sources given are ranged over a wide range of types of anarchism. Disputed tag over whole article is not representative of general content. -- infinity0 18:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Intangible, I'm not sure what you are looking for. I know that most present-day anarchists oppose hierarchical authority, and identify anarchism as this opposition, and, intermittently reading older works, I have noticed that many older anarchists also opposed hierarchical authority, and identified anarchism with this opposition, so I restored the passage, I restored the original reference after examining it, and I cited additional works (1) by influential thinkers in several anarchist traditions (2) which express this opposition and (3) which identify this opposition as a defining feature of anarchism. I can't see why non-anarchist writers (like most secondary sources) should have priority over anarchist ones (like these primary sources) when describing what anarchists believe. I can understand using anarchist secondary/tertiary sources but not prioritizing them over anarchist primary sources.

Are there any sources you would accept? Jacob Haller 18:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

First of all, what does "hierarchical authority" mean? Can you define it so we have some idea of what you're talking about? Operation Spooner 18:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

All this talk about definitions and so is fun and well, but as long as no reliable secondary sources are presented, the lede remains original research. Intangible2.0 15:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

So long as (1) you don't define your objections to the statement and (2) you don't define what sources you would accept, I can't address your supposed concerns. Jacob Haller 15:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

You are making positive claims without the backing of reliable secondary sources. Intangible2.0 16:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Are there any sources you would accept? Jacob Haller 16:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I only know that the current sources are not acceptable. Wikipedia policies like WP:NOR, WP:V and WP:NPOV, are not negotiable. Intangible2.0 17:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, those ones are. Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. "The spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule. The common purpose of building an encyclopedia trumps both." Unless you can explain why these sources are not usable, and what kind of other sources would be usable, I can't respond to your challenge, and come up with something better.

1. Are you challenging these citations because you challenge the claims? Then please describe your objections.
2. Are you challenging these citations because you want better citations? Then please explain what you are looking for.
3. Do you have another good reason? Then please explain it.
4. Or are you challenging these claims to spite the other editors? Jacob Haller 17:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Your text is second guessing the claims made by Encyclopædia Britannica, Routledge, OUP, etc., which do not see anything but a rejection of political authority, i.e. government. Intangible2.0 19:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Yours would second-guess Proudhon, Bakunin, et al. I'd much rather second-guess tertiary sources than primary ones. Jacob Haller 19:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

If the justification to "ignore all rules" is to create a better encyclopedia, then the rules establishing a standard for legitimate sources should not to ignored, since they contribute to a better encyclopedia. If you ignore the referencing rules you will have a bad and unreliable encyclopedia. Operation Spooner 19:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

In this case, Intangible's standard would mean ignoring the most reliable sources. If he cannot explain what on earth he is looking for, I cannot respond. Jacob Haller 19:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not second guessing the primary source material, I'm second guessing your analysis of it. That's why you have to look for reliable secondary sources which do the analysis for you. Intangible2.0 22:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Alternatives

The present intro starts:

Anarchism is a political philosophy or group of philosophies and attitudes centered on rejection of any form of compulsory authority and government (cf. "state"), and supporting its elimination. The term "anarchism" derives from the Greek αναρχία ("without archons" or "without rulers"). Thus "anarchism", in its most general meaning, is the belief that all forms of rulership (and thus also involuntary servitude) are undesirable and should be abolished.

Now many anarchists (including myself) "center" their political philosophy on the rejection of hierarchical/compulsory authority, and oppose the state because they (we) oppose hierarchical/compulsory authority in general. How about starting with:

Anarchism is a political philosophy or group of philosophies and attitudes which reject any form of compulsory government (cf. "state"), and support its elimination, most often because of a wider rejection of any form of hierarchical authority. The term "anarchism" derives from the Greek αναρχία ("without archons" or "without rulers").

I also removed the last sentence in this draft. I can see why people might not want the ref. to hierarchical authority in the definition, it might exclude S.P. Andrews, among others, and it could amount to the same sort of narrowing some Marxists do in the Socialism article, but it is at the center of many if not most anarchist philosophies, and many if not most anarchists' personal-philosophical reasons for being anarchists. Jacob Haller 20:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Please, we spent so much time arguing over this; does this address everyone's concerns? Jacob Haller 16:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with using "hierarchical authority" or "compulsory hierarchy" or some such. My only concern was with unspecified unmodified "hierarchy" by itself, since for many readers hierarchy doesn't automatically imply coersion. (mentor/student; driver/passenger; cook/helper) PhilLiberty 18:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I support this version. And I agree with the point about "I can see why people might not want... etc", and think this is a good solution to it. -- infinity0 10:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

This version is even more a original research synthesis of material, as it now includes an implication instead of a conjunction. Intangible2.0 18:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

An implication which the primary sources clearly state. Jacob Haller 18:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Defining "(hierarchical) authority"

The actual phrase appears in Highleyman's essay, without definition. I reinserted "hierarchical" before "authority" due to Bakunin's distinction between different kinds of authority (all quotes from Bakunin, God and the State): Jacob Haller 19:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• the authority of natural laws: "One must, for instance, be at bottom either a fool or a theologian or at least a metaphysician, jurist, or bourgeois economist to rebel against the law by which twice two make four."
• the authority of an expert: "In the matter of boots, I refer to the authority of the bootmaker; concerning houses, canals, or railroads, I consult that of the architect or engineer."
• And its limits: "But I recognize no infallible authority, even in special questions; consequently, whatever respect I may have for the honesty and the sincerity of such or such an individual, I have no absolute faith in any person."
• "I bow before the authority of special men because it is imposed upon me by my own reason. I am conscious of my inability to grasp, in all its details and positive developments, any very large portion of human knowledge. The greatest intelligence would not be equal to a comprehension of the whole. Thence results, for science as well as for industry, the necessity of the division and association of labor. I receive and I give-such is human life. Each directs and is directed in his turn. Therefore there is no fixed and constant authority, but a continual exchange of mutual, temporary, and, above all, voluntary authority and subordination... This same reason forbids me, then, to recognize a fixed, constant, and universal authority..."
• "To sum up. We recognize, then, the absolute authority of science, because the sole object of science is the mental reproduction, as well-considered and systematic as possible, of the natural laws inherent in the material, intellectual, and moral life of both the physical and the social worlds, these two worlds constituting, in fact, but one and the same natural world. Outside of this only legitimate authority, legitimate because rational and in harmony with human liberty, we declare all other authorities false, arbitrary and fatal."

I'd be happy if we can find some better description. Jacob Haller 19:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not seeing much of a definition there. Your Bakunin quote there seems to have no opposition to hierarchy if hierarchy is a body of people with some having more authority than others. If someone allows someone else to have authority over them as Bakunin does then that's consistent with Bakunin's idea of anarchism. Don't you mean something like "coercive hierarchy?" And wouldn't coercive authority cover it? Operation Spooner 20:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there is a better description - compulsory authority. That avoids the innocuous forms of authority per Bakunin, and avoids the controversial term "hierarchy," which is not opposed by all forms of anarchism. PhilLiberty 05:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

But natural law and expertise are compulsory: we have no choice but to recognize them. Jacob Haller 11:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

?? Compulsory means required by rule[1]. One cannot avoid natural law, but some ignore it (at their peril.) Many people refuse to recognize expertise, e.g. holocaust deniers, flat earthers, tobacco smokers, junk food eaters, ... Bakunin's point was that one has the choice to reject expert advise. PhilLiberty 22:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Would it help to create two new pages, on anarchism and authority and anarchism and government respectively, to discuss the objections in depth? Jacob Haller 12:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Or, more broadly, on critique of authority and critique of government?

Compulsory is vague and uninformative. There a different degrees of "compulsory" - to what extent of "compulsiveness" is anarchism opposed? Hierarchical is more universal - which types of "anarchism" do *not* oppose hierarchical authority? If anarcho-capitalism is the only one, I believe we have revealed the real reason as to why these editors do not want "hierarchical" in the intro. -- infinity0 09:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I find "compulsory" to be a lot less vague than "hierarchy." BTW "compulsory" has little or nothing to do with "compulsiveness."

• compulsory - required by rule
• compulsive - caused by or suggestive of psychological compulsion

The word "compulsory" makes clear the aggressive, non-voluntary aspect - the thing anarchists object to. "Hierarchy" on the other hand can be voluntary or not, thus begging the question. Regarding your speculation of bad faith - here is an individualist anarchist but not anarcho-capitalist who, in effect, defines anarchism as support for (voluntary) hierarchy:

"The philosophy of Anarchism has nothing whatever to do with violence, and its central idea is the direct antipodes of levelling. It is the very levelling purpose itself projected by republican institutions against which it protests. It is opposed, root and branch, to universal suffrage, that most mischievous levelling element of republics. Its chief objection to the existing State is that it is largely communistic, and all communism rests upon an artificial attempt to level things, as against a social development resting upon untrammelled individual sovereignty. Sifted to its elements, the government of the United States is after all nothing but a mold form of State Socialism. The true Anarchist indicts it largely on this very ground. He is opposed to all manner of artificial levelling machines. How pitiful the ignorance which accuses him of wanting to level everything, when the very integral thought of Anarchism is opposed to levelling!" - Henry Appleton, Anarchism, True and False (1884)

Defining anarchism in terms of hierarchy is a relatively recent quirk of some socialist sects. No classical anarchist used the term. I challenge you to find anyone defining anarchism in terms of hierarchy more than 50 years ago. It appears to be a New Left neologism (coined by Highleyman?) - a crude attempt to redefine anarchism from "against rulership" to "against natural order." PhilLiberty 18:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with the whole quote, but Proudhon, in the Philosophy of Misery, chapter 1 does so:

Thus society finds itself, at its origin, divided into two great parties: the one traditional and essentially hierarchical, which, according to the object it is considering, calls itself by turns royalty or democracy, philosophy or religion, in short, property; the other socialism, which, coming to life at every crisis of civilization, proclaims itself preeminently ANARCHICAL and ATHEISTIC; that is, rebellious against all authority, human and divine.

chapter 7: Jacob Haller 18:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

And when the self-styled theorists of the sovereignty of the people pretend that the remedy for the tyranny of power consists in causing it to emanate from popular suffrage, they simply turn, like the squirrel, in their cage. For, from the moment that the essential conditions of power--that is, authority, property, hierarchy--are preserved, the suffrage of the people is nothing but the consent of the people to their oppression,--which is the silliest charlatanism.

Kropotkin, in Anarchism: its Philosophy and Idea: Jacob Haller 19:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

That is why Anarchy, when it works to destroy authority in all its aspects, when it demands the abrogation of laws and the abolition of the mechanism that serves to impose them, when it refuses all hierarchical organization and preaches free agreement-at the same time strives to maintain and enlarge the precious kernel of social customs without which no human or animal society can exist. Only, instead of demanding that those social customs should be maintained through the authority of a few, it demands it from the continued action of all.

I was clearly wrong about classical anarchists not talking in terms of hierarchy. Thank you very much for digging up those quotes, Jacob. That answers one of my two recent questions. The other is: When did the term "social anarchism" originate? (Is that a late 20th century coining (Social Anarchism Giovanni Baldelli 1971)? PhilLiberty 15:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Jacob, you can't synthesize your own definition. Do you understand this? You may find one anarchist that says he's against "hierarchical authority," but you can't put that in the definition of anarchism unless he's writing in the capacity of a secondary or tertiary source defining anarchism. You could go around taking bits and pieces of the ideas of everything that various anarchists define their own idea of anarchism as being and you would eventually end up with a definition full of contradictions. For every anarchist's ideal of anarchy, there's another whose ideal of anarchism is contradictory to that one. You're trying to synthesize a definition. You really need to leave that to secondary and tertiary sources. It looks to me like they've concluded that anarchists don't agree on anything, and I think that's true. Operation Spooner 18:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

You may even be able to find a definition in a secondary or tertiary source that defines anarchism as opposition to "hierarchy." Why don't you just do that? Operation Spooner 18:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The only secondary sources I have easy access to are An Anarchist FAQ, similar FAQs, various pamphlets, etc. Proudhon criticizes hierarchy and other authors criticize the "system of authority" (Tucker, State Socialism and Anarchism, and some others), "force-propped authority" (Lingg) or certain forms of authority (Bakunin, God and the State).

Since so many anarchists have expressed opposition to some forms of authority, and drawn opposition to the state from this opposition to some forms of authority, it is as important to anarchism as a whole as, say, the NAP is to anarcho-capitalism. I think it belongs "at the center" though not necessarily in the definition.

We need some way to distinguish between the authority which these authors condemn and that which they don't. I'm not sure where the phrase "hierarchical authority" came from but it is common in present-day anarchist writing and it seems to work. I have some concerns with "compulsory authority," and I'm not sure where the phrase came from, but it emphasizes the anarchist solution.

If the article weren't so long, I'd suggest adding one or two paragraphs, right below the intro, discussing anarchist theories on authority, starting with Bakunin's and working backwards and forwards from there. Jacob Haller 19:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Tertiary source, Grolier Encyclopedia, 1995: Jacob Haller 00:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Anarchism is an ideology that regards abolition of government as the necessary precondition for a free and just society. The term itself comes from the Greek words meaning "without a ruler." Anarchism rejects all forms of hierarchical authority, social and economic as well as political. What distinguishes it from other ideologies, however, is the central importance it attaches to the state. To anarchists, the state is a wholly artificial and illegitimate institution, the bastion of privilege and exploitation in the modern world.

misrepresentation of sources

Sources are being misrepresented. The sentence implies non-individualist anarchism is looked at in the same way by all the authors; this is not true. -- infinity0 21:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

OS, in order to make clear the meanings of the source you must make clear the following points:

• Most anarchists (and scholars) use the classification "social/individualist" anarchism and see all anarchism as being socialist, because they all oppose wage-labour as being a hierarchical and authoritarian relationship.
• Some (eg. the sources you cite) use the classification "socialist/individualist" anarchism and see individualist anarchism as being non-socialist, because it advocates free markets.
• Others (eg. Kevin Carson) use the classification "mutualist/communal" anarchism.

I hope this clears up any misunderstanding. -- infinity0 21:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, I hope the above is sufficient to see why such explanation should not be in the *INTRO*, because it would take up too much space. -- infinity0 21:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

ind-anarchism

I have put a cleanup section tag on that section because it is crap, to put it bluntly. Specifics:

• Too bloated.
• Goes into unnecessary detail which will only confuse readers.

-- infinity0 09:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I suggest:

1. Raise Egoism to its own section.
2. Move 19th century United States into Mutualism and remove redundancies.
3. Possibly retitle the current Mutualism section as Mutualism and Individualism or Mutualist and Individualist anarchism.
4. Either retitle the current Individualist anarchism section Market anarchism or something similar.
5. Cover Anarcho-capitalism and modern Left-libertarianism in this last section. Jacob Haller 14:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

My suggestions to trim down the Schools of thought section:

1. Change the title Mutualism to Proudhonian Mutualism. Otherwise, leave it pretty much as is.
2. The Anarchist communism section can be trimmed considerably. E.g. The very first sentence is an unencyclopedic random factoid which does nothing to explain anarcho-communism.
3. The subsection Peter Kropotkin should be folded into its parent section. Handle K like Bakunin was handled in the collectivist section - mention him, his ideas briefly, and give a link to his main article. Most of this subsection can be eliminated.
4. The Platformism one paragraph section can also be folded into its parent Anarchist communism section.
5. The Egoist subsection of the Individualist anarchism section should be elimated. The first couple of sentences might be put into the Individualist anarchism intro, i.e. noting Stirner's influence. Egoism is an influence, not a school.
6. Nineteenth century United States should be renamed American Individualist Anarchism. It can be trimmed - detail should be left to linked articles.
7. Similarly, the Anarcho-capitalism section has detail that is more appropriate for linked articles.

PhilLiberty 18:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalism is American individualist anarchism too though. Maybe there can be a 19th century section and a 20th century section. Operation Spooner 18:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, how about my above proposal with 19th century mut. & ind. (a) (to at least 1908) and 20th century ind. (a) instead of the earlier titles? Jacob Haller 19:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it, modern left-libertarianism may or may not be individualist - doesn't libertarian socialism fall into this category? Under Ind A, I think we should have four subheads: Proudhonian Mutualism (historical), American Ind A (classic), Modern Mutualism, and Anarcho-capitalism. PhilLiberty 21:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to find the best term for the 20th/21st century tendency including most Agorists, mutualists like Carson and Wilbur, geoanarchists and anarcho-Georgists, some market-oriented syndicalists, etc. Jacob Haller 21:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand. That's going to be hard to do without inventing a neologism. Hmmm. How about a section called MLL? (Movement of the Libertarian Left)[2]. Or is that just agorist? Another try: Left Market Anarchism, or Market Left-Libertarianism. PhilLiberty 22:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The MLL was explicitly agorist. It's successor organisation - the Alliance of the Libertarian Left embraces mutualists, geoists, panarchists, voluntarists etc. Skomorokh ^incite 06:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

These MLL and ALF are just websites though that maybe one guy set up. They're just wishful thinking aren't they? Anyone can set up a website and say that it's an alliance of the left. How can these "alliances" be taken seriously? Operation Spooner 06:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

They're maybe alliance of a handful of anarchists who spend a lot of time on the internet who happen to have come across the website and linked their website to it or something. No one in the larger scheme of things has any knowledge of these "alliances." Operation Spooner 06:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Same objection has been made to anarcho-capitalism.

Maybe it comes down to sample bias, but I'm not aware of any agorists, mutualists, or geoanarchists who believe the differences over land theory outweigh the similarities among the three groups. Jacob Haller 13:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I like the egoism section like it is. It's under individualist anarchism. Pure egoism is a type of individualist anarchism. According to Micheal Freeden, which is referenced in the individualist anarchism article, egoism is one of 4 types of individualist anarchism. Operation Spooner 20:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know where it belongs. Although some individualists were/are egoists, some non-individualists were/are also egoists. I don't think it fits in the ind. section(s). Perhaps move it from schools into issues? Pairing it off with other moral philosophies. Jacob Haller 20:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it should be called Stirnerism. Operation Spooner 20:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I like Jacob's idea of moving it from schools to issues. It is not a school, and it intersects with various non-anarchist philosophies. (The only egoists I know are Randians, not Stirnerites, and most of them are minarchist, not anarchist.) Stirner himself has been embraced by people ranging from nazi fascists to socialists to capitalists. Face it - he was an ink blot writer; people interpret him any which way strikes them. PhilLiberty 20:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I've moved stuff about. There is a lot still to do. There is quite a bit of redundancy between the old mutualism material and the 19th century United States material, the main reason I proposed the move, and we can trim the sections to remove or redistribute this. There is surprisingly little market left-libertarianism material. I suspect we can move some passages from other sections, but not as much as I had hoped. I guess we may have towrite something new; I added one unreferenced sentence.

Why are 19th century and 20th century individualist anarchism split up? Also I think it should be discussed in the individualist anarchism section that Tucker changes his views on right and on land. Who is to say which view is more representative of him, his natural rights anarchism or his egoist anarchism? Operation Spooner 01:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

1. When does mutualism stop and individualism start? There is direct continuity between Greene and Tucker, and iirc Warren and some others, with gradually-shifting emphasis. This created a lot of redundancy.
2. There are too many traditions involved to cover them in one chunk, and combining them would throw the whole schools section out of order.
3. Although there's no convenient gap between mutualism and individualism, there is one between the older individualism and the newer. From about 1908 to the 1950s, individualism hardly exists as a movement, but definitely exists as an influence on some other anarchists (e.g. Malatesta).
4. Moved Tucker's views on rights into Egoism section. Can't see why it matters to views on economics. Jacob Haller 13:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Tucker changed his mind and said there was no such thing as moral rights. Like Stirner he said there was the "right of might" and that if a person is able to take and hold of property by force then he is the owner. This Stirnerism was pretty popular among the individualist anarchists. So the section kind of misrepresents Tucker as if that was his settled form of anarchism. Operation Spooner 16:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Do whatever seems best here. I'm not sure how the article implies non-Egoist instead of Egoist interpretations with the 19th century section. I just regard the egoism debate as one which cuts across several schools and thus fits in the issues section. I tossed it in "Ends and means" because that's the best fit so far for disputes involving moral philosophy. Jacob Haller 16:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Just a few words of encouragement here to show my support for the work being done on the article, by everyone. I'm gonna be less active from now on, just to let you guys know. I think the splitting of the individualist section is a good idea, as well as adding in the market left-liberatarianism section. [3] has some sources on this if they are lacking in the article currently. -- infinity0 09:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Ind-anarchism cleanup

I think most of the material inside "Property is theft" and "property is freedom" can go.

• I think that Proudhon's partial condemnation, and the individualists' partial defense, or private property needs more explanation.
• However, Proudhon's and Warren's statements about prices are not that informative and may be misleading without context. Greene's quote already covers the most important claims.
• I'm not sure what to do with Warren's Owenite background or Dana's and Greene's roles. Is it just too much for the section?
• I think that the intro to the American tradition can go. We only name a few people for each of the other traditions, and readers can check the other article for more information.
• I'm not sure what to do with Thoreau either.
• We may want a better heading for "market law," or we may just cut the internal headings.
• Can we trim the Four monopolies?

I agree. The Ind-anarchism section has good stuff, but much of it belongs in the Individualist Anarchism article rather than in the main anarchism article. I think we should pare it down to a "teaser" for the Ind Anarchist article, and get rid of all subheadings as suggested. PhilLiberty 22:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

They helped me arrange stuff during the edit and point to stuff above. But once we're done with the cleanup, we can remove them like any other scaffolding. Jacob Haller 22:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I removed a bunch of stuff, mainly:

• Lists of various anarchists' opinions on the various issues - goes into too much detail for one section.
• A whole paragraph detailing Tucker's views. TOO MUCH DETAIL! and AFAIK Tucker is not a "typical" individualist anyway.

-- infinity0 12:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

"scientific socialism"

According to the article the phrase comes from Marx, but according to Robert Graham, in the General Idea of Proudhon's Revolution, it appears in What is Property? and first appears in "Saint Simon" (Saint-Simeon?). Jacob Haller 23:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, here it is:

Thus, in a given society, the authority of man over man is inversely proportional to the stage of intellectual development which that society has reached; and the probable duration of that authority can be calculated from the more or less general desire for a true government, -- that is, for a scientific government. And just as the right of force and the right of artifice retreat before the steady advance of justice, and must finally be extinguished in equality, so the sovereignty of the will yields to the sovereignty of the reason, and must at last be lost in scientific socialism. Property and royalty have been crumbling to pieces ever since the world began. As man seeks justice in equality, so society seeks order in anarchy.

— Proudhon, What is Property? pg. 277

PhilLiberty 02:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The phrase "socialisme scientifique" appears in a number of French works in the 1840s and 50s, referring to Proudhon and the Luxembourg group. Saint-Simon was known as the "father of scientific socialism" though, ironically, he was one of the primary targets of Engels' attack on "utopian socialism." Libertatia 23:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I doubt that Tucker's use of the term "scientific socialism" is particularly notable. Tucker did describe his philosophy in those terms in Liberty (Oct 14, 1882), ten years before the translation of Engels' pamphlet made the "utopian vs. scientific" divide of real importance among English-speaking socialists. But most later references to "scientific socialism" in Liberty are derisive, aimed at Eleanor Marx and Richard Aveling. This is an entirely separate issue, of course, from Tucker's use of the word "socialism." Libertatia 23:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Individualist anarchism section

The individualist anarchism is a mess now. It's not coherent. There wasn't much wrong with it in the first place. I think it should be restored to its previous state. Individualist anarchism of the egoist form was deleted. I just put a section on it in there but it's not clear where it makes sense to fit it. Operation Spooner 05:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

It was full of redundancies before. Any reorganization creates a mess for a while.

• See above regarding cleanup proposals. Will these help?
• See above for where and why Egoism got moved. It's connections with ind. anarchism are not much stronger than its connections with other schools, so, imo, it belongs in the issues section. The description of Egoism as "a pure form of ind. anarchism" is exceedingly bold. Jacob Haller 14:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I like the text of the egoism section a lot. But I, too, think it belongs in issues rather than as a school. Even Tucker, probably the most famous exponent of Stirnerite egoism, called himself an Individualist Anarchist, not an Egoist Anarchist. Egoism (and natural rights theory) should be thought of as a justification for anarchism, or an approach to anarchism - not a school.[4] PhilLiberty 20:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Update: I found nearly identical egoism section in both IndA and Issues. I removed the one in IndA, and added a note and local link at the beginning of the 19th century mutualist and individualist anarchism section. PhilLiberty 20:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we're communicating here. The individualist anarchism of Stirner is a distinct type of individualist anarchism. That's what the references indicate. It's no less a type of individualist anarchism than the early American form is a type of individualist anarchism. Stirner's individualist anarchism influenced some of the Americans and they apparently didn't adopt it wholly, but pure Stirnerite egoism is a distinct type of individualist anarchism. The individualist anarchism section ignores it as if it didn't exist. Read this for example: [5] Operation Spooner 22:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

But it's influence on what is generally called individualist anarchism are no stronger than its influence on, for example, communist anarchism. Jacob Haller 01:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

You're still not following. Stirner's philosophy is called individualist anarchism too. Even if it had zero influence on American individualist anarchism it would still be one of the several traditions of individualist anarchism. And it's an important individualist anarchism because so many sources discuss it. Operation Spooner 04:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

That would be an accident of naming. I suggest giving it its own section, either in schools or in issues, but not combining it with another school in the same section. Jacob Haller 04:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

It's your opinion that it is a "accident in naming." But the fact is, there eare are several philosophies that are called "individualist anarchism." Stirner's individualist anarchism is important. That's why the previous set up was good. It had a main section called "individualist anarchism." Then had a section for different types. Somehow the American individualist anarchism information needs to be consolidated into one section. There needs to be an overall section called "individualist anarchism" to allow a section for the Stirnerite version. Operation Spooner 04:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Mutualism should have its own section too. It's ok that if mutualism overlaps in some ways with early American individualist anarchism. Anarchist categories are not perfect. It says at the top of the article that the categories are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Operation Spooner 04:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Market "individualist anarchism" and egoist "individualist anarchism" are separate schools, and are individualist in two different senses. Two sections would be appropriate. however, mutualism and market individualist anarchism shared the same practical proposals, class analysis, etc. and involved many of the same people. Two sections would be redundant.

How do others suggest we handle Egoism? Jacob Haller 04:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I suggest one section called "Individualist anarchism (Nineteenth century American)." Then another section called either "Individualist anarchism (Egoism)" or Individualist anarchism (Stirnerite). Or, a main section called Individualist anarchism, then two subsections with one being called "Nineteenth century American" and another called "Stirnerism." Something like that. Operation Spooner 04:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

OS, your reference does not support your contention that egoism is a school. Your reference supports that it was an influence on existing schools. E.g. "The Ego and its Own (1845), was rediscovered by individualist anarchists in the late 19th century after decades of obscurity." "In the late 19th century Stirner's ideas were combined with an appreciation of Friedrich Nietzsche by a small group of anarchist activists and intellectuals." "inspired an anarcho-feminist, the Russian-American Emma Goldman..." Likewise, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article sees it as an influence, not a school. Did Tucker change schools when he went from Spoonerism to Stirnerism? I think not; he simply changed justifications for his individualist anarchism. Maybe it would help if you named some people who self-label as "egoist anarchists." Stirner didn't even consider himself an anarchist. PhilLiberty 17:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with PhilLiberty - there is nothing I have read that suggests Egoism was a movement in any sense. Stirner's attempt at selling milk to the proles can hardly be conflated with his grandiose proposed Verein von Egoisten, but was rather short-lived unsuccessful experiment in mutualism. The Young Hegelians considered him a somewhat extremist provocateur. It was only with Mackay's championing and Byingtons translation of the book that he gained traction in the English-speaking world. Stirner aside, I do not know of a single figure whose anarchist tendency would not be better described by one of the existing labels. Take a look at the Enrico Arrigoni article for an example of what I'm talking about here. Given that the article is too long already and, to be honest, gives undue weight to IA, I propose "Egoism" be treated as a motivation/justification for anarchism rather than an anarchist tendency, so that it can be discussed as an influence on ind anarchists, post-leftists/postanarchists/lifestylists and insurrectionary anarchists - Bob Black, Wolfi Landstreicher, Saul Newman etc. So to recap, No on Egosit individualist anarchism, Yes on Egoism as a motivation for anarchism.Skomorokh ^incite 20:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you read further on in that source? It says "This type of anarchist individualism," referring to Stirner's. Then it discusses the American version as a different type of individualist anarchism. Here are more sources: Barker, Jeffrey H. 1999. Individualism and Community: The State in Marx and Early Anarchism: "Stirner has been called the father of individualist anarchism." Encyclopedia Britannica: "individualist anarchism found, also in Germany, its fullest expression in Max Stirner" Blackwell Encylcopedia of Social Thought in the "anarchism" article: "Individualists take the sovereign individual as their starting point. Each person has an inviolable sphere of action upon which no one else must intrude, and social relationships are formed primarily through exchange and contract. The German nihilist Max Stirner is often regarded as the originator of this school, but Stirner's incompromising egoism - the individual, he believed, should always act exactly has he pleases, taking no notice of God, state, or moral rules - left little room for any constructive proposals. More typical of individualism were the nineteenth century American anarchists Josiah Warren, Lysander Spooner, and Benjamin Tucker." Anthony, Peter D. The Ideology of Work: "[Woodcock] distinguishes five main anarchist 'schools': Individualist anarchism - represented by Max Stirner who envisaged a union of egoists drawn together by respect for each other's ruthfulessness." Contemporary Political Ideologies, Lyman Sargent: "Individualist anarchism is traditionally associated with Max Stirner." Modern and Contemporary European History: "Individualist anarchism was advocated by a German, Max Stirner, whos book..." Key Ideas in Politics by Moyra Grant: "The also generated individualist varities of anarchism most notable for their strong hostility to the state, such as anarcho-capitalism and egoism." Michael Freeden in Micheal. Ideologies and Political Theory identifies four kinds of individualist anarchism, naming Stirner's form of egoism as one of the four." I've got the references for it and there's many more. Operation Spooner 23:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

So Encarta talks about Stirner egoism as an influence hitting 50 years after Stirner's essay, which some anarchists "appreciated" and were "inspired" by. In passing, Encarta calls it a "type." This is not convincing as far as calling it a school rather than an influence. Barker, Jeffrey H. 1999: "Stirner has been called the father of individualist anarchism." Again, this does not make it a school, but an influence. Stirner did not consider himself an anarchist, and the fact that some individuals called him a "father" 40 years after his death does not a school make. Encyclopedia Britannica: "individualist anarchism found, also in Germany, its fullest expression in Max Stirner." But as we know, Stirner was never considered himself an anarchist; this "fullest expression" was decided in retropect by who? Encyclopedia Britanica? Somehow I suspect that this quote is out of context. Maybe Stirner was the fullest expression in 19th century Germany. Blackwell Encylcopedia: "The German nihilist Max Stirner is often regarded as the originator of this school..." This does not say egoism is a school - it says that Stirner is ofter regarded as originator of the individualist anarchist school. Anthony, Peter D. The Ideology of Work: "[Woodcock] distinguishes five main anarchist 'schools': Individualist anarchism - represented by Max Stirner..." Again, it is saying that individualist anarchism is a school, not egoism. The next two references are the same; they note Stirner is "associated with," and "advocated" individualist anarchism. Only Key Ideas in Politics by Moyra Grant and Ideologies and Political Theory by Freedan possibly support egoism as a school. Freedan's typology of individualist anarchism is quite unusual. His types are: 1) Wm. Godwin liberal utilitarianism, 2) Max Stirner egoism 3) Herbert Spencer social evolutionary, and 4) market anarchism. I guess if we do a Stirner egoist school, we should do the Godwin and Spencer schools, too? The Voluntaryist Spencer-Donisthorpe-Auberon Herbert school is probably more noteworthy than Stirner's egoism. But actually I think these are not significant enough for the main anarchism article. I think Grant and Freedan are giving a typology of thought rather than actual schools that any significant number of people adhere to. I ask again: Can you name any well-known anarchists who identify themselves "egoist anarchists"? PhilLiberty 03:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

First of all I'm hesitant to discuss anything with you as I've seen from experience that you don't appreciate or care to follow referencing norms and don't appear to have any respect for the fact that things are referenced. With that said, I've never used the words "school." Call it whatever you want to call it. I'm saying it's a type of individualist anarchism. Each individualist anarchist has his own type of individualist anarchism. No one's anarchism is identical. Stirner's individualist anarchism is very much discussed and very much referenced. Concerning that fact that he didn't call himself an anarchist, that's not important. The references call him an anarchist. There are other anarchists who didn't call themselves anarchists. For example, Tolstoy didn't call himself an anarchist either but the references call him an anarchist. Therefore, we note that he's considered to be an anarchist. Anarchists have had their own reasons to not refer to themselves as anarchists. Meanings of words change; connotations change, and so on. Operation Spooner 04:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Josiah Warren is another individualist anarchist that never called himself an anarchist. Operation Spooner 17:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Auberon Herbert is another that didn't call himself an anarchist. He preferred the term "voluntaryist." I think we're on the same page now, OS. You seem to acknowledge that egoism is not a school, so no doubt you agree it shouldn't be in the Schools of thought section. The Issues section seems the logical place. PhilLiberty 22:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

"Individualist anarchism" is the "school." Stirnerism is one type of individualism which is very important. Stirner is one of the most, if not the most famous individualist anarchist of the 19th century. Therefore there be a Stirnerite Egoism section within the individualist anarchism section. I'm saying there should be at least a paragraph devoted to Stirner's individualist anarchism. Stirner's philosophy is indeed one of the several types of individualist anarchism and was highly influential on the American form of individualist anarchism. As it a stand now it gives the impression that only the American form of individualist anarchism is important. Operation Spooner 22:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Stirner wasn't an individualist anarchist, and was virtually unknown until the final years of the 19th century. Tucker was probably the most famous IA of the 19th century. Stirner, toward the end of the 19th century, was perhaps the second most cited influence (after Proudhon). PhilLiberty 23:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand that you don't consider him an individualist anarchist. But loads of sources do. That's what's important. The policy on Wikipedia says: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." [6] There are an abundance of sources that say was an individualist anarchists. That's a sufficient reason for inclusion. If there's any sources that disagree just note that, just like that's been done for anarcho-capitalists. Operation Spooner 23:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Logical consistency trumps sources. Our (sourced) definition of anarchism is "a political philosophy or group of philosophies and attitudes which reject any form of compulsory government[1] (cf. "state"), and support its elimination." Stirner does not reject using a state to dominate others. Ergo, he is not an anarchist. QED PhilLiberty 00:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

As I pointed out, it's pointless to discuss anything with you. Since you reject Wikipedia policy, you don't count. Operation Spooner 02:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

"Centered on"

According to the intro, anarchism is "a cluster of doctrines and attitudes centered on the belief that government is both harmful and unnecessary."

I can see two problems here:

• Although anarchists agree that the state is harmful and unnecessary, some center their beliefs on theories about authority, others on theories about rights, others on theories about state-driven wastage, etc. In what sense are the individual theories "centered on" this belief?
• "Government" is ambiguous. "State" is clear.

I suggest dropping the quote. Jacob Haller 20:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a good quote. If you think of visually in a chart of political theorists on a political compass or graph there's going to be an X and Y axis and dots scattered everywhere depending on various criteria. The ones that are clustered most tightly around the the belief that government is harmful and unnecessary are considered to be the anarchist writers. Operation Spooner 21:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

1) Anarchism is "centered on the belief that government is both harmful and unnecessary" in the sense that that is the commonality of all schools. IOW the intersection of all anarchist beliefs, regardless of how this commonality is justified (rights, authority, wastage, whatever). So I think its a good quote. 2) I agree that "government" is ambiguous, and "state" is more exact. However, that's why we qualified "government" with "compulsory." Compulsory government = state. PhilLiberty 02:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, if we go mucking about in the quote, it becomes a paraphrase. Since it basically reproduces the first definition (minus the reasons), I'm not sure what the paraphrase would add.

Should we have a section on reasons?

I know this is going to add even more to an already-very-long page, but perhaps we should have a section on different philosophical reasons people have for supporting anarchism. I think that this would explain the sections fairly well. I know that many authors explain their own reasons for supporting anarchism, so primary sources are readily available with minimal interpretation.

If anyone wants to do this, I suggest starting another page, linking to it from here, and drafting the section over there. Once it gets past the stub stage we can merge it in here.

Is there anything we can cut?

Okay, people have raised the issue of length before. Besides eliminating whole sections, we can eliminate extra words. I suggest that people go through the sections they are most familiar with, to avoid accusations of POV deletion, and try to trim them. Jacob Haller 21:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Great work so far. I think individualist anarchism and left-libertarianism have been devoted undue weight in this article as a result of the recent concerted effort on related articles. These section should be trimmed back significantly, with anything valuable being moved to the sub-articles. I suggest splitting as the best means to shorten this article dramatically. Skomorokh ^incite 18:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Makhnovism

The Makhnovism article is a mess. I have suggested merging some content into two other pages; see Talk:Makhnovism. I would include nice merge tags, but there aren't suitable tags, so here's your heads-up. Jacob Haller 21:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

"Anarcho-syndicalism" and "anarchism and the labor movement" sections

Should we merge these? If so, into which section? Jacob Haller 02:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Can we dismantle "recent developments"?

Should we move common ground anarchism into anarchism without adjectives, etc., etc.? Jacob Haller 02:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm strongly against this. Post-left, insurrectionary, post-an, small a etc. are distinctly contemporary developments and should be situated in the context of 20th-century developments e.g. postmodernism and situationism rather than perennial differences in anarchist thought e.g. individualism vs collectivism, pro-vs.anti-market. The section is a paradigm of summary style with brief descriptions linking to main articles. Skomorokh ^incite 18:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Pamphlet 'The Place of Anarchism in the Evolution of Socialist Thought'

This is referenced without an author. I did a websearch and only saw the pamplet by what looks like Kropotkin - The Place of Anarchism in the Evolution of Socialist Evolution' , 1890, (HX617) [7] . Can someone clarify where and who authored the pamphlet. Is it online? --maxrspct ping me 10:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

This is by Kropotkin. See, for example, The Place of Anarchism in Socialistic Evolution: An Address Delivered in Paris (1890). The title has obviously be translated in a number of ways. Libertatia 17:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The first lines

I think that it shold include a general description of anarchism, not the concept that only a sect that pretends be anarchist wants to put or not. Describe mainstream not a sect. Horizontalism and direct democracy, per example, are concept often accepted and used from anarchists around the world. Only wikipedia in english has this problem. --190.154.17.234 19:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem is is there is no general description of anarchism. For every anarchist belief there is another anarchist to disagree with him. Anarchism is not a single philosophy, by any means. It's a plethora of diverse doctrines, philosophies, and attitudes. Operation Spooner 19:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I also think that the article uses too much space in describe market and not market differences, when teher are another issues more debated and practiced by anarchists around the world (and more current).--190.154.17.234 19:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

But there are general descriptions in a political ideology, that of "no bosses" or "free organization", "equalitarian association" are universal in the same way of "individual liberty", "direct democracy" is very accepted per example -in almost all lenguages and countries where anarchism is explained-, i don´t think per example that sects (i mean, a very little faction that have a different interpretation than the basic consensus and the great majority of a X tendency) should have represention in the first lines, i think these very minorities should be expoused like exceptions to the political mainstream in the development of the article. --190.154.17.234 18:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I mean, there are anarchists that could say no to direct democracy, not to equalitarian association not to organization, or no many other things (not to internationalism if we consider national-anarchist like anarchists). So these could be mentioned later, in the development of the article in a proportional size according to it's relevance, but not could be part of the consensus definition, the first lines -doesn´t matter if the wikipedia editors are from any of that non-consensus definition. --190.154.17.234 18:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Mutualism, 19th-century Individualism, and 20th-century Individualism

Earlier we had mutualist and individualist sections in the schools section. I had, thinking we had consensus, reorganized this into (1) mutualism and 19th-century individualism and (2) 20th-century individualism. Now we have three sections.

I want people's opinions on what to do here. I also think that 19th-century individualism is seriously bloated compared to the coverage of the other schools. Jacob Haller 23:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Much of this could be left to the sub-articles. The 19th/20th-century division is pretty awful, however. Retrospectively defined, mutualism goes back to the late 1820s and forward, as a minor current, to the present. Tuckerite individualism extends as an important school from the early 1870s until at least the 1940s, so it's hardly "19th century." Libertatia 16:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

19th century individualist anarchism may be a little bloated but I don't think by much. Maybe Stirner can do consolidated a bit. The left-libertarian section seems bloated to me. Agorism is extremely obscure, but it should probably have a sentence or two. And I think Kevin Carson is given too much space. I think the quote should be removed. Carson's only claim to fame is having his book (published by a vanity press) criticized in the Journal of Libertarian studies. Operation Spooner 00:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Carson just appeared in The Freeman as well, and is one of the most-cited contemporary anarchists around. He should obviously be mentioned; I'm indifferent on the question of including the quote. Libertatia 16:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't find Warren describing himself as a mutualist, and pulled back on that claim (though Shawn might have something...), but cited the anonymous Mutualist of 1826. Jacob Haller 00:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Warren didn't describe himself as a mutualist. He never called himself an anarchist either, though he was one as sources indicate. Operation Spooner 03:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Warren had a real horror of all labels, except the ones he made up himself. But his position in the tradition that others were calling "mutualism" was firmly established by the 1870s, as his position and that of folks like Greene and Heywood converged in The Word and in the various "labor reform leagues." And it is a present historical commonplace that mutualism emerged from Proudhon, Greene and Warren. Libertatia 16:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Warren was an individualist, not a mutualist. Operation Spooner 21:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey, you are more than welcome to your opinion, but published sources (starting with Swartz and Rexroth) say otherwise, and there simply isn't any question that the mutualism of the Tucker era was derived in roughly equal parts from Warren, Proudhon and Greene. There are much more precise taxonomies that we could use here, but they would, alas, be OR. Libertatia 19:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

You may be able to find one source that says Warren was a mutualist. You can pretty much find a source for anything. But I'm sure that nearly all sources say he was an individualist. Operation Spooner 22:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I've re-amalgamated the ind anarchist sections and trimmed away pieces here and there. This piece on Yarros is too long and gives the section undue weight: "Victor Yarros explained the understanding of the word "anarchism" of the market anarchists such as Tucker, himself, and others:

Anarchism means no government but it does not mean no laws and no coercion. This may seem paradoxical, but the paradox vanishes when the Anarchist definition of government is kept in view. Anarchists oppose government, not because they disbelieve in punishment of crime and resistance to aggression, but because they disbelieve in compulsory protection. Protection and taxation without consent is itself invasion; hence Anarchism favors a system of voluntary taxation and protection.

Also cut:

In 1886, Benjamin Tucker and several of other American individualist anarchists rejected the natural rights philosophy and adopted Stirner's egoism. This split the American individualists into fierce debate, "with the natural rights proponents accusing the egoists of destroying libertarianism itself." After abandoning natural rights individualism, Tucker said that there were only two rights, "the right of might" and "the right of contract." In regard to land he said, "In times past…it was my habit to talk glibly of the right of man to land. It was a bad habit, and I long ago sloughed it off....Man's only right to land is his might over it."

Ideally, I'd like to see each school of thought limited to three paragraphs and 20 lines in total. Skomorokh ^incite 17:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Anarcho-syndicalism

I suggest moving this into anarchism and organized labor in the social movement section. Jacob Haller 23:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

If we move social movement into its own article, or into history of anarchism, and delete it here, then we should keep the anarcho-syndicalism section here and move part of the anarchism and organized labor section into it. Jacob Haller 00:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Anarcho-syndicalism is probably one of the dominant schools of thought in anarchist history. As such, I'm in favour of summarizing the entire anarchism as a social movement section, or at the very least the anarchism and organized labour section, and keeping anarcho-syndicalism as a school of thought. I'd like consensus from a few more editors before going ahead with this sort of thing as this article is historically one of the most disputed on Wikipedia. Skomorokh ^incite 18:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but the common involvement in the labor movement, rather than any fixed platform, has distinguished anarchosyndicalism from other schools. Jacob Haller 23:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Reading over the section here again anarcho-syndicalism does seem more of a tactic/means to an end rather than an ideology/value system. I support assimilating it into anarchism and organized labour. Any objections? Skomorokh ^incite 22:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it belongs on the front page, one way or another. I think there is some ambiguity about how it is used: "anarchosyndicalism" as one system or "anarchosyndicalism" as "anarchist forms of syndicalism/revolutionary unionism" (where, for example, Joe Labadie's and Dyer Lum's positions fit the latter description). Jacob Haller 00:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Is there a source for Joseph Labadie being an anarcho-syndicalist? Operation Spooner 00:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware of, but anarchist, yes, and (nonviolent) revolutionary unionist (he was in the IWW), yes. See the ambiguity inherent in the term? I don't think it makes much sense to treat "anarchosyndicalism" in the narrow sense in one place, and other anarchist involvement in revolutionary unionism in another place. Jacob Haller 01:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Haymarket

How can we discuss the history of anarchism and organized labor without discussing Haymarket, or the anarchist role in labor unionism in the United States in general? Jacob Haller 20:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anarchy and atheism

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

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

See also section trimmed

In the interests of shortening the article, I have remvoed the followin from the "See also" section:

Historical events;

• Paris Commune (1871)
• Haymarket Riot (1886)
• High Treason Incident (1910)
• Ukrainian Revolution (1918-1922) (see also The Free Territory)
• Kronstadt rebellion (1921)
• Amakasu Incident (1923)
• Sacco and Vanzetti trial (1927)
• Shinmin Free Province (1929-1931)
• Spanish Revolution (1936) (see also Anarchism in Spain)
• May 1968, France (1968)
• WTO Meeting in Seattle (1999)
• Argentine riots (2001)

Books

Main article: List of anarchist books

• Mikhail Bakunin, God and the State [8]
• Emma Goldman, Anarchism & Other Essays [9]
• Peter Kropotkin, Mutual Aid [10]
• Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, What is Property? [11]
• Rudolf Rocker, Anarcho-Syndicalism [12]
• Murray Rothbard, Man, Economy, and State [13]
• Max Stirner, The Ego And Its Own [14]
• Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God is Within You [15]
• John Zerzan, Future Primitive and Other Essays

Please feel free to integrate anything useful here into the main body of the article. Skomorokh ^incite 14:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The following external links have also been removed:

• libcom.org - Anarchist forum, library, and news service based in the UK.
• GreenAnarchy.org - a magazine site of the green anarchism branch
• Jesse Cohn Anarchism, Representation, and Culture

Skomorokh ^incite 14:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Godwin and Proudhon trimmed

Possibly useful material here

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

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

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

Proposal to merge Mutualism and Market left-libertarianism sections

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal to merge Individualist anarchism and anarcho-capitalism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Suggested compromise

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://www.nefac. net

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Picture of Ayn Rand in Criticisms of anarchism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Haymarket Riot added!

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

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

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

Persons killed by Anarchists

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Demarchism as a form of Anarchism

Demarchism is currently listed under the category of Democracy, because it in a way it is still a system of government, with a ruling body, but it is a system in which everyone has equal political power, and can be picked to serve, so I believe it belongs in the Anarchy category. Does anyone agree with this?