Talk:Anarchism/Archive 61

Archive 55

←

Archive 59

Archive 60

Archive 61

Archive 62

Archive 63

→

Archive 65

Socialism in individualist anarchism

Let´s consider the position of the italian individualist anarchist Renzo Novatore on the issue of private property and socialism. In his Towards the Creative nothing he manifests "And what the war has not done, revolution must do. Because revolution is the fire of our will and a need of our solitary minds; it is an obligation of the libertarian aristocracy. To create new ethical values. To create new aesthetic values. To communalize material wealth. To individualize spiritual wealth." "All that is called “material property”, “private property”, “exterior property” needs to become what the sun, the light, the sky, the sea, the stars are for individuals. And this will happen! It will happen because we — the iconoclasts — will violate it! Only ethical and spiritual wealth is invulnerable. This is the true property of individuals. The rest no! The rest is vulnerable! And all that is vulnerable will be violated! It will be done by the unbiased might of the “I” [1]. It is clear that Novatore here is defending not a vague notion of socialism but in the end communism. This is usually the view in antiorganizationalist italian individualist anarchism and this was present also in the USA as Woodcock notes when he says speaking about Malatesta "in a dispute with the individualist anarchists of Paterson, who insisted that anarchism implied no organization at all, and that every man must act solely on his impulses. At last, in one noisy debate, the individual impulse of a certain Ciancabilla directed him to shoot Malatesta, who was badly wounded but obstinately refused to name his assailant." George Woodcock Anarchism pg 351 and of course no one can deny the italian tradition of antiorganizationalist individualist anarchist was a communist current and still is as can be seen in the writings of the current insurrectionalist Stirnerist Alfredo M. Bonanno.

On Proudhon Woodcock manifests "No individualist -- not even Stirner -- was more lonely in the extremity of his thought than this self-taught philosopher who became angry at the suggestion that he had constructed any system of ideas, who passionately avoided the encouragement of any party or sect to support his views, and who proudly displayed the fluctuations and contradictions of his thought as evidence of its vitality." Woodcock, pg 106. "But Proudhon was a connoisseur of paradox, an aficionado of antinomial thinking, and among all the oppositions he delighted to display in his thought none is more striking than that which made this arch-individualist at the same time a mystagogue of the people." Woodcock, pg 106

Seems the problem here is that you identify individualist anarchism with defense of private property which is not the case as we have seen here. Individualist anarchism is defined by concentration and defense of the individual above all else and this could be also putting oneself above private property and markets or as Stirner called these things "ghosts".

Another such view is that of Oscar Wilde "Since art, in Wilde's view, depends on the full and free development of personal capacities, society must make individualism its goal, and Wilde seeks -- with what at first sight seems a characteristic paradox -- to attain individualism by way of socialism. Wilde is as passionate as Stirner in his advocacy of the individual will, and in his denunciation of the "altruistic impulses of charity, benevolence, and the like," but he is not an orthodox individualist in the sense of regarding individual possession as a guarantee of freedom." Woodcock, pg 448. Even though Oscar Wilde did identify himself as an anarchist, he didn´t use the words "individualist anarchist" to identify himself. But then Godwin, Josiah Warren, Henry David Thoreau and Stirner himself didn´t either. And if Proudhon while being called a social anarchist is also an individualist, it happens that for example Lysander Spooner besides defending individualism did also care enough for "social issues" which might have not involved him directly such as anti-slavery activism. --Eduen (talk) 18:07, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

In the end this discussion already happened as can be seen in Talk:Anarchism/Archive_60#Individualist_anarchism_and_property. --Eduen (talk) 18:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Trotsky the 'anarchist'?

The philosophical off shoot of Communisum known as Trotskyism owes part of it's beliefs to Anarchism, so should Trotsky be considered a Anarchist as well as a communist?--P. E. Sonastal (talk) 02:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

No, emphatically no. There is no basis for such a belief. Where do you get the idea that Trotskyism is in any way related to anarchism? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 02:50, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Trotsky was a dedicated and deadly enemy to Russian and Ukrainian anarchists. With all due respect to your good faith intentions, any notion that the ideology of Trotskyism is associated with anarchist philosophy is ahistorical.--Cast (talk) 16:51, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Here's one Trotskeyite's take on the question Is anarchism just an ideology for petty bourgeois people who dont really have any solutions??

"I'm not totally sure about that. Anarchism can seem like a viable alternative to people who don't have access to true Marxism yet recognize the flaws of opportunistic tendencies and therefore reject them.

I think some anarchist supporters would be willing to work for it like I don't doubt the good intentions of the majority of people who fall for other non Marxist tendencies. The problem you ask about is primarily with the leadership I think. Ordinary people mostly just do the best they can with the information they have and the experiences 1that shaped them. I would not judge them too harshly too quick."
:-D
206.130.173.55 (talk) 19:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

This forum post offers nothing of value to the discussion of this question. Why did you post this? It only presumes gross ignorance on the part of anarchists, as if knowledge of "true Marxism" and Trotskism would dispel any objections to an ideology of authority. You probably just want to advertise it. An example of the claptrap found within it is this self-depricating, blind hero worship for Trotsky, which quickly warps into an indirect association of anarchist philosophy with confusion: "Seriously if I didn't have Trotskyism where would I go? Come up with it myself? I don't think I'm that smart so chances are I would be still floating between social democracy anarchism and general cynicism." Ignoring this nonsense, there simply is no relationship between Anarchism and Trotskyism, except that the former was a victim of counter-revolutionary betrayal by the latter. There is no philosophical relationship between the two, merely counter-productive strawman arguments made by the latter against the former. Though I'm glad to see an anarchist promptly responded to the author you quote, the link you provide offers this article nothing in the way of viable sources for improvement. It only provides a reader with insight into internal biases amongst leftist ideologues. If you want to contribute something of substance, stop linking to Yahoo! Answers and pick up books, then take your sources and citations over to the Anarchism and Marxism page. --Cast (talk) 20:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

This has to be the strangest thing that has been discussed on this talkpage. i only hope no one is discussing this in order to promote a change in the article.--Eduen (talk) 19:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

It might be worth a note on Trotsky's article, but not here. Zazaban (talk) 20:02, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Same person, different IP.

"This forum post offers nothing of value to the discussion of this question."

Sez you.
:-D

"Why did you post this?"
To give the insight of a high level Yahoo! Answer account, with a high BA %, identifies a fair bit with Trotsky, and contributes a lot to the political section. If you think that my contibution is so valueless, why doncha huff it?

As for the putting it in the Trotsky article, somebody asked the question here, and I figured I'd help a little. Maybe all of this should be moved to the talk page of that article. If so, how does one go about it?

Btw, there were a fair number of Black bloc anarchists here in Toronto recently (2010 G-20 Toronto summit protests) who did a fair bit of vandalism in order to destroy capitalism. Some figured that they might even be agent provocateurs (check this and this). The way I figure it, anarchists and communists are similar insofar as they oppose private property, what they consider to be politically incorrect, and aren't opposed to using violence to get it, whether it's smashing an American Apparel or Starbucks, or killing a US president (and ushering an even more statist one). They both seem to finger-wag a bit, too.
;-)
206.130.174.42 (talk) 19:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

There are actually quite a few anarchists, myself included, who find the black bloc types you speak of to be destructive assholes doing more harm than good. Anyway, this is drifting into WP:FORUM territory. Just been feeling the need to say that for quite a while, it felt like a good opportunity. Trotsky isn't a huge influence on anarchism whether he counts as one or not, so there probably isn't room for here in this particular article, being a summary. If it can be sourced, it should be on the article for his person first. It would be an interesting note, I might add. Zazaban (talk) 20:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

"Sez you." "huff it." Don't try to act cute. This is a utterly frivolous activity on your point. This post offers nothing, and it's not a matter of personal opinion. Reading it, it has nothing to do with this discussion. Your spamming. And "the way you figure it" is also of no value. Your original research is also of no use for this article. This thread was always of unimportance, being based on a suggestion founded in original research. It should have just been deleted and forgotten.--Cast (talk) 22:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I kinda agree, Zazaban. So what about my suggestion about moving it to the Trotskey talk page--I'm still a bit of a beginner here at Wikipedia, and am unsure about the protocol. Cast, Be a sweetums. I'm not attacking you, and I'm sure a Wikipedia talk page can tolerate the odd colloquialism. "This is a utterly frivolous activity on your point. This post offers nothing, and it's not a matter of personal opinion," sounds a bit absolutist to me. "And 'the way you figure it' is also of no value. Your original research is also of no use for this article." Agreed: if it was in the article. Again, this is the talk page. Some leeway is allowed if it improves the article. Some one asked if Trotsky was an anarchist. I posted a link to one Trotskiest views on anarchism. If the consenses is that adds nothing then remove it. Btw, where in this article (Wikipedia:Spam) would it say that am I spamming?70.54.181.70 (talk) 19:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Proudhon, no source consensus for him being an individualist anarchist

The introduction says: "Still some individualist anarchists, like Pierre-Joseph Proudhon..." This is POV because there are respected sources that say Proudhon is not an individualist anarchist but a social anarchist, or not an individualist anarchist but something in between individualist and social anarchism. For example 1) Woodcock, George. Anarchism: A History of Libertarian Ideas and Movements, Broadview Press, 2004, p. 20 2) Bowen, James & Purkis, Jon. 2004. Changing Anarchism: Anarchist Theory and Practice in a Global Age. Manchester University Press. p. 24 3) Knowles, Rob. "Political Economy from below : Communitarian Anarchism as a Neglected Discourse in Histories of Economic Thought". History of Economics Review, No.31 Winter 2000. The An Anarchist FAQ also says Proudhon is a social anarchist, for what it's worth. I keep trying to point this out and put the source in there even and it keeps getting deleted.

I'd also like to point out an inconsistency. It says in the Mutualism section: "Mutualism has been retrospectively characterised as ideologically situated between individualist and collectivist forms of anarchism." Proudhon is the arch-mutualist. So why do you deleters of my changes keep putting back in the introduction that Proudhon is an individualist anarchist? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Centographer (talk • contribs) 05:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The citations I brought here before from Woodcock clearly show how Woodcock views Proudhon as an individualist.--Eduen (talk) 04:13, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Quoting Woodcock: "At one end of the series- Left or Right according to one's predilections -stands Individualist Anarchism. Max Stirner, preaching insurgent self-assertion and foreseeing a Union of Egoists drawn together by respect for each other's ruthlessness, carries this trend as far as as logical fanaticism will go...The next point along the spectrum is Proudhon's mutualism. Proudhon differs from the true individualist anarchists, because he sees history in social form, and despite his fierce defense of individual freedom, thinks in terms of association." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Centographer (talk • contribs) 07:02, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, so does Benjamin Tucker and even Stirner with "union of egoists".

Woodcok On Proudhon "No individualist -- not even Stirner -- was more lonely in the extremity of his thought than this self-taught philosopher who became angry at the suggestion that he had constructed any system of ideas, who passionately avoided the encouragement of any party or sect to support his views, and who proudly displayed the fluctuations and contradictions of his thought as evidence of its vitality." Woodcock, pg 106. "But Proudhon was a connoisseur of paradox, an aficionado of antinomial thinking, and among all the oppositions he delighted to display in his thought none is more striking than that which made this arch-individualist at the same time a mystagogue of the people." Woodcock, pg 106--Eduen (talk) 23:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

What anarchists are against in general

The initial, basic, core definition of anarchism used here says it opposes the state. Even founding anarchists like Proudhon were ambivalent about the role of the state during their lives. The state is an association of governance, whether or not that implies specific leaders or leadership. What state means varies with the theorist or context. Just because Bakunin used the term in his own way and advocated the elimination of the defined thing doesn't mean we can use it like a blanket term in that way for anarchists in general, for the focus of the article. Reaching a generic or simplistic definition is not going to be so easy, given the topic puts a lot of pretty different thinkers together. The opposition to the accumulation of power (by an elite) seems like a key theme in collectivist anarchist circles. Individualists seem to tend to oppose rules, on the other hand. Who is like God? (talk) 10:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

We keep lowering the bar, and yet we never seem to reach the lowest common denominator. I thought we could at least agree to the term "state", an institution of authority. Now we have to specify what a state is by what it does? How soon before we have to specify the difference between the "power" of the individual vs a group vs an organization? And who are these individualists who prefer an anti-rule critique rather than anti-state? --Cast (talk) 03:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I think we should just leave it at 'state'. Zazaban (talk) 06:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

anarchism is more than just antistatism. anarchism is oppostition to hierarchy in general. it is a good thing that the intro to this article says this.--Eduen (talk) 03:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Cast said: And who are these individualists who prefer an anti-rule critique rather than anti-state?

Not rather, as in general those are the same people. The state is an institution that makes rules, and how authority is instituted in the state varies (compare a "democracy" and a "dictatorship"). Power and leadership are not limited to the state, and it's power (privilege) and authority that social anarchists most clearly oppose, and not rules specifically. Individualist anarchists, on the other hand may tolerate privilege or practical power (such as a heavy accumulation of wealth by some individuals) as long as it's not based on the state or rules. The issue is not lowering or raising a bar, but not contradicting facts by trying to reach some generic and simplistic definition. Basically, there are two types of anarchist, and each needs a definition of its own; the social anarchists that oppose elites, and the individualist anarchists that oppose rules. This gives many of them, on either side, reasons to oppose the state and many of its incarnations, but that is not what defines them in general. There are two problems in the definition; there's more to oppose for an anarchist than the state, and some anarchists may accept some form of stateship. Social anarchists seek egalitarianism, while individualists seek a willful sort of anomie. Who is like God? (talk) 18:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

"Individualist anarchists, on the other hand may tolerate privilege or practical power (such as a heavy accumulation of wealth by some individuals) as long as it's not based on the state or rules."

I dont know who are these individualists you talk about. of course i guess you are not talking about the most important individualist of the early XXth century:

"But in relation to those whose amorphism, ignorance or interest interferes with his living his life, the individualist feels himself a stranger. Moreover, inwardly he remains refractory — fatally refractory — morally, intellectually, economically (The capitalist economy and the directed economy, the speculators and the fabricators of single are equally repugnant to him.)" Emile Armand. Anarchist Individualism as Life and Activity (1907)

and of course seems you are not aware of the illegalists either but in the end you are not doing justice to other individualists like Proudhon, Oscar Wilde and Godwin either. i suggest you visit the nice individualist anarchism article. as far as individualism in itself it is a central feature of anarchism in general and it is present in Kropotkin and Bakunin also. The CNT itself in the spanish revolution allowed certain "individualist" peasants to work the land on themselves instead of forcing collectivization on them. they just were applying what kropotkin hismself suggested. --Eduen (talk) 21:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

"Anarchism without Adjectives" part in the introduction

The introduction says "Others, such as panarchists and anarchists without adjectives, neither advocate nor object to any particular form of organization as long as it is not compulsory."

I think this should be clarified, corrected, cited, or removed since it is overly simplistic (if not incorrect) and it isn't cited. Jemoore31688 (talk) 21:10, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you above all on "panarchists". i don´t know who they are and of course doubt if they are or were anarchists since that particular concept has not had importance in anarchist debates. pan archy can include hierarchical social arragenments since the concept means plurality of the types of social arrangements and nothing else. anarchism without adjectives is something different and deserves a better treatment on this article if it has to have one.--Eduen (talk) 02:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The lede of the article does not require citations unless the material is not cited in the body. This particular segment is supposed to be a (yes, simplified) summary of the "Schools of thought" section. We need to get across in a single sentence that there exists these pluralistic/non-sectarian strains within anarchism. Suggestions welcome. Skomorokh 12:52, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

anarchism without adjectives might get a mention as it is an old discussion within anarchism. but "panarchists" who are they?. anyway seems to me that we already live in "panarchy". as far as this article "panarchy" o "panarchists" do not have any reference to support them so i propose we delete this term from the article.--Eduen (talk) 21:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Panarchy refers to the approach proposed by Paul Emile de Puydt around 1860, involving a voluntary, polycentric "free market" in governmental systems. Folks like John Zube and, to a lesser degree, Kevin Carson, have given de Puydt's proposal a new lease on life. Libertatia (talk) 00:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

From what i read in his wikipedia article, Mr. de Puydt had no connection with anarchism. It is hard really to think "panarchy" deserves a mention in this article, let´s not speak about a mention in the introduction. The article "panarchy" establishes some authors who have mentioned the term which include recent systems theory and international relations theorists. I don´t see the strong anarchist connection which can make one think that it deserves a mention in the introduction. Also John Sube is too much of a recent author. I might support a mention in the introduction of anarchism without adjectives as major anarchists such as Errico Malatesta and Elisee Reclus suported the idea and it is relevant in many countries since the late XIX century.--Eduen (talk) 02:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Mises.org as RS?

I'm unsure that the Mises Institute is a reliable source on the subject. Zazaban (talk) 02:54, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, you know what, I should probably stay out of this, call me back when the dust settles. Zazaban (talk) 03:01, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

What makes you think the dust will ever settle? It hasn't since 1694. - BarbaricSocialistZealots (talk) 10:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Anarcho-Capitalism

Anarcho-Capitalism is NOT anachism. It shouldn't be included in this article. It's like including Anarcho-fascism on this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.56.137.170 (talk) 03:26, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Solidarity? Among my rogues? It's more likely than you think! --Cast (talk) 04:29, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

"anarcho" capitalism. an oxymoron indeed.--Eduen (talk) 12:43, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Article content review

Having not examined this article for a long time, I thought it would be worthwhile for an earlier editor to comment on the current version's content (I'm not doing a sourcing review):

• §Lede: pleasantly surprised at the quality!
• §Etymology and terminology: covers that encyclopaedic issue fast, neutrally, and with a Main Article.
• §Origins: Good summary style, and with a Main Article.
• §Social movement: Probably needs to explain what a social movement is better
• §The First International: Probably needs a Main Article. Spends too much time on history, and not enough time on anarchism as a social movement here
• §Organised labour: Fast paced, directly connected to anarchism, good coverage. First International should read like this. Needs a general Main Article on Anarchism and organised labour
• §Propaganda of the deed: Fast, good, connected.
• §Russian Revolution: The Goldman and Berkman paragraph is probably extraneous trivium in a summary article at this level. Otherwise fast paced.
• §Fight against fascism: good coverage choice, fast writing
• §[There is a gap in coverage, 1940-1960] [There is a European-North American bias]
• §Contemporary anarchism: confused sentence about Carrara
• §Anarchist schools of thought: Fast, good coverage of issues
• §Mutualism: Fast, summary, good
• §Individualist anarchism: Good summary coverage decisions, fast
• §Social anarchism: Good summary coverage decisions, drags a bit as the section may be too long, hard to see how to subdivide or cut though
• §Post-classical currents: Good summary coverage decisions, fast
• §Topics of interest in anarchist theory: needs a better heading sentence as a summary, may need a Main Article.
• §Free love: Fast, Western bias
• §Libertarian education: Fast, Western bias
• §Internal issues and debates: A bit confused in its exposition. Not sure of how it could be improved, but fast writing.
• The fastness of the writing, in the sense that it flows and encourages continued reading is good. The decision to split the coverage into a History, Social Movements, Ideologies and Topics is a good one providing four different ways of approaching the topic. There is a strong Western bias which could do with rectification.
• Well done editors! Fifelfoo (talk) 03:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

About "the confused sentence about Carrara". A better processing of this idea might be necessary. I added that information about the founding of the International of Anarchist Federations. On itself that is an important recent event in anarchist history that had to be mentioned but within the context of the paragraph it makes reference to the new interest on anarchist ideas of recent decades. But also a problem that I saw was that the paragraph exagerated on the role of "punk rock" (a late 1970s phenomenon) on this but it happens that in the 1960s this was already happening as the founding of the IAF shows and also all of this happens within the same time as the late sixties student and workers revolts such as May 68 in France, the Cordobazo in Argentina, or the anti-vietnam war movements.

• "[There is a gap in coverage, 1940-1960]". There is a clear historical reason for this which is the demise of anarcho-syndicalism after the 1930s. It happened that many ex anarco syndicalist unions became marxist and social democratic in orientation and in other cases unions of those orientations (and populist "peronist" in the case of Argentina) became the important ones. Also many anarchists activists also became marxists motivated by what they saw as the "success" of Lenin and the Bolcheviks. In Spain the CNT was outlawed and so spanish anarchism mostly was exterminated or went into exile.

Maybe that situation must be mentioned with the help of good references but also there are important events such as the establishment of the Francophone Anarchist Federation which came to include prominent personalities of culture such as Albert Camus and the French Surrealist Group led by André Breton. Also the Italian Anarchist Federation was established just as the Francophone one right after WWII. It could indeed be said that anarchism around this time continued to be influential on literary and intelectual spaces but lost the strong influence it had on mass working class movements. This could be seen as analysing important anarchists of this time such as Herbert Read, Camus but also the influence anarchism had on beatnik poets such as Allen Ginsberg, Gary Snyder and Diane di Prima. An important anarchist source of influence on the anti-nuclear war movements and civil rights movements of this time was anarcho-pacifism. Anarchist historian George Woodcock says that Anarcho-pacifism also influenced the important writer of the time, Aldous Huxley but one can also remember perhaps the most important USA anarchist writer of the time, Paul Goodman who also happened to be an anarcho-pacifist. From all of this one can understand the anarchist like tendencies present in 1960s hippie counterculture as coming from people influential on it like Ginsberg or Huxley and the fact that it was a libertarian utopian pacifist movement.

I will start looking for the specific references for these events so as to include them on the article and I will love the help of anyone interested on this.--Eduen (talk) 21:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

On "organized labour" section I included a picture conmemorating the Haymarket square anarchist martyrs. Any opinions?

I think it might be more directly relevant to the section on "russian revolution" to include a picture of Makhno and his Ukranian Anarchism peasant army available here on wikimedia commons.--Eduen (talk) 22:03, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

The postwar years in Italy and France had as main events the founding of the anarchist federations but the internal debate and the splits from it were determined by the debates between synthesis anarchism, platformism, insurrectionarism and iindividualist pacifism. I think a section called "Post-war years" could be added which will synthesise all these information.--Eduen (talk) 06:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

In Our Time

The BBC programme In Our Time presented by Melvyn Bragg has an episode which may be about this subject (if not moving this note to the appropriate talk page earns cookies). You can add it to "External links" by pasting * {{In Our Time|Anarchism|p0038x9t}}. Rich Farmbrough, 02:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC).

Anarchism is a branch of Libertarianism.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Resolved

 – Further discussion about libertarianism should be continued at Talk:Libertarianism. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 22:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

This is from a wp:rs, and accepted by the article on libertarianism. if there is no uther objection, i hope you will allow the edit to stand, or provide a reason why the rs is invalid, or not applicable here. "There are two main branches of libertarianism and each has a radical answer to the query. One group, the anarchists…holds that all government is illegitimate. The other group, generally called minarchists, maintains that government may appropriately engage in police protection, enforcement of contracts, and national defense, but that is all.…[Murray N.] Rothbard himself is on the anarchist wing of the movement. Both by his writings and by personal influence, Rothbard is the principal founder of modern libertarianism." The Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Political Thought(Entry: Libertarianism); Edited by David Miller, Advisory Editors: Janet Coleman, William Connolly, Alan Ryan; Blackwell Publishers, Oxford(UK), Massachusetts(USA); 1987, Revised: 1991. Reprint: 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 2000; ISBN 0-631-14011-5 ISBN 0-631-17944-5 -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkstar1st (talk • contribs)

Anarchism, "libertarianism" and minarchism

In response to the suggestion made by wikipedia user Darkstar 1st that anarchism is part of "libertarianism" alongside "minarchism".

In the citation provided by Darkstar there is this affirmation "[Murray N.] Rothbard himself is on the anarchist wing of the movement. Both by his writings and by personal influence, Rothbard is the principal founder of modern libertarianism". I am aware that he is citing an enciclopedia such as The Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Political Thought(Entry: Libertarianism) but the use of the word "libertarian" in the modern era goes as back as the 19th century when Rothbard wasn´t even born yet and so to say "Rothbard is the principal founder of modern libertarianism" is simply ridiculous. The wikipedia libertarianism article in a sourced statement reports that "The term libertarian in a metaphysical or philosophical sense was first used by late-Enlightenment free-thinkers to refer to those who believed in free will, as opposed to determinism." Late enlightenement means at least the late 18th century if not before and Mr. Murray Rothbard was born in 1927. And so when people like Sebastian Faure was using the word libertarian in the early 20th century when Rothbard was not even a baby or Joseph Dejacque in the early 19th century this absurd affirmation made by this obviously not too good enciclopedia wants to make us think anarchism has to thank Rothbard for "founding modern libertarianism" in the mid to late 20th century.

But now on the affirmation made by the same enciclopedia as cited by user Darkstar that "There are two main branches of libertarianism One group, the anarchists…holds that all government is illegitimate. The other group, generally called minarchists,... " there is the suggestion that anarchists and "minarchists" somehow are part of the "same movement" which I will have to say is something that can be affirmed out of a considerable ignorance on what both anarchists and minarchists do and think and an abuse of the word "libertarianism". "Minarchism" is a label which pro-capitalist liberal economists critical of the welfare state such as Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman tend to be associated with so as to point out to their advocacy of a minimal nightwatchman state so as to create a state of deregulation of economic activities including those of corporations. Anarchism on the other hand, as can be understood by reading this wikipedia article on it actually is a radical anti-capitalist philosophy which has advocated syndicalism, expropriation, communism, and even assasination of capitalists. ¿How can anyone think these two highly opposed positions can both be a part of a same "movement" called "libertarianism"?

Now, though, it can be said that both "anarchism" and "minarchism" have in common a critique of the state. Butlets point out some similar examples in which indirect convergences on single issues occur. If both anarchists and mid to late 20th century united states liberals have called themselves "libertarians" the same can be pointed out about "national socialists" such as Adolf Hitler" and a 19th century american anarchist such as Benjamin Tucker who also did call himself socialist. ¿Should we say Tucker and Hitler are part of the same movement just because they converged in the use of the word socialism?

Another example is the criticism and opposition to electoral parlamentarism which both anarchism and fascism share. Because both oppose electoral politics ¿can we say anarchists and fascists are part of the "same movement" called "anti-parlamentarism"?. Another example can be the opposition of both anarchism and social democracy to racism or the fact that anarchists and a lot of contemporary conservatives critique the state. Using the methodology of the The Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Political Thought we will also have to put in the english wikipedia introduction to the article on "anarchism" that "anarchism is part of the anti-parlamentarist movement" and also "part of the antiracist movement". Anarchists have also manifested strong ecologist points of view and activism (see Green anarchism), of women rights (see anarcha-feminism) and has participated in antimperialist struggles.

An indirect convergence on a single issue of anarchism with other "competing" political positions such as social democracy, ecologism, marxism, feminism, fascism, liberalism or conservatism such as the fact that both anarchism and minarchism "critique the state" should not be overemphasized so as to deserve a mention in the introduction of the article "anarchism".

So using the methodology of Darkstar we might have to say at the beginning of this article "Anarchism, a part of libertarianism, antiparlamentarism, feminism, antiracism, ecologism, socialism, antimperialism, is a political..."

--Eduen (talk) 20:50, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Your message is almost TLDR. But I agree with you. Anarchism and libertarianism have a very complex relationship to one another, complicated by the fact the words are used synonymously in many parts of the world, and to simplify the matter in the lede based on a tertiary source is a Very Bad Idea. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:48, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

DarkStar1st is simply a long-term disruptive editor from Libertarianism who was coming here to disrupt things to make a point, so I wouldn't concern yourselves too much with this issue. (See [2]). -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 17:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

longtime editor true, longer than anyone editing the article. disruptive? either present your evidence, or retract your accusation. Darkstar1st (talk) 00:27, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Your repeated blocks for edit warring, your extensive soapboxing on the talk page at Libertarianism, the fact that you are regularly the subject of ANI reports, and the disruptive edit here are the types of things I'm referring to. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 00:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

you left out the part where i corrected the person who coined the term. odd how so many can be so active on a topic, yet not notice the term was created 150 years before the person attributed. my very simply point remains unanswered, why is the passage "anarchism is a branch of libertarianism" on the libertarian page, if it is not here? do that mean it is actually not a branch, but its own separate belief entirely? if so, why do you oppose removing it there? Darkstar1st (talk) 00:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to participate further in your antics spilling over to this page. I'll discuss the libertarianism article with you at Talk:Libertarianism. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 01:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

thats good news, maybe the next time i make a comment in talk you won't follow me to that page and accuse me of being disruptive. this is not the place for your accusation. start an ani if you have a legit complaint, otherwise, stop stalking my comments, troutslap. 01:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I highly doubt that most rational people would consider following the link that you posted to this conversation as "stalking". -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 01:40, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

the issue here is that anarchists have been using that word to describe themselves since the 19th century up to today while the use of american neoliberals of the same word only goes back to the 1960s. But anarchism being as anticapitalist as it is and american neoliberalism being a procapitalist, pro boss, right wing position, it is simply absurd to say they are part of the same movement when they are one can say "political enemies".--Eduen (talk) 20:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Eduen there are many who share your view, but the libertarianism currently describes anarchist as a smaller branch of the libertarian tree, readers here will find anarchism is it's own tree. thus depending on which page the reader visits, so goes the definition. typical wp, a contradiction of information. Darkstar1st (talk) 20:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Eduen: I agree. I don't think that anyone is trying to claim that anarchists are a strain of libertarian conservatism, though. Rather the sources we have are saying that anarchism and libertarian conservatism are both strains of the more general category of political philosophies known as libertarianism, which stresses human liberty and minimal or nonexistent state coercion. From these foundations, however, very different political ideologies have been developed. One of these ideologies is libertarian conservatism, the other are various forms of libertarian socialism or left libertarianism. But they all possess a common desire for protecting human rights and minimizing state coercion. Anyhow, what's most important here is that these things are what the sources say they have in common. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 20:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

A complex issue which might have to be adressed on the libertarianism article. Speaking from outside the USA i can say that elsewhere this is not really too much an issue as liberalism and anarchism are seen as different and in many times opposing ideologies. The problem here is the use of USA liberals of the word libertarian and political writings such as the The Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Political Thought coming from there who assume such a USA centric view of things but one which sometimes only in Canada sometimes is already a problem as the title of the George Woodcock, ( a canadian) book Anarchism: a history of libertarian ideas show. So when i have the time i will take this discussion to the libertarianism article and so it seems as far as the article anarchism, this discussion seems kind of finished.--Eduen (talk) 21:40, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. It is a very complex issue, discussion of which belongs at Talk:Libertarianism. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 21:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Seems I missed some antics, but did Darkstar1st really argue that "because the Libertarianism article states that some Libertarians are anarchists that it supposedly follows that all anarchists are libertarians?" Tsk tsk.... BigK HeX (talk) 23:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Propaganda by the deed picture and section

As the description of the image on the section "propaganda by the deed" says, this image is about "bolchevique" propaganda by the deed. I think it might be more appropriate to have an image directly related to anarchism. If no one else can suggest a good picture to replace that one, I can only suggest a picture of one of the main propagandizers of anarchist propaganda by the deed, Johann Most and Luigi Galleani.

And also i propose on that section incluiding information on related developments to propaganda by the deed which were Expropriative anarchism and illegalism.--Eduen (talk) 04:56, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree, and think that a picture of Galleani would be most appropriate. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 05:06, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Russian revolution picture

The picture of Emma Goldman and Alexander Berkman doesn´t seem to me as directly related to the subject as we can do. I suggest one of these images of Nestor Makhno and his Anarchist peasant ukranian army instead available in wikimedia commons. One obstacle for suggesting one for me though is that i can´t understand the russian or ukranian in which the explanations for some of the best ones are written.--Eduen (talk) 05:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I think we could use both - especially if we replaced the propaganda poster with a smaller sized portrait of Galleani, which would free up some space to include the Makhno photo in the Russian Revolution section along with the current photo. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 05:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Libertarian education

I have made a few additions on the "libertarian education" section from the research I made for a wikipedia article which will be called "Anarchism and education". I started this article a long time ago and the draft form for it is visible here User:Eduen/Anarchism and education for those who might want to contribute in it.--Eduen (talk) 01:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Anarchism... and community?

I'd like to put forth a new topic of interest sub-section on anarchist philosophy and community, as well as model analysis of non-anarchist communities. I've recently given the List of anarchist communities page a long-overdue trimming, and I'm now left with a page that has excluded man of the previously included non-anarchist model communities. To trim these from the page and appease any future editor who might try to add them back on, I wrote up a prose paragraph that neatly included many of them, explaining that they were looked upon as models for anarchist societies. However, this can only be included in the lead, and it's inappropriate for the list since the lead must reflect the body of content, and there is no room for non-anarchist communities in this new format. So, moving that content to this page and creating a sub-section would be useful, and appropriate given that the content spans several schools of anarchist thought, from Rothbard's research on early colonial America, to Kropotkin's collectivist appreciation of hunter-gatherer bands and medieval European towns. My basic concern is, am I getting ahead of myself here? Maybe this should go into another article. It's not much now, but if I haven't overlooked a more appropriate article to move this to, I think we can slap this paragraph here and let it improve over time. --Cast (talk) 04:28, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

As I see it now, this section you are proposing needs more references and better research. I think some of the unsourced affirmations there actually stand out when one reads this article which is so carefully sourced and actually rated as a "good article" within english wikipedia. Please try to improve this section as soon as possible, otherwise it might be better to delete some affirmations of this section. Personally, I would have suggested presenting a draft of this section here on the Talk page first, both for debate and collective improvement, rather than adding it as it stands now.--Eduen (talk) 05:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

One of the reasons why it is unsourced is that there is no high quality reliable source that is followed in generating this section, it is synthesis by collation. Additionally, when first added, a large number of citations were to clearly unreliable websites. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

It might be better to remove this section which doesn´t mean excluding the possibility of adding one in the future on the same subject better sourced and researched. I think as it stands now it is the weak point of the article.--Eduen (talk) 13:45, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I concur with Eduen. At this stage new sections added to the article ought to be added after the Main article specifically covering that topic has already been made and is of an equivalent quality to this article. Fifelfoo (talk) 14:31, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Anarchist philosophy and Anarchist movement: two topics/one article?

Revfiewing an old afd debate at [[3]] I find myself agreeing that the topics are separate and distinct. Are there separate and distinct articles somewhere or has that been overuled at WP? Please give me a heads up at my talk page if you would like a prompter response thanks. Bard गीता 22:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

The word "anarchism" makes everyone think of both a philosophy and people and movements who identify with that philosophy. It is better for me for the uninformed person who comes here to know in the same article of both the anarchist movements and the philosophy that informed that practice. Anyway there is already an article called "anarchist schools of thought" and another called "history of anarchism". The weaker one of the two is "history of anarchism" which deserves our attention.--Eduen (talk) 21:24, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with a lot of this (esp. the loving care needed by the lamentable history article); I have been concerned at the relative prominence of the philosophy in our article compared to most non-polisci sources which seem to characterise it as a social movement first and foremost. Because Wikipedia is written overwhlemingly by nerds, who are systems-thinkers, the treelike structure of the schools of thought megasection, with its contrasts and delineations, has proven very appealing. It regularly grows far out of proportion, though I've tried to mitigate that in the past by exporting less crucial elaborations to anarchist schools of thought (a task which is, again, overdue). I have considered putting the (increasingly comprehensive, thanks to your entries) social movement section ahead of the philosophy one, but the former is too scattershot and segmented, lacking a unified chronological narrative, to function adequately as an overview. Skomorokh 01:53, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Image for Post War section

As it stands now this recently created section has no image. I will love to have this image of the establishment of the Federazione Anarchica Italiana in 1945 here. If someone who knows the process of doing that could do it it will be awesome. Otherwise of what is already available in wikimedia commons there is this nice photo of the great american anarchist thinker Paul Goodman who was an influential anarchist of this period. . So i leave this here in order to listen to your opinions or other suggestions.--Eduen (talk) 03:56, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Pardon the late response. Yes, I also would like the FAI image, but to secure it we would need to go through the process of securing the permission from the image owner, or prove that there is no image owner. I second that we move past this process for now and throw in the Goodman image. On a separate note, anyone else notice that the images on this page suffers from a severe vitamin E deficiency? Estrogen, that is. Only two women out of fourteen images. One is a cartoon. I suppose the black bloc kids shouldn't count, since we can't confirm sex under that frumpy clothing. What up with that, broseph? Where all my fly honeys at? Nobody told me this party was going to be a total sausage fest, bro! Ahem, all joking aside, some of the most appropriate images for each section will predominantly include men, and in general we do suffer for a lack of historical images since Wikimedia insists we prove anarchists won't sue for including anarchist images we "own". So anarchist women, as well as anarchist images from foreign language cultures, such as Japan, are getting shafted here. --Cast (talk) 16:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Byelf2007

1. Anarchism is not merely anti-statism

User:Byelf2007 says the following:

"your assertion is at odds with the article's definition of "anarchism" (so take it to discussion)"

He or she can only refer to this that i said in order to support my latest edition:

"anarchism is not reducible to anti-statism. the word anarchy refers to "rulers" in general)"

I invite User Byelf2007 and anyone interested to read the section of THIS article called "Etymology and terminology". There anyone can see this supported affirmation "The term anarchism derives from the Greek ἄναρχος, anarchos, meaning "without rulers",[22][23] from the prefix ἀν- (an-, "without") + ἀρχή (archê, "sovereignty, realm, magistracy")[24] + -ισμός (-ismos, from the suffix -ιζειν, -izein "-izing")."

The word "Rulers" doesn´t refer only to the state as the only possible ruler but can refer to any type of hierarchy or authority that one will encounter in different social contexts such as bosses, parents, hierarchies in bureaucracies, priests, the pope, teachers, husbands etc. This is the reason why anarchists have also been involved in activism to fight againts these hierarchies and so there have been anarchists involved in anti-psychiatry, anti-mass schooling, free thought and anti-religion activism, there is something called anarcha-feminism and something else called anarcho-syndicalism etc. All these hierarchies refer to non state hierarchies. This is the reason why this sentence that user Byelf2007 does not want to stay but that has a long time in the introduction already, has to stay:

"Anarchists seek to diminish or even abolish authority in the conduct of human relations,"

So anarchism is not just anti-statism. This is why I reverted your edition. Anyway it is only one sentence so it doesn´t take too much space but informs the uninformed reader about anarchism more exactly than the way this previously mentioned User wants. I think maybe the case is that User Byelf2007 is not informed too well on anarchism history and its philosophy. Frankly it is rather easy for me to find more references in order to support this important conceptual sentence. This is the reason I will proceed to add that sentence and shortly it will have more references to support it so there is no doubts.

Your argument is that "the word anarchism is derived from X, therefore, it means X." But it's just derived from something else. The definition of anarchism is whatever it is, regardless of what the word was derived from. If anarchism really is what you say it is, you need to explain why your panarchy link is better than the two we have already (in the first sentence of the article, this: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anarchism, and the fact that anarchism has historically meant opposition to the state). byelf2007 (talk) 27 July 2011

Again. The word "anarchy" means "without rulers" and so than has been interpreted alongside no state also as having no bosses in workplaces, no capitalist or landowning feudal class, no authoritarian husbands, no parents deciding who their sons should marry or to overdirect their personal interests, no churches deciding personal morality, no authority in associations, no forcing of heterosexuality on homosexual people, etc. So anarchism considering both etymology and its history means "againts authority", not just "the state." Your pretention of "traditional" definition I think comes from poor information similar to a caricature, a prejudice or a vulgar notion of uninformed people. Considering the definitions that this dictionary.com includes this "definition" of anarchism "the methods or practices of anarchists, as the use of violence to undermine government". So of course this being a quick passing definition it will give you oversimplifications such as these which recall the old societary prejudice which sees anarchists as "violent people who put bombs" ignoring such things as anarcho-pacifism and christian anarchism and really the whole activism which is not violent per se that anarchists do.

This place being not a "dictionary" but an encyclopedia should go beyond prejudice, vulgar definitions and such and present a more full exposition of a subject. This means it cannot rely only in quick dictionary definitions.

Your obsession on erasing one sentence is really strange by this point. The sentence being of course "Anarchists seek to diminish or even abolish authority in the conduct of human relations".

But now you are proposing a big change in the structure of the article. Certainly this cannot go until you can obtain more adhesions to your proposal in this discussion section. I really don´t want the lowering of quality of this Wikipedia:Good article. I suggest presenting a draft of your proposal here first for evaluation, possible colective improvements or rejection.--Eduen (talk) 23:49, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

"The word "anarchy" means "without rulers""

No it doesn't. Maybe it did in ancient Greece, but about 99% of people in the last two hundred years (including most anarchists) have used it as being anti-state. Your argument is like saying "faggot" can only mean "a bundle of sticks."

"has been interpreted alongside no state also as having no bosses in workplaces, no capitalist or landowning feudal class, no authoritarian husbands, no parents deciding who their sons should marry or to overdirect their personal interests, no churches deciding personal morality, no authority in associations, no forcing of heterosexuality on homosexual people, etc."

According to whom? Some guy? What about the 100 other guys who say it's anti-state?

Anyway, taking a cue from the "anarchy" page, I'm going to change the first paragraph to include "has been variously defined by sources." byelf2007 (talk) 30 July 2011

It seems we cannot progress here. Somehow User talk:byelf2007 has an specific interest on reducing anarchism to anti-statism even though i have provided the reasons why anarchism is againts authority is general. Either whim or ideological reasons look like is the case here.--Eduen (talk) 01:23, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Your reasons are (as near as I can tell):

1 - "Anarchy" is derived from "no rulers", therefore, "anarchism" means "a world with no authority/rulers."

2 - And here are a couple guys who define it that way.

Just because the word anarchy originally meant "no rulers" doesn't say anything about what the word "anarchism" means--it means whatever people come to a consensus about it meaning. Again, recall my example of how the most popular definitions of words change all the time. What you'd need to do is find a lot of sources that define anarchism the way you think it should be defined (basically social anarchism), go over how the vast majority of the first big wave of anarchists in Europe in the 19th century were social anarchists as opposed to individualist anarchists, etc.

I'd also like to point out that the "anarchy" article (which I'm pretty sure I've never edited, at least not for a long time), says that there's various definitions, so your premise about it meaning "no rulers" looks to be false, not that it really matters.

I also don't think it's fair to say all anarchists seek to "diminish" authority in human affairs (what about the anarcho-capitalists? surely the private defense and court firms have authority, as well as the owners of large corporations, etc). Either the definition is your preferred definition, my preferred definition (which is currently the most popular one, right or wrong), or there's no definition which people have come to a consensus about. From what little research I've done into this issue recently, the latter looks like the case.

Furthermore, the revert change you made to the article makes it unclear. If anarchism means "no rulers", then no state seems to be a pretty obvious consequence. And if it's okay to just "diminish it" and be an anarchist, isn't that contrary to your "no rulers" argument?

My "whim" is simply for this article to be as accurate as possible byelf2007 (talk) 31 July 2011

2. Anarchism without adjectives

I don´t see a problem for that sentence to stay. I suggest User Byelf2007 to present here his arguments so as why that sentence shouldn´t go in the introduction. The inclusion of that reference has a long history of consensus.

The sentence says "X organization thinks thus and so and seeks to do thus and so." and I'm pointing out it does nothing to explain what anarchism is. I'm fine with it being in the article, but it shouldn't be in the overview--that's reserved for saying what anarchism is and nothing else. byelf2007 (talk) 27 July 2011

3. Socialism in individualist anarchism and individualism in anarcho-communism.

These two sentences clearly don´t mean the same thing:

"Some individualist anarchists are also socialists"

"some anarcho-communists are also individualists."

And they don´t take too much space but informs uniformed readers better about the spirit of anarchism. Individualist anarchism and anarcho-communism are not the same thing and so they have long different articles. Since these two afirmations don´t mean the same thing there is no redundancy.

But I don´t know why User Byelf2007 wants to keep "Some individualist anarchists are also socialists" and not "some anarcho-communists are also individualists." I hope this is not because of personal ideological preferences but the second sentence that User Byelf2007 is well supported by references and so he does´t have a good justification to take it out.

So I will proceed as mentioned before. User:Byelf2007 can very well defend his positions here and so i hope we will work here for the good of this article.--Eduen (talk) 04:47, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

My point was that saying "Some of X is also Y" and "Some of Y is also X" is clearly redundant. "Redundant" doesn't literally mean "the same". However, as communism and socialism aren't the same thing, I should really amend it to "Some individualist anarchists are also communists or socialists." byelf2007 (talk) 27 July 2011

That seems to miss the emphasis of "some anarcho-communists are also individualists", which implies 'I am first and foremost a communist anarchist, but also an individualist"; it also conflates anarchists who identify as individualists with the distinct ideology of individualist anarchism, which is problematic in itself. Skomorokh 01:45, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

These are good points. What do you think is our solution? I think the way it was originally worded was vague and cumbersome.byelf2007 (talk) 31 July 2011

After years of following this article, I came to the conclusion that every point made about the mutually hostile schools of thought was so intricate and controversy-prone that the best option often ended up being to stick as rigourously to the wording of the sources as possible. Sadly, this leads to sloppy or overwrought phrasing, you are right, but that's a bullet we've traditionally bitten. The better solution, I suspect, would be to hunt for reliable sources which directly address the issue in a nuanced way. Skomorokh 02:21, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

As far as perhaps the two most influential contemporary insurrectionary anarchists Wolfi Landstreicher and Alfredo Maria Bonanno, both have written a lot on Stirner and Landstreicher recently translated Stirner´s critics (Stirner´s reply to his critics of his time). Individualist anarchism and anarcho-communism have had both close friendly relationships (for example in Emma Goldman who admired both Kropotkin on the one hand and on the other Stirner and Nietzsche and campaigned a lot about "individualist" issues such as free love) and criticisms of each other. I didn´t add the part that was before in the introduction on anarchism without adjectives but I guess those who added it were motivated so as to show how people like historian of anarchism Max Nettlau has characterized all anarchism. As being in a sense both "individualist" (defense of individual liberty) and "communist" (for the common good). See for this Max Nettlau. "Anarchism: Communist or Individualist? Both" even though some anarchists will emphazise one thing over the other but anarchism without adjectives also points out that this separation between "social anarchists" and "individualist anarchists" is too simple and does not do justice to the complexity of anarchist schools of thought. ¿Are christian anarchists social or individualists anarchists? I could say both. ¿Are anarchopacifists individualists or communists? There have been both. ¿Are green anarchists individualists or communists? Thoreau was both an individualist and an early modern ecologist while Murray Bookchin was strongly Kropotkinist and founder of social ecology. ¿Is post-left anarchy communist or individualist?

So maybe we might have to deemphasize this separation between "social and communist anarchism" and individualism maybe providing information in the introduction about more recent schools of thought which do not adjust too easily within this "social vs. individualist" separation of Old Classical Anarchism and so I also argue for a mention of anarchism without adjectives in the introduction also for this reason. Anyway this discussion between "individualists" and "anarcho-communists" after the spanish civil war actually lost importance and the discussion between platformism and synthesis anarchism became more important as anyone can see by visiting the articles anarchism in Italy and anarchism in France. In the case of France after WWII in the establishment of the Fédération Anarchiste (which is a large organization that exists until today) it happened that anarcho-communists like Maurice Joyeux and individualists like Charles-Auguste Bontemps actually became allies against the platformists. --Eduen (talk) 03:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC)