The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Please supply full citations when adding information, and consider tagging or removing unciteable information.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative Views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This subject is featured in the Outline of anarchism, which is incomplete and needs further development. That page, along with the other outlines on Wikipedia, is part of Wikipedia's Outline of Knowledge, which also serves as the table of contents or site map of Wikipedia.
Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting.
Hi, The idea is to shorten the history section, especially of ancient precedents of anarchism, and put more info on the actual founders of modern anarchism, Godwin and Proudhon. There is a more detailed History of anarchism page for early history.Noodleki (talk) 22:13, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
What you did was cut and paste information from the History of anarchism to this one and vice versa. This messes up the entire edit history because you are swapping information you didn't write. Helpsome (talk) 13:38, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Why does that matter? The History article is just a more in-depth version, there's no need to use completely different material, and that's what's done all over wikipedia. Plus, I wrote some of the info in the fost place.Noodleki (talk) 22:29, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
See WP:CWW. Copying within the encyclopedia presents attribution issues, but they're not insurmountable. — Malik ShabazzTalk/Stalk 22:38, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Noodleki, your talk page shows that you have been blocked a few times for cutting and pasting content from one article to another so you should know better by now. Please stop doing this and don't pretend you have consensus. Helpsome (talk) 22:43, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
I discussed it earlier, see rationale above, and was directed to CWW for attribution. The other user does not yet seem to understand the guidelines, and he has therefore been reverting it. To rehearse what I said earlier, the article focuses to much on ancient precedents to anarchism, rather than on the intellectual founders of anarchism theory. The history article is there for more in-depth information.Noodleki (talk) 23:24, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
The article deals well enough with anarchist theory and the section history does that also considering theory alongside historical context. Just as there is an article called history of anarchism there is also an article called anarchist schools of thought with plenty of theoretical discussion for those interested only on that or mainly on that.--Eduen (talk) 06:48, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Apart from being mentioned, there is no discussion on what Godwin or Proudhon said, quite a serious ommission. Instead of this basic level of required information for the reader, there is huge amounts on Laozi and Christ, who really have little if anything to do with anarchism. This is a weighting issue.Noodleki (talk) 10:10, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps someone can explain the problem with Noodleki's edit? I reverted only because there was an edit war occurring, but Noodleki has made an excellent case that I feel has yet to be rebutted. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:15, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Both Godwin and Proudhon not only are dealt with in this article as far as their views but also have their photos included. I think that is enough Proudhon and Godwin who also return in the anarchist schools of thought section. As far as early history their presence are not the only important things that have to be mentioned but other names must also be mentioned such as Josiah Warren, Max Stirner, Josep Dejacque, Anselme Bellegarrigue and others. Later the article also notes the influence of Proudhon on the Paris Commune. Godwin returns also in the Anarchism and education section and that notes the importance on his views of the issue of education. I think that is enough Proudhon and Godwin.--Eduen (talk) 19:16, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
It's difficult to understand you, but I do not think it is enough to say about Proudhon "The first to describe himself as an anarchist was Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, a French philosopher and politician, which led some to call him the founder of modern anarchist theory" at all. It is also too focused on early figures as I have mentioned several times. As it stands, the article is simply not doing a good job of giving a casual reader a good idea of the development of anarchist thought in modern times.Noodleki (talk) 21:42, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Is anyone there?Noodleki (talk) 13:59, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Reading this a little late but it seems that the only thing which will give more importance to Proudhon will be something along the lines such as "Proudhon invented anarchism" or "Proudhon is the mian theorist of anarchism". It seems that is what user Noodleki is arguing for. In fact other sources will tend to give Bakunin a more important role than Proudhon mainly since Bakunin carried out an internationalistic propaganda work, unlike Proudhon who only stayed in France. So this is to suggest that something like anarchism( just as any other political idea like conservatism, fascism, liberalism) will have many sources in different levels of inter-relationship. Proudhon is clearly one of the main names in this article if one will decide to count the number of times he is mentioned. I think more than that will be unfair historically.--Eduen (talk) 01:17, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
possible Anarchism in the Middle Age in Spain: Castile and Aragon
Hello, people. Important pages of the history of Spain are very little known, even in Spain herself. And some of them include that since very ancient times we have traditional institutions that well could be calified of "Anarchist". These institutions were created after the Moors invasions of 711, between the centuries 8 and 9, but some experts say that before the Roman conquest of Spain there could have been some similar institutions among the Celt and Iberian tribes in Spain. These institutions may be called "Anarchist" because in them people had community of properties, decisions were taken in popular meetings, and the laws or Constitutions (Fueros in Spanish) were very popular. In these lands the kings had very few rights, only 3 or 4 rights. These institutions lasted many centuries and were originated in the kingdom of Castile. Soon, they were carried to Bascony (or Basque Country), and the kingdoms of Navarre and Aragon. For more information, you can go to the Wikipedia in Spanish and read articles like "Comunidad de Villa y Tierra", "Behetria" and "Anselmo Carretero". For the version in Aragon, you can read "Comunidad de Aldeas". thankyou !!--18.104.22.168 (talk) 16:27, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
You would need a source that links these societies to anarchism. It is unlikely any would actually call them anarchist, because they existed before the ideology was developed. TFD (talk) 20:46, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
if you would not call them "Anarchist", then, what would you say they were ? - Socialist ? democratic ? communist ? communers ? or what ? - some scholars have called them democratic, others scholars Socialist... i think the word Anarchist may be appropiate, although it is of course not a dogma. - thanks --22.214.171.124 (talk) 15:58, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
IP, I think TFD's point is not what we would call them, but that reliable sources specifically connect these communities with anarchism. If you have these sources, please add the information. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:29, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
On why "anarchocapitalism" should not be identified as "libertarian anarchism" in this article
The wikipedia article on "libertarianism" has acknoledged the fact that using "libertarianism" to denote pro-capitalist views is mostly a US tendency while in the rest of the world "libertarian" has been used since the 19th century as a synonym for "anarchist". A long discussion there has come to this agreement as so this is something that informs the current state of that article. As such saying that there is only one type of "libertarian anarchism"-namely anarchocapitalism-will be highly problematic since in the rest of the world and even in the US anarchists have used "libertarian" to refer to themselves. I say even in the US since currently there exists a platformist organization there which is called Common Struggle – Libertarian Communist Federation. So as examples of this there are current and past anarchist newspapers such as the current venezuelan and argentinian newspapers called El Libertario and the past french from the 19th century Le Libertaire who did not use "anarchist libertarian" but just "libertarian" to refer to themselves. In this sense saying something like "libertarian anarchism" will be a bad case of redundancy in a word similar to saying something like "fascist nazism" or "socialist communism". All anarchism is libertarian by definition just as all nazism is fascist as well as all communism is socialist. So saying there is one particular position which will be THE "libertarian anarchism" will be absurd.--Eduen (talk) 19:34, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
A reference was provided. If you do not like the fact that a reference was provided--well I suppose that's your problem. But a reference was provided, and on Wikipedia we use verifiability. The reference can be verified, as it is real, tangible, published book. Not some blog. Not some self-published screed. But a real, verifiable book. Your dislike of capitalism aside: what is wrong with the provided reference? - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 22:50, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
The problem here is of logic and of actual use of the word "libertarian". This is why there is a book in the english language written by the canadian George Woodcock called Anarchism: A History of Libertarian Ideas and Movements and a more recent one by Robert Graham called Anarchism Volume Three: The New Anarchism (1974-2008) (Anarchism: A Documentary History of Libertarian Ideas). Neither of these books include pro-capitalist ideas as part of anarchism and so they don´t include "anarchocapitalism" yet they identify all of anarchism as "libertarian". So that is how we can say ALL anarchism is libertarian. Saying "libertarian anarchism" is like saying "christian catholicism", "islamic suunism", "budhist theravada" or even "Metal Black metal". As far as the strange discussion on how anarchocapitalism has been called "libertarian anarchism" i think that will be the subject of the "anarchocapitalism" article and not of this one.--Eduen (talk) 23:54, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
You didn't explain what's wrong with the provided reference. And you keep using scarce-quotes with anarchocapitalism. So: could you explain what precisely is wrong with the provided reference? - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 01:25, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Quoting Wikipedia:Sources#Verifiability_does_not_guarantee_inclusion: "While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article."--Eduen (talk) 02:28, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Read again this wikipedia policy i just presented. But in fact identifying the highly controversial and many times not taken seriously as an anarchist position-anarcho-capitalism-is also a case of Wikipedia:Undue_weight#Due_and_undue_weight. Being also a very recent position and one which only seems to appear in the United States is giving too much importance to a highly minoritarian view. The wider and majoritarian view will be one which identifies all anarchism with libertarianism, as i showed before, and not only a single position within it. But also the wikipedia libertarianism article also recognizes anarchism as a whole as a form of libertarianism so in fact saying only one form of anarchism is "libertarian anarchism" will also go againts the consensus reached in the main libertarianism article.--Eduen (talk) 03:10, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for actually providing a real argument, rather than your bias. It's a refreshing change, Eduen. Now if only you could see your way to stop using scarce-quotes. Or perhaps I'll just use them in response. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 01:06, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
As i check the reference provided to support "anarchocapitalism" as the ONLY "libertarian anarchism" i see that it is from a single author so its being a neutral third party source can be also questioned. It is also a very recent text from 2012. As i see it, at most the fact that a single author calls "anarcho-capitalism" "libertarian anarchy" should guarantee a debate only in the "anarchocapitalism" article itself. It clearly does not deserve mention in the main anarchism article. This also since "anarchocapitalism" on itself has been very controversial whether it should be mentioned at all in this article.--Eduen (talk) 03:18, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
The provided source says "The form of anarchism that accepts this radical notion of freedom, our freedom to bind ourselves, I call libertarian anarchism." That is, the author is referring to his own use of the phrase "libertarian anarchism", not making any claim that that phrase is commonly used. Indeed, the fact that the author writes "I call" rather than "is called" suggests that he is introducing a novel or unusual phrase, and that "libertarian anarchism" is not commonly used to refer to this position. We should only include the phrase "libertarian anarchism" in this article if it is widely used, and the provided source does not say that the phrase is widely used. So, on the basis of that source, I don't think we should include the phrase "libertarian anarchism" as a synonym for "anarchocapitalism" in the article.VoluntarySlave (talk) 13:03, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
In regards the OP, the violent strand wouldn't be libertarian in terms of its disregard for classicial liberalism (non-aggression principle holding primacy). Also minarchists are on the fenec here.
All Nazism likewise is not inherently fascist as the latter has centralizing corporatist tendencies in its foundation (that is the antithesis of anarchism) the neo-Nazi variety/strain does not follow that (although im hard pressed to find an intellectual neo-Nazi, at least by self proclamation). Logically it follows then that all fascism is not Nazism, but I don't think you intended to touch that.Lihaas (talk) 14:45, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
the article is rated as "good" (but I don't know who reviewed). Its more than a little POV to gloss over the various aspects of anarchism such as the more right-leaning anarcho capitalism. I don't even see it as a section, yet the more FRINGE "free love" geta mentioned. Im not tagging or questing review yet, but we need to sort this out(Lihaas (talk) 14:39, 26 April 2014 (UTC)).
On all of that check archives on the discussion on the issue of anarchocapitalism. Anarchocapitalism is mentioned nevertheless in "postclassical" schools of thought alongside other recent lines of thought such as insurrectionary anarchism or green anarchism which get also the treatment of recent developments according to Wikipedia:Due weight. But also the idea of a "right wing anarchism" is highly problematic since anarchism is centrally an idea of anti-authoritarianism and the right wing in politics is associated with authoritarianism or beliefs in defense of authority.--Eduen (talk) 23:03, 26 April 2014 (UTC).
Well that's a POV issue because it dilutes one for the other. Right wing need this differentiations because it is NOT only as you say authoritarian...that's a Eurocentric view. fi the otherstrands get its own section this means that the other should to in order to balanace it out it is clearly significant and notableLihaas (talk) 01:03, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
From what you wrote here i only understood "eurocentrism". Hardly something that only happens in Europe. Since Europe colonized most of the world at some point in the XIX century, it also exported much of its form of viewing politics everywhere. And in the case of latin america, there is a tendency to count them as more or less part of the Western World since they share a catholic and iberian culture.--Eduen (talk) 01:13, 28 April 2014 (UTC)