Talk:Individualist anarchism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Diamond-caution.svg

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Should you wish to make any substantial changes;

Untitled[edit]

  • Before making any such substantial changes, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue.
  • While making any such changes, please include an accurate and concise description of your edit in the "Edit summary" field-box.
  • Shortly after making any such changes, please also carefully describe the reason(s) for any such changes on the discussion-page.

(This message should only be placed on talk pages.)

          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Economics (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Libertarianism (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon Individualist anarchism is within the scope of WikiProject Libertarianism, an open collaborative effort to coordinate work for and sustain comprehensive coverage of Libertarianism and related subjects in the Wikipedia.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Politics (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Sociology (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Proposal of new "Overview" section[edit]

Individualist anarchism of different kinds have a few things in common. These are:

1. The concentration and elevation on the individual and his/her over any kind of social or exterior reality or construction such as morality, ideology, social custom, religion, metaphysics, ideas or the will of others.[1][2]

2. The rejection or reservations on the idea of revolution seeing it as a time of mass uprising which could bring about new hierarchies. Instead they favor more evolutionary methods of bringing about anarchy through alternative experiences and experiments and education which could be brought about today[3][4]. This also because it is not seen desirable for individuals the fact of having to wait for revolution to start experiencing alternative experiences outside what is offered in the current social system[5].

3. The view that relationships with other persons or things can only be of one´s own interest and can be as transitory and without compromises as desired since in individualist anarchism sacrifice is usually rejected. In this way Max Stirner recoomended associations of egoists[6][7]. Individual experience and exploration therefore is emphazised.

As such differences exist. In regards to economic questions there are adherents to mutualism (Pierre Joseph Proudhon, Emile Armand, Benjamin Tucker), egoistic disrespect for "ghosts" such as private property and markets (Max Stirner), and adherents to anarcho-communism (Albert Libertad, illegalism).

An important tendency within individualist anarchist currents emphasizes individual subjective exploration and defiance of social conventions. As such Murray Bookchin describes a lot of individualist anarchism as people who "expressed their opposition in uniquely personal forms, especially in fiery tracts, outrageous behavior, and aberrant lifestyles in the cultural ghettos of fin de sicle New York, Paris, and London. As a credo, individualist anarchism remained largely a bohemian lifestyle, most conspicuous in its demands for sexual freedom ('free love') and enamored of innovations in art, behavior, and clothing."[8]. In this way free love currents (Emile Armand) and other radical lifestyles such as naturism had popularity among individualist anarchists.

so there i leave it for all of you to consider it and propose changes and/or additions.

  1. ^ "En la vida de todo único, todo vínculo, independientemente de la forma en que éste se presente, supone una cadena que condiciona, y por tanto elimina la condición de persona libre. Ello supone dos consecuencias; la libertad se mantendrá al margen de toda categoría moral. Este último concepto quedará al margen del vocabulario estirneriano, puesto que tanto ética como moral serán dos conceptos absolutos que, como tales, no pueden situarse por encima de la voluntad individual. La libertad se vive siempre al margen de cualquier condicionamiento material o espiritual, “más allá del bien y del mal” como enunciará Nietzsche en una de sus principales obras. Las creencias colectivas, los prejuicios compartidos, los convencionalismos sociales serán, pues, objeto de destrucción."A.3.1 What are the differences between individualist and social anarchists?
  2. ^ "Stirner himself, however, has no truck with "higher beings." Indeed, with the aim of concerning himself purely with his own interests, he attacks all "higher beings," regarding them as a variety of what he calls "spooks," or ideas to which individuals sacrifice themselves and by which they are dominated. First amongst these is the abstraction "Man", into which all unique individuals are submerged and lost. As he put it, "liberalism is a religion because it separates my essence from me and sets it above me, because it exalts 'Man' to the same extent as any other religion does to God . . . it sets me beneath Man." Indeed, he "who is infatuated with Man leaves persons out of account so far as that infatuation extends, and floats in an ideal, sacred interest. Man, you see, is not a person, but an ideal, a spook." [p. 176 and p.79] Among the many "spooks" Stirner attacks are such notable aspects of capitalist life as private property, the division of labour, the state, religion, and (at times) society itself. We will discuss Stirner's critique of capitalism before moving onto his vision of an egoist society and how it relates to social anarchism."[ A.3.1 What are the differences between individualist and social anarchists?]
  3. ^ "The first is in regard to the means of action in the here and now (and so the manner in which anarchy will come about). Individualists generally prefer education and the creation of alternative institutions, such as mutual banks, unions, communes, etc...Such activity, they argue, will ensure that present society will gradually develop out of government into an anarchist one. They are primarily evolutionists, not revolutionists, and dislike social anarchists' use of direct action to create revolutionary situations."A.3.1 What are the differences between individualist and social anarchists?
  4. ^ "Toda revolución, pues, hecha en nombre de principios abstractos como igualdad, fraternidad, libertad o humanidad, persigue el mismo fin; anular la voluntad y soberanía del individuo, para así poderlo dominar."La insumisión voluntaria. El anarquismo individualista español durante la dictadura y la segund arepública (1923-1938)
  5. ^ "The wave of anarchist bombings and assassinations of the 1890s ...and the practice of illegalism from the mid-1880s to the start of the First World War...were twin aspects of the same proletarian offensive, but were expressed in an individualist practice, one that complemented the great collective struggles against capital. The illegalist comrades were tired of waiting for the revolution. The acts of the anarchist bombers and assassins ("propaganda by the deed") and the anarchist burglars ("individual reappropriation") expressed their desperation and their personal, violent rejection of an intolerable society. Moreover, they were clearly meant to be exemplary , invitations to revolt."THE "ILLEGALISTS" by Doug Imrie
  6. ^ Finalmente, y este es un tema poco resuelto por el filósofo bávaro, resulta evidente que, a pesar de todo culto a la soberanía individual, es necesario y deseable que los individuos cooperen. Pero el peligro de la asociación conlleva la reproducción, a escala diferente, de una sociedad, y es evidente que en este contexto, los individuos deban renunciar a buena parte de su soberanía. Stirner propone “uniones de egoístas”, formadas por individuos libres que pueden unirse episódicamente para colaborar, pero evitando la estabilidad o la permanencia."La insumisión voluntaria. El anarquismo individualista español durante la dictadura y la segunda república (1923-1938)
  7. ^ "The unions Stirner desires would be based on free agreement, being spontaneous and voluntary associations drawn together out of the mutual interests of those involved, who would "care best for their welfare if they unite with others." [p. 309] The unions, unlike the state, exist to ensure what Stirner calls "intercourse," or "union" between individuals. To better understand the nature of these associations, which will replace the state, Stirner lists the relationships between friends, lovers, and children at play as examples. [No Gods, No Masters, vol. 1, p. 25] These illustrate the kinds of relationships that maximise an individual's self-enjoyment, pleasure, freedom, and individuality, as well as ensuring that those involved sacrifice nothing while belonging to them. Such associations are based on mutuality and a free and spontaneous co-operation between equals. As Stirner puts it, "intercourse is mutuality, it is the action, the commercium, of individuals." [p. 218] Its aim is "pleasure" and "self-enjoyment." Thus Stirner sought a broad egoism, one which appreciated others and their uniqueness, and so criticised the narrow egoism of people who forgot the wealth others are: "But that would be a man who does not know and cannot appreciate any of the delights emanating from an interest taken in others, from the consideration shown to others. That would be a man bereft of innumerable pleasures, a wretched character . . . would he not be a wretched egoist, rather than a genuine Egoist? . . . The person who loves a human being is, by virtue of that love, a wealthier man that someone else who loves no one." [No Gods, No Masters, vol. 1, p. 23]"What are the differences between individualist and social anarchists?
  8. ^ "2. Individualist Anarchism and Reaction" in Social Anarchism or Lifestyle Anarchism - An Unbridgeable Chasm

--Eduen (talk) 06:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

This is quite good. I like it. Zazaban (talk) 07:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Again an Eduen's essay, I delete bad resources -geocities (!) and communists refferences like Infoshop FAQ-, "fanzine"'s inclution of an ideologgical non-individualist phenomenon (also, there is a big confussion between "violent means" with "illegalism"). I try to correct the deliberated exclusion of schoolar and especialized 'individualist' resources, and the exclussion of market anarchism like the principal form of anarcho-individualism, that exclussion made an incoherence between previous refferences with new text. I order the content, again, in grades of importance. I repeat, don't be ensayistic, and please use schoolar and specialized resources, not fanzines. --Nihilo 01 (talk) 19:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Ensayistic is not a word. Your explanations of why you delete things are often very vague. I'm not sure what you think an essay is, either. Zazaban (talk) 20:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I mean, schoolar and especialized refferences aren't compatible with amateur and non-especialized ones. Many of the parts I delete are interpetations, about not so relevant issues, and even with important errors. --Nihilo 01 (talk) 20:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


I ask, where are the refferences to books about individualist anarchism? (eg. The Debates of Liberty: An Overview of Individualist Anarchism, 1881-1908, Men against the State: The expositors of individualist anarchism in America, 1827-1908, The Politics of Individualism: Liberalism, Liberal Feminism and Anarchism, The Individualist Anarchists: An Anthology of Liberty (1881-1908), Anarchism: Left, Right and Green, Anarchy and the Law: The Political Economy of Choice), why to prefer self-published websites?. Another thing, In the resume I list some of the mistakes I found. --Nihilo 01 (talk) 21:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
There were sources showing the illegalism was a form of individualist anarchism, your claim otherwise is your own opinion, which is contradicted by sources. Zazaban (talk) 21:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Wich schoolar, especialized and relevant source? Is it gennerally aceptted, or is an original claim of only one publication or one non-especiallized publication? --Nihilo 01 (talk) 21:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
It's generally accepted- I've never heard it called anything but individualism. Peter Kropotkin referenced it as the very stereotype of individualism. Zazaban (talk) 21:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Anarcho-individualism like a political doctrine, and anarcho-individualist society?, or only a kind of collectivist anarchist -quasi-communist- with "individual actions"? An acredited source please, illegalism seems anarcho-communism without class war strategy.
Out of that item, I continue asking why don't use especialized sources like the books I mention? Why put in an upper degree self-published websites? Why you change the importance of some currents (to most important to the bottom)? Why revert my corrections (I delete a lot of ideological, historical mistakes and POV, that other users already noted and why you putted that mistakes again)? --Nihilo 01 (talk) 21:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Nihilo 01. Please read Wikipedia’s policy on sources (specially subsections on questionable and self-published sources). -- Vision Thing -- 17:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


Sources[edit]

this articles had a problem with not having a global world view of this subject. And Nihilo´s sources all happen to concentrate on the United states version(s) of individualist anarchism. Now theres a problem here if Nihilo doesnt want to accept sources in other languages and from other parts.

"schoolar and especialized refferences aren't compatible with amateur and non-especialized ones"

i understand the USA phenomenon "anarcho"capitalism as other types of neoliberalism manifests itself in university economists and think tanks. Individualist anarchism as a part of the anarchist movement expressed itself in things similar to what today is called fanzines. Now the article called La insumisión voluntaria. El anarquismo individualista español durante la dictadura y la segund arepública (1923-1938) is as academic and "scholarly" as you can ask anything to be and it exists in book form. Now if it happens not to be of the taste of economicistic american neoliberalism, thats different. The point here is to make a balanced article and as nihilo wants it, this is a USA centered article which makes one think individualist anarchists are americans neoliberal economists. How does that correspond to people like Renzo Novatore or free love propagandist Emile Armand or Max Stirner or Albert Libertad or the people of the Ateneo Naturista Ecléctico in Barcelona . Emile Armand if he resembles something today is definitely not economics professors and yuppies but perhaps hippies. Vision_Thing, i see you collaborate in WikiProject Economics. Maybe you should get acquainted with that book on spanish individualist anarchism or this list of sources on european individualist anarchism all very academic written by college proffesors [1]. Theres one thats called STEINER, Anne. Les En-dehors. Anarchistes individualistes et illégalistes à la « Belle époque which deals with french individualist anarchism as it evolved in magazines, alternative communes and groups and things like illegalism. Nihilo wants to censor illegalism. One thing is that "anarcho" capitalism loves private property and another is that all individualist anarchism is "anarcho" capitalism. In fact "anarcho" capitalism is a USA phenomenon and to most anarchists it cant be an anarchism at all. But anyway i was referencing the article/book on spanish individualist anarchism and the written works of people like Han Ryner. And so Benjamin Tucker happened to be a good friend with Emile Armand. In this way it is very likely that both will have united in denouncing something like "anarcho" capitalism as not being anarchist at all. Both Emile Armand and Tucker were mutualists and that shows the problem here is showing individualist anarchism as a whole and that there cannot be in a balanced article the preeminence of the vision of a singular version on individualist anarchism as adherents of "anarcho"-capitalism such as nihilo or Vision Thing (as can be seen in his personal wikipedia page) might want. I mean if wikipedia was "my property" i will erase the articles on fascism and "anarcho" capitalism. Since this is not the case in my editions i never erased totally the sections that mention "anarcho" capitalism.

If we cant come to an agreement on this we will not advance in writing a balanced article. We can have a decent article also if we avoid riducolous autoritarian ranting such as "I order the content, again, in grades of importance. I repeat, don't be ensayistic, and please use schoolar and specialized resources, not fanzines." Nihilo. Nihilo is sounding here like if us voluntary collaborators are his salaried employees. Since this is not the case (although something thats perfectly fine with "anarcho"capitalism) we have to come to an agreement. And as what i can see from the discussion page of Nihilo, he seems to have been blocked from editing in Wikipedia many times to really think he is someone reliable for preffering reason and agreements instead of edit wars, whim and dogmatism. From his talk page "This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits, such as those you made to Inclusive Democracy. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. This is a template warning that connects with the previously posted warnings about vandalism and content removal in Nihilo 01' page concerning the Inclusive Democracy entry."--Eduen (talk) 01:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

You keep claiming Emile Armand was a mutualist. Do you have a source for this? Jadabocho (talk) 03:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Armand's own "Anarchist Individualism as Life and Activity," accessible in English on Dana Ward's website, invokes "mutualism" as the basis of relations. The "Amis de E. Armand" repeated this in 1944, in their "Principal Tendencies and Theses of the “L’Unique” Center." Libertatia (talk) 06:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
The RAForum site is the work of Ronald Creagh, among the most important French anarchist academics, and the author of a very good book on the American individualists. Creagh's inclusion of folks like Novatore and Ryner in the category of individualist anarchists ought to be good enough for Wikipedia, particularly since the primary sources are pretty unequivocal in this case. There's a whole French mutualist tradition that is also absent here, starting from people like Alfred Darimon and J. A. Langlois, who collaborated with Proudhon and stretching up through people like Joseph Perrot, who signed himself "a disciple of Proudhon" and was an orthodox interpreter, and Edmond Lagarde, author of La revanche de Proudhon: ou, l'avenir du socialisme mutuelliste. Libertatia (talk) 06:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
But that's not Proudhonian mutualism. I'm not aware of Emile Armand subscribing to a labor theory of value of any sort, as in any labor value exploitation theory. I think the source is using "mutualism" in a very loose sense. Jadabocho (talk) 07:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Actually, the "labor theory of value" requirement for mutualism is largely something cooked up by its critics. Proudhonian mutualism, like the mutualism of the Lyons weavers, was first and foremost a matter of reciprocity. Kevin Carson has demonstrated what a non-issue the LTV-STV issue really is for mutualists, and the highly subjectivized notion of labor cost in Josiah Warren's work is also well-established here. In any event, a quick search demonstrates the obvious, that Armand's sympathy for illegalism was based in a critique of labor exploitation. From "Is the Illegalist Anarchist our Comrade?:" "It is by design that the illegalist anarchist addresses himself to his comrade who is exploited by a boss..." Etc. Libertatia (talk) 14:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
There's no doubt that Proudhonian mutualists had a labor theory of value. If "mutualism" is simply reciprocity, then capitalists are mutualists too, because it's people trading amongst each other for mutual gain. It's more than that. They have a labor exploitation theory based on the belief that a capitalist can steal the "full value" of the individual's labor, which is based on Marxist the surplus value theory (not that Marx was the only one, or the original one, to have this theory). Josiah Warren had the the same belief, that person was stealing the value from another person's labor if he wasn't trading them an equivalent supply of his own labor. Unless a person has a belief like they're not adherents to the doctrine of "Mutualism." So do you have a source for Armand believing anything like this? Also there is the issue of ownership of land, that we know to be a part of Mutualism where the Mutualists believes that a person can't own land but only use it. Any source for that? Jadabocho (talk) 17:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

and now as we are accepting european individualist anarchist currents, we need links to articles by them and about them in the link section. Nihilo apparently took this off. As we are not trying here to write something nihilo likes but what reflects individualist anarchism history i will put back some good articles in this line in links.--Eduen (talk) 07:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Sources[edit]

this articles had a problem with not having a global world view of this subject. And Nihilo´s sources all happen to concentrate on the United states version(s) of individualist anarchism. Now theres a problem here if Nihilo doesnt want to accept sources in other languages and from other parts.

"schoolar and especialized refferences aren't compatible with amateur and non-especialized ones"

i understand the USA phenomenon "anarcho"capitalism as other types of neoliberalism manifests itself in university economists and think tanks. Individualist anarchism as a part of the anarchist movement expressed itself in things similar to what today is called fanzines. Now the article called La insumisión voluntaria. El anarquismo individualista español durante la dictadura y la segund arepública (1923-1938) is as academic and "scholarly" as you can ask anything to be and it exists in book form. Now if it happens not to be of the taste of economicistic american neoliberalism, thats different. The point here is to make a balanced article and as nihilo wants it, this is a USA centered article which makes one think individualist anarchists are americans neoliberal economists. How does that correspond to people like Renzo Novatore or free love propagandist Emile Armand or Max Stirner or Albert Libertad or the people of the Ateneo Naturista Ecléctico in Barcelona . Emile Armand if he resembles something today is definitely not economics professors and yuppies but perhaps hippies. Vision_Thing, i see you collaborate in WikiProject Economics. Maybe you should get acquainted with that book on spanish individualist anarchism or this list of sources on european individualist anarchism all very academic written by college proffesors [2]. Theres one thats called STEINER, Anne. Les En-dehors. Anarchistes individualistes et illégalistes à la « Belle époque which deals with french individualist anarchism as it evolved in magazines, alternative communes and groups and things like illegalism. Nihilo wants to censor illegalism. One thing is that "anarcho" capitalism loves private property and another is that all individualist anarchism is "anarcho" capitalism. In fact "anarcho" capitalism is a USA phenomenon and to most anarchists it cant be an anarchism at all. But anyway i was referencing the article/book on spanish individualist anarchism and the written works of people like Han Ryner. And so Benjamin Tucker happened to be a good friend with Emile Armand. In this way it is very likely that both will have united in denouncing something like "anarcho" capitalism as not being anarchist at all. Both Emile Armand and Tucker were mutualists and that shows the problem here is showing individualist anarchism as a whole and that there cannot be in a balanced article the preeminence of the vision of a singular version on individualist anarchism as adherents of "anarcho"-capitalism such as nihilo or Vision Thing (as can be seen in his personal wikipedia page) might want. I mean if wikipedia was "my property" i will erase the articles on fascism and "anarcho" capitalism. Since this is not the case in my editions i never erased totally the sections that mention "anarcho" capitalism.

If we cant come to an agreement on this we will not advance in writing a balanced article. We can have a decent article also if we avoid riducolous autoritarian ranting such as "I order the content, again, in grades of importance. I repeat, don't be ensayistic, and please use schoolar and specialized resources, not fanzines." Nihilo. Nihilo is sounding here like if us voluntary collaborators are his salaried employees. Since this is not the case (although something thats perfectly fine with "anarcho"capitalism) we have to come to an agreement. And as what i can see from the discussion page of Nihilo, he seems to have been blocked from editing in Wikipedia many times to really think he is someone reliable for preffering reason and agreements instead of edit wars, whim and dogmatism. From his talk page "This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits, such as those you made to Inclusive Democracy. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. This is a template warning that connects with the previously posted warnings about vandalism and content removal in Nihilo 01' page concerning the Inclusive Democracy entry."--Eduen (talk) 01:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

You keep claiming Emile Armand was a mutualist. Do you have a source for this? Jadabocho (talk) 03:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Armand's own "Anarchist Individualism as Life and Activity," accessible in English on Dana Ward's website, invokes "mutualism" as the basis of relations. The "Amis de E. Armand" repeated this in 1944, in their "Principal Tendencies and Theses of the “L’Unique” Center." Libertatia (talk) 06:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
The RAForum site is the work of Ronald Creagh, among the most important French anarchist academics, and the author of a very good book on the American individualists. Creagh's inclusion of folks like Novatore and Ryner in the category of individualist anarchists ought to be good enough for Wikipedia, particularly since the primary sources are pretty unequivocal in this case. There's a whole French mutualist tradition that is also absent here, starting from people like Alfred Darimon and J. A. Langlois, who collaborated with Proudhon and stretching up through people like Joseph Perrot, who signed himself "a disciple of Proudhon" and was an orthodox interpreter, and Edmond Lagarde, author of La revanche de Proudhon: ou, l'avenir du socialisme mutuelliste. Libertatia (talk) 06:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
But that's not Proudhonian mutualism. I'm not aware of Emile Armand subscribing to a labor theory of value of any sort, as in any labor value exploitation theory. I think the source is using "mutualism" in a very loose sense. Jadabocho (talk) 07:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Actually, the "labor theory of value" requirement for mutualism is largely something cooked up by its critics. Proudhonian mutualism, like the mutualism of the Lyons weavers, was first and foremost a matter of reciprocity. Kevin Carson has demonstrated what a non-issue the LTV-STV issue really is for mutualists, and the highly subjectivized notion of labor cost in Josiah Warren's work is also well-established here. In any event, a quick search demonstrates the obvious, that Armand's sympathy for illegalism was based in a critique of labor exploitation. From "Is the Illegalist Anarchist our Comrade?:" "It is by design that the illegalist anarchist addresses himself to his comrade who is exploited by a boss..." Etc. Libertatia (talk) 14:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
There's no doubt that Proudhonian mutualists had a labor theory of value. If "mutualism" is simply reciprocity, then capitalists are mutualists too, because it's people trading amongst each other for mutual gain. It's more than that. They have a labor exploitation theory based on the belief that a capitalist can steal the "full value" of the individual's labor, which is based on Marxist the surplus value theory (not that Marx was the only one, or the original one, to have this theory). Josiah Warren had the the same belief, that person was stealing the value from another person's labor if he wasn't trading them an equivalent supply of his own labor. Unless a person has a belief like they're not adherents to the doctrine of "Mutualism." So do you have a source for Armand believing anything like this? Also there is the issue of ownership of land, that we know to be a part of Mutualism where the Mutualists believes that a person can't own land but only use it. Any source for that? Jadabocho (talk) 17:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't think you can really make the case for reciprocity, at least as the mutualists used the term, as a key tenet of capitalism. And your claims about "Proudhonian mutualists" sound pretty empty. Can you source any other "Proudhonian mutualists," aside from Proudhon, on the question? Since you have posted incorrect information on land ownership, something specifically affirmed by most mutualists, it's hard to take your other generalizations as particularly authoritative. In any event, I can't see any grounds for excluding Armand, Ryner, Novatore, etc. from the article. Libertatia (talk) 22:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I never said Armand wasn't a mutualist. I'm ASKING. I don't know. The reason I'm asking is because things should not be asserted at article without sources. It's as simple as that. I certainly am not suggesting that Armand be excluded from the article. There are sources for him being an individualist anarchist. Lighten up on the paranoia. What did I post incorrectly about land ownership? Jadabocho (talk) 01:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Proudhon, Greene, Warren, Tucker, Morse, and Langlois (just to get started), all believed explicitly in individual ownership of land. Look at Proudhon's Theory of Property, Morse's "Liberty and Wealth," Langlois' L'Homme et la Revolution, Josiah Warren's remarks in The Word etc. They didn't believe in it the way contemporary an-caps do, but that's not the issue or your claim. Whatever you are "ASKING," you are also asserting quite a number of things that appear to be original research, in contradiction to the primary sources. You say "that's not Proudhonian mutualism," as if Eduen had claimed that, as if that had been the original question. Eduen's claim that Armand "was a mutualist" (in the same sense, presumably, as Tucker "was a mutualist) may or may not be the best way to characterize his philosophy, but Armand's own writings make it as plausible as a lot of what's already in the article, and more plausible than defining mutualism in terms of what an-cap property conventions it does not affirm. As for my "paranoia," hey, it's not all about you... We do have an article to get on with, and the Creagh site gives us some solid scholarly reasons to include the illegalists, Ryner, Novatore. It would be good to get the latter-day French mutualists and Proudhon's collaborators in there as well. Libertatia (talk) 03:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
If you only have a right to use or occupy, that's not ownership. That's a right of USE, not ownership. If you own something you don't have to use it. If you own something you don't lose that ownership based on what you're doing or not doing to it. It's your decision, because you OWN it. You own your computer right? If you turn off for the rest of your life and put it in storage in your attic it's still yours. Not so for Proudhonian when it comes to land, unless you twist the meaning of "ownership." Proudhon didn't call it ownership, because obviously it's not. It's only a right of use, or the right to control when using but not right to control when use stops. That's not ownership. Jadabocho (talk) 06:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Check the sources. Proudhon was, from beginning to end, aware of the differences between fact (possession) and right (property), and opted, ultimately, for property in it simplest form, domain,, allodium, unencumbered by any obligations. True, he always believed that property was essentially absolutist and unjust, but he also believed that the universalization of property (in that strong sense of domain) was the only means of transcending that. Your assertion that ownership must be perpetual is simply not supported by the facts. It may be your personal preference as a system, but that's about it, and you can't impose personal preferences on the entry. Non-perpetual domain is not usufruct, and Proudhon's proprietors enjoyed domain. Libertatia (talk) 18:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

its nice we are coming to an agreement. Now of course we have to think on something. The french and italian currents of individualist anarchism are less economics oriented than the american ones. But that doesnt mean they are not connected. Emile Armand exchanged correspondance with Benajmin Tucker. Tucker influenced people like Novatore and Emile Armand. Now of course Armand is a mutualist because he´s also an anticapitalist just like Tucker. Benjamin Tucker after his bookstore burned, moved to france and died in Monaco. And from the wikipedia article on him "By 1930, Tucker had concluded that centralization and advancing technology had doomed both anarchy and civilization. "The matter of my famous 'Postscript' now sinks into insignificance; the insurmountable obstacle to the realization of Anarchy is no longer the power of the trusts, but the indisputable fact that our civilization is in its death throes. We may last a couple of centuries yet; on the other hand, a decade may precipitate our finish. ... The dark ages sure enough. The Monster, Mechanism, is devouring mankind."

Here he´s developing similar arguments as Anarcho-primitivism. It is clear that individualist anarchism had a distrust of mass industrialization and mass society in general since Henry David Thoureau and later it continued with the strong relationship naturism had with french and spanish individualist anarchism.

Check this from Anarchist Individualism as a Life and Activity

And now this from Emile Armand: "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.) The full consciousness that none of his acts can debase him inwardly is for him a sufficient criterion. Surely the essential thing is that he remains himself?"

also from the same essay:

"The socialists base society upon economics. According to them the whole of life resolves itself into a question of production and consumption. Once you solve this problem you will automatically solve the human problem, with its complexity of intellectual and moral experiences." "The anarchist bases society neither upon the law nor upon economics."

The wikipedia individualist anarchism article though looks like it wants to make one think individualist anarchism is some kind of economics centered group. this is why i will expand the parts on free love and naturism in overview. no offense to economists present here.--Eduen (talk) 07:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

To be fair, the English-language sources emphasize the economic aspects and the American tradition, so the entry has reflected the readily-accessible sources. And the connection to primitivism seems to me like a pretty serious stretch for most of the individualists whose work I know well. "Anti-civilization," perhaps, if by "civilization" we mean the particular phase of development identified by that name by Fourier (and the term does get used in that way by a number of early anarchists), but also generally progressive in orientation. The Armand quote would have to be balanced against the Proudhonians who sought to absorb the political aspects of society by the economic, and against folks like Bellegarrigue, who said that "the Revolution is purely and simply a matter of business" (2nd issue of Anarchy.) It seems to me that we need to get the details and individual figures represented, at which point we can attempt to make some generalizations. Libertatia (talk) 18:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


I repeat, why don`t use specialized publication, I give a list of published and especialized books, they should be prefered to self-published articles (o not?). (A note, European anarcho-individualist have not the same importance than US anarcho-individualism, nobody says that european anarcho-individualist doesn`t exist but that have a very fewer importace). I revert to last edition before the Eduen attempt of essay, it couldn'y be reposed (because is a essay :D, and because there is a discussion here, no esential changes should be done). Waht do you think?. --Nihilo 01 (talk) 23:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

de Molinari: the only people kind of close to anarchism that sometimes mention the liberal economist de Molinari are the USA centered (because they dont existe anywhere else) "anarcho" capitalists. And so anarchists also sometimes mention and adhere to marxist authors such as Guy Debord, Theodor Adorno, Wilhelm Reich, Antonio Negri, John Holloway, etc. So indeed the situationists adhered to marxism and are very influential in anarchists like Hakim Bey or Bob Black. So the "anarcho" capitalists mention here that liberal economist but they dont let us anaticapitalist individualist mention the situationists or Karl Marx. There´s definitely bias here but it is even worse since that liberal economist gets a mention in the introduction. So in this way this article will keep on being non neutral and the edit wars will keep on. And to end up the link that someone wants to make support the "relevance" to anarchism of liberal economist de molinari is something that says "Error 404: Document Not Found" and on top is titled with an obvious description of molinari as "LIBERAL" not anarchist.

"European anarcho-individualist have not the same importance than US anarcho-individualism, nobody says that european anarcho-individualist doesn`t exist but that have a very fewer importace"

What i say is prove it. and localize where is this supposed more importance. Murray Rothbard is not an important economist as he hasnt done any important contribution to the science of economics. In anarchism worldwide Murray Rothbard´s importance is null. He might be important in the american "Libertarian" Party of neoliberal ideology but that party is not anarchist and is, well, a party, and anarchists are supposed to be againts electoral parties. Now, for the many times this economist von Mises gets named by "anarcho" capitalists one will think hes an "anarcho" capitalist but hes not, hes a minarchist.

And now a citation by an individualist anarchist from your country: "In her article on individualist anarchism in the October, 1984, New Libertarian, Wendy McElroy mistakenly claims that modern-day individualist anarchism is identical with anarchist capitalism. She ignores the fact that there are still individualist anarchists who reject capitalism as well as communism, in the tradition of Warren, Spooner, Tucker, and others.""I do not quarrel with McElroy's definition of herself as an individualist anarchist. However, I dislike the fact that she tries to equate the term with anarchist capitalism. This is simply not true. I am an individualist anarchist and I am opposed to capitalist economic relations, voluntary or otherwise." reply to Wendy McElroy by Joe Peacott.

So as "anarcho" capitalism has tried to hegemonize the individualist anarchism article in wikipedia in english (elsewhere they havent been able to do so because they only exist in the USA) seems they have also tried to do this in other places in their country. This should serve as evidence of the kind of thing that is an obstacle in producing a non biased article of individualist anarchism.

"I revert to last edition before the Eduen attempt of essay, it couldn'y be reposed (because is a essay :D, and because there is a discussion here, no esential changes should be done). Waht do you think?."

Sorry for not being able to understand everything that Nihilo is trying to say here. Obviously though hes not willing to come to agreements and so hes been blocked in wikipedia many times as can be seen in his personal page.

"To be fair, the English-language sources emphasize the economic aspects and the American tradition, so the entry has reflected the readily-accessible sources" Nice that you accept this. And as you can see in this article, individualist anarchism also has been and is present outside the USA. If i mentioned individualist anarchist connections with contemporary anarcho-primitivism i only did it in this space to show individualist anarchism cannot be reduced to a school of thought that mainly concentrates on economics (an on top with neoclassical neoliberal economics). I never put that in the article itself.

"The Armand quote would have to be balanced against the Proudhonians who sought to absorb the political aspects of society by the economic, and against folks like Bellegarrigue, who said that "the Revolution is purely and simply a matter of business" (2nd issue of Anarchy.) It seems to me that we need to get the details and individual figures represented, at which point we can attempt to make some generalizations."

the word "business" can mean something like "enterprise". "I have some business to do" someone can say and what he ends up doing is going to insult someone or going to the store in the corner to buy cigarretes. Also a large "enterprise" was the Castro guerrilla taking over Cuba from the hand of Fulgencio Batista. It might help your argument contextualizing more the Bellarrighe quote. So, "we need to get the details and individual figures represented, at which point we can attempt to make some generalizations" well, i agree. Thats what i attepted to do in the overview that i put. Even though i dont think "anarcho" capitalism is anarchism i didnt erase it from the article and if it gets mentioned in the overview its fine with me as long as things as free love, womens rights, naturism, egoism, individual subjetive exploration, anticapitalism and others things like that also get mentioned and described.

So well should we keep the edit wars? seems its up to nihilo. with other people here as can be seen from the recent dialogues that can be found here, it is clear things can be solved rationally.--Eduen (talk) 09:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Benjamin tucker picture[edit]

I took off the Lysander Spooner photo and instead i put a Benajmin Tucker photo. This because of two reasons. First Benjamin Tucker is a figure of more importance within individualist anarchism and this mainly because he was the most influential american individualist in european individualist circles (he was friends with John Henry Mckay and Emile Armand) as well as the more notorious and visible in the USA. And second. As the page is too long, to keep the two photos will make the page too heavy and the american section already has too many photos.--Eduen (talk) 09:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

since nihilo doesnt explain his reversions i will go back to the previous version. and on top he keeps putting a link to support the inclusion of liberal economist De Molinari that says "Error 404: Document Not Found Sorry, the requested document (/personal/DHart/ClassicalLiberalism/Molinari/ToC.html) could not be found." at least eh could try putting a link that works even though it says the LIBERAL tradition, and this is an anarchism article. --Eduen (talk) 22:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


I already have explained it a lots of times in the resume. Your editions are big POV-biased, and I explain the reasons (and your personal heats are an example). We don't need you ideological opinions, we need reliable sources, I proposed include refereces to especialized works, to schoolar works (principaly in english, an universal language that all of us can understand, althought I believe that is not an obligation).

I proposed the most of times we should exclude self-published sources -generally I'm not against it, but in these cases, that there are conflictive users, or attempts of essays, is better to avoid any innecesary conflict.--Nihilo 01 (talk) 03:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Nihilo. you are not discussing the specific issues. You only come here and edit things. Discuss why you include the LIBERAL de Molinari. This is an anarchism article. You just come here and erase things because you want this article to be on line with your neoliberal ideology.

"self-published sources" specify.

"don't include original thinkings," sorry. things in this article are supported on exterior articles and sources.

"don't erase mentions to schoolar referenced authors," the reference you are trying to defend mentions De Molianri as a LIBERAL, not anarchist. Molianri has no connection with anarchism. Explain this or otherwise his inclusion cannot be accepted.

"and respect the discussion."

we have come to agreements with other users. you are the one that wants this page to be biased towards american neoliberalism, something that doesnt even do justice to americans like Benjamin Tucker. As a matter of fact. you dont even discuss, you just erase things.--Eduen (talk) 19:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that Molinari has been included primarily because of his influence on later movements which are accepted in the Wikipedia anarchism articles as anarchist. The case could be made, and has been made by the individualist anarchists at the Molinari Institute, that in particular Molinari's early writings were de facto anarchist writings. Libertatia (talk) 19:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
People have said that about a darn lot of people. And Molinari didn't influence anarchists until around a century after his time Wouldn't it be better to use a picture of somebody who actually identified as an anarchist, or was at least important at the time period s/he was alive in? Voltairine de Cleyre might be a good idea, being an important figure in anarchism without adjectives and the a prominent woman individualist. Zazaban (talk) 00:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I have no real preferences ob pictures, while we're still struggling to get the content worked out. I do think that the case for inclusion of Molinari in the text as an influence is fairly strong. But as I'm sure you know by now, I would prefer to err on the side of inclusion. Libertatia (talk) 01:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Is very sad, that there are still users -new users- that don't understand Wikipedia politics of neutrality. Is very sad to know that there are still wiki-warrior that believe that their personal convictions are the law for every people: deteting referenced content, reliable sources, including personal oppionions, POV-biased redactions, and breaking neutrality consensus about somes political issues, and speaking about "conspirations" when the reality is against their oppinions. I hope the community make something about, because I don't have the time and the patient for this kind of wiki-warriors (and less if there is about of old solutioned issues)--Nihilo 01 (talk) 02:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

well if the page has been blocked its because it had too many reversions and because we couldnt come to an agreement. I think this might be better since nihilo and vision thing only kept changing things without much explanation and debate.

"I hope the community make something about,"

well it did. and as far as all the vague accusations (that border on insults) that nihilo makes, i think it shows how perhaps he didnt want to discuss specific things regarding the article and so didnt want a rational discussion.--Eduen (talk) 03:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


unbalanced and USA biased article[edit]

hello. as i can see the state of this article is again biased towards the usa versions of individualist anarchism and towards a view compatible with the USA centered tendency of "anarcho" capitalism. this is why i propose trying to achieve a less biased article. my proposal is this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Individualist_anarchism&oldid=290897289 and while i have been away some people have decided to erase many parts well referenced (illegalism, italy, propaganda by the deed, "lifestyle" individualist anarchism") and some main parts which will give this article a balanced non usa centric perspective. again as you can see in my proposal, even though i dont consider "anarcho" capitalism a form of anarchism but a form of clasical liberalism of the lockean variety and of neoliberalism nevertheless i didnt erase the mention and description of it in my proposal even though it doesnt seem to have any presence outside the USA and even though it is as controversial as proposing a christian satanism to most anarchists. so i expect to discuss this issue and i will try to make the changes with discussion and changes made will have a justification whether required or not. this last thing is something that hasnt happened in the changes made since this article was blocked by an administrator and people have just made changes without justifing anything.--Eduen (talk) 07:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Shall I re-add the stuff I put in about post-left anarchy? Zazaban (talk) 19:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
And I think Egoism and Mutualism should have their own sections separate from Europe and America. Zazaban (talk) 06:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Zazaban, you have reverted this article to a contested version from 5 months ago. [3] Version that you have replaced was back by a host of scholarly sources. Would you please explain your massive revert? -- Vision Thing -- 10:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

i hope this discussion is not seen by someone here as "trying to impose an anarcho communist" view of individualist anarchism. I already spoke before about my view on "anarcho" capitalism. Just to clarify and i hope not to "inform" someone here.

1.Individualist anarchism is unthinkable without Max Stirner. 2.Max Stirner denies respect to private property and has few if any interest in "markets" and even justifies working class insurrection 3.Mutualism as exposed by both Proudhon and "BostoN Anarchists" opposes wage work and class subordination. 4.Individualist anarchism was very active in France, Italy and Spain with many theorists with many book lenght expositions of individualist anarchism and many publications specificlly individualist anarchist. Considering this European individualist anarchism at the beginning of the 20th century until the 20 might have been actually larger than USA currents only centered in Boston and perhaps New York. Also very possibly much richer in the variety of interests and of publications. I itned in the following days to provide here of a list of european individualist anarchist publications. In spain they last until just before the rise fo the FRanco dictatorship while in the USA there seems they ended up publication with benjamin tucker´s Liberty 5. Individualist anarchism is not a current of thought that can be said to be just a current of economics. Individualist anarchism is as variad as having been theorizing and active in issues and forms as varied as free love, naturism/green anarchism (since Henry David Thoreau, feminism, illegalism, alternative communes and lifestyles, opposition to religion/atheism, alternative education and pedagogy, esperanto and pacifism.

Vision thing. You can very well get more informed about these other currents and then you can come back and discuss specific things. I hope we can have an edition of this article with debate and sources and consensus and not just an edit war. Also Vision thing you can also very well show us the scholarly sources you make reference to. From the way you talk, seems you are supported by some specific treatesies on all individualist anarchism. I hope these are not just investigations by american "anarcho" capitalists on neoliberal think tanks.--Eduen (talk) 01:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Let us start with definition. Your version for defining individualist anarchism uses primary sources in which both authors describe how they personally see individualism. Other version starts with definitions from Key Concepts in Politics and The Anarchists, scholarly sources. -- Vision Thing -- 11:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

in the end the detail of the definition of "key concepts in politics" is unclear as it only names the source but no citation from inside it, while the other version cites major thinkers of individualist anarchism such as Han Ryner and Benjamin Tucker. But we could come up with an intro with consensus but you then proceed to erase too many things without explaining each one of them.--Eduen (talk) 01:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

You can find definition of individualist anarchism on page 46 of "Key concepts in politics" (Individualist anarchism is based upon the idea of the sovereign individual, the belief that individual conscience and the pursuit of self-interest should not be constrained by any collective body or public authority. Individualist anarchism overlaps with libertarianism and is usually linked to a strong belief in the market as a self-regulating mechanism, most obviously manifest in the form of anarcho-capitalsim.) As for definitions from individualist anarchists, please see our policy on sources. Primary sources like original philosophical works may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care when they have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper). Policy also says: Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about information found in a primary source. As for deletions, can you explain this edit? -- Vision Thing -- 22:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

well your source is really ignorant or very well biased towards neoliberalism since such definition of individualist anarchism leaves out most individualist anarchists who are anticapitalists. and here i mean max stirner, anselme bellarrigue, emile armand, proudhon, novatore. this is the reason why it is unnaceptable. anyway the work of Xavier Diez on spanish individualist anarchism is published and done by someone with nice superior academic degrees.--Eduen (talk) 05:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

in order to have a debate nased on evidence and not only an edit war i want to suggest some important points that need to be considered in order to have a balanced good article on this subject:

1. European individualist currents, except by proudhon, are only marginally interested in economics. Mostly there stands the influence of Max Stirner and so interests range there in things like philosophy, relation to labor unions, organizationalism or not, the issue of illegalism and the forms associated with it, education, eugenics, naturism, Neo-Malthusianism, "millieux livres", esperanto, etc.

2. american individualist currents also cannot said to be some sort of economicistic subculture. In order to support this i will put into consideration the article by "anarcho" capitalist feminist Wendy Mcelroy ["The Free Love Movement and Radical Individualism" http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle1996/le961210.html] which as usual of her only focuses on the USA. There she writes:

"The free love periodical with which Tucker was most closely associated was Ezra and Angela Heywood's The Word (1872-1890, 1892-1893)...Initially, The Word presented free love as a minor theme which was expressed within a labor reform format. But the publication later evolved into an explicitly free love periodical...Through his association with Ezra Heywood and The Word, Tucker acquired much of the background from which Liberty sprang. In April 1875, he became an associate editor of The Word, but as the paper de-emphasized economics to stress free love he grew dissatisfied."

"The most important American free love journal was Lucifer the Light Bearer (1883-1907) edited by Moses Harman first from Valley Falls, Kansas, then from Topeka (1890), and finally from Chicago (1896). Tucker's relationship with Lucifer started well...Gradually, however, the relationship between the two periodicals became strained. Tucker became increasingly hostile to civil disobedience as a strategy..."

And as we know Tucker s Liberty, besides the fact of Tucker´s economicism, it ended publication in 1908, just one year after Lucifer. As we can see here free love had journals focused on it in the USA for very long in The Word and Lucifer. Since this was an important issue also in European IndivAnarchism then i think we need a small section discussing the high importance that free love had in IndivAnarchism. This is the reason why this article cannot be too focused on economics and so the introduction and overview cannot be economicistic either.

So i will be nice to have a debate on this before editing things here. In reality Vision thing and Nihilo have just decided to revert to a version viased towards neoliberalism and so reducing this to an edit war.--Eduen (talk) 17:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

When you have a dispute you should use dispute resolution. The first step is to set up an RfC/A. An RfC/A will attract knowledgable Wikipedians to contribute. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Folks, no matter who writes what, this page needs some simple editing. Frankly for a subject that is as owned by high end scholars as this one is, the writing is shockingly bad. Less blather about "neoliberalism" and other yak yak and more basic writing. Andacar (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC).

Orphaned references in Individualist anarchism[edit]

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

Reference named "carlson":

  • From Egoist anarchism: Carlson, Andrew (1972). "Philosophical Egoism: German Antecedents". Anarchism in Germany. Metuchen: Scarecrow Press. ISBN 0810804840. Retrieved 2008-12-04. 
  • From Freeganism: Carlson, Tucker (February 3, 2006). "'Freegans' choose to eat garbage". MSNBC. Retrieved 2007-06-21. "These people don't eat out of dumpsters because they're poor and desperate. They do it to prove a political point. You wouldn'‘t expect someone to choose a lifestyle that involved eating out of dumpsters. Kind of seems like something you do as a desperate last resort. But there's an entire society of people who willingly get their meals out of the garbage. They're called freegans, and they say they have a reason for doing it." 

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT 00:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

First one. I'll add it. Zazaban (talk) 00:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Pierre-Joseph Proudhon[edit]

Pierre-Joseph Proudhon was not an individualist anarchist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individualist_Anarchism#Pierre-Joseph_Proudhon He was a Mutualist. Why is he even in this article?

See here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism#Mutualism Elodoth (talk) 00:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


Elodoth, "mutualism" is an economic orientation; "individualism" is only philosophic orientation. Those are not contradictory. Neomedes (talk) 21:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Too many external links[edit]

Per WP:LINKFARM and WP:EL, we should only have a few, high quality links. Our goal is not to be an exhaustive directory. Can someone with more knowledge on the subject cull it down by at least half? I can do it myself if need be, but I'd prefer someone more familiar with the topic tackle it first. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I will reduce individual theoretical texts and change it for author´s archives. That will reduce the number of links.--Eduen (talk) 18:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Links for subtopics, i.e. individual authors and flavours of individualist anarchism such as Stirnerism and illegalism, belong in those sub-articles and should be removed from here. Skomorokh 19:26, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

articles covering all of individualist anarchism in the english language have yet to be written. the websites available in english which say want to cover individualist anarchism only cover american libertarianism and so for european coverage or non economistic individualist anarchism one has to go elsewhere. That is why i thought leaving the Article dealing with spanish individualist anarchism and the Richard PArry book which concentrates on french individualist anarchism was important. Also the site on egoism and stirnerism.--Eduen (talk) 22:22, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Individualist anarchism in (popular) culture[edit]

I think a culture section could be included, starting with a brief description of Eric Frank Russell's 1951 novella "And Then There Were None", an excellent science fiction story that features a functioning individualist-anarchist society. The story was expanded into Russell's book The Great Explosion. Anyone else here read the story, or the novel? (If so, am I right in thinking that the society it depicts is individualist-anarchist, or does it fit better with some other anarchist school of thought?) Memetics (talk) 10:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Doubts on Xavier Diez´s article "La insumisión voluntaria. El anarquismo individualista durante la Dictadura y la Segunda República (1923-1938)"[edit]

User RepublicanJacobite accepts this source Xavier Diez. El anarquismo individualista en España: 1923-1938. ISBN 978-84-96044-87-6 and so the existence of that published work should be a good sing on the reliability on Diez as a source with enough specific expertise on the subject of individualist anarchism. Now RepublicanJacobite has decided to remove the following work on Spanish Individualist anarchism written by the same Xavier Diez who wrote the previoulsy mentioned book on Spanish Individualist anarchism. The essay "La insumisión voluntaria. El anarquismo individualista durante la Dictadura y la Segunda República (1923-1938)" Xavier Díez has been reproduced even in blogs and so doubts as far as reliability if it was something published in a blog are understandable. This is not the case of this essay by Xavier Diez which happens to be a smaller version of the published book El anarquismo individualista en España: 1923-1938 written by the same author.

This essay was published first in what has to be one of the most reliable publications out there on anarchism. Germinal (revista de análisis) which includes among its scientific council the following people "Maurizio Antonioli (Università di Milano), Gianpietro Berti (Università di Padova), Richard Cleminson (University of Leeds), Joel Delhom (Université de Bretagne-Sud), Alejandro Díez Torre (Universidad de Alcalá de Henares), Luis Dorrego (New York University in Madrid), Isabel Escudero Ríos (UNED), Christian Ferrer (Universidad de Buenos Aires), Agustín García Calvo (Universidad Complutense de Madrid), Roberto Giulianelli (Università Politecnica delle Marche), José Luis Gutiérrez Molina (Universidad de Cádiz), Luigi di Lembo (Università di Firenze), Nelson Méndez (Universidad Central de Venezuela), Teresa Oñate Zubía (UNED), Philippe Pelletier (Université Lyon 2), Pablo M. Pérez (Universidad de Buenos Aires), Paul Preston (London School Economics), Giorgio Sacchetti (Università di Siena), Eugenio Trías (Universitat Pompeu Fabra), Salvo Vaccaro (Università di Palermo), Gianni Vattimo (Università di Torino), Alfredo Vallota (Universidad Simón Bolívar de Caracas)" as can be seen here. I don´t know how you can make something more reliable from an academic point of view but if there are more doubts here is the article by Diez shown in the index of the specific issue of the Magazine Germinal in which it appeared and more importantly here is the article "La insumision voluntaria" in PDF from within the magazine´s website.

So if there are no more doubts i will reinstate the link to that article and with specific quotes from within it. But i could as well also put as source the book by Xavier Diez El anarquismo individualista en España: 1923-1938. ISBN 978-84-96044-87-6 since this book just expands on what the article "La insumision voluntaria" deals with. As far as the contents of the article "La insumision voluntaria" as can be seen in the article itself it could be smummarized as follows: 1. A consideration on when and how "individualist anarchism" appeared in Spain. 2. The philosophical base of spanish individualist anarchism considering it it thus a good summarization of its influences and it includes Stirner, Proudhon, Godwin, the americans Thoreau, Warren and Tucker and french individualist anarchists like Emile Armand and Han Ryner. 3. the practice of spanish individualist anarchism 4. the main publications in it. 4. a decription of the discourse of spanish individualist anarchism --Eduen (talk) 05:22, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Bookchin abandoning anarchism[edit]

User RepublicanJacobite apparently is not well informed on this but as to clear doubts here is an article written on that issue by Bookchin´s main colaborator Janet Biehl. Janet Biehl. "Bookchin Breaks with Anarchism".--Eduen (talk) 05:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

RepublicanJacobite[edit]

User RepublicanJacobite is deleting an important number of references for this article and so I expect him to give specific reasons here on each case. I already answered him in detail about one important reference he doesn´t want to accept and after giving no response about it in the section in which I talk about it, he came here and deleted it again. What I ask him is to be specific as to why and which ones are not good and to point out if there are any mistakes. I found 2 mistakes in them and then proceeded to fix them and in some cases I provided the exact citation from each source where there is support for an affirmation. This article has been checked many times and so maybe the two mistakes I found might not have been noticed and that could be undesrtood. Also if RepublicanJacobite has doubts about some affirmations being supported only by a link to an article that could also be understood. Obviously a different problem exists if after fixing those details he comes again and erases the same things I just finished fixing without specific reasons. This is the reason why I reverted his last edition and I hope this is solved through dialogue and reason and does not end up becoming a silly edit war.--Eduen (talk) 08:44, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Many of the references, especially in regard to "anarcho-naturism," are to deadlinks. These should either be fixed or removed. At this point, the claims made simply cannot be verified. In the case of many of them, the notability and reliability of the sources, authors, and claims cannot be verified because they are in French, Spanish, Portugese, etc. I for one have a lot of doubts about many of these sources, which come from websites which I doubt meet the standard for reliable sources. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 18:26, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Well as far as the article by Diez then it is fine and so it should stay as my previous post here on where it was published and the high standards that the publication Germinal has. The Xavier Diez book and article also document about naturism within french and spanish individualist circles. As far as "notability" you can say anything said in this article could be as notable as the sources I am defending and nothing I fixed comes from blogs or anything like that but from published sources on paper with a long history of publication.

If you have an specific source you want to question then I will deal with it but your vague sentence "In the case of many of them, the notability and reliability of the sources, authors, and claims cannot be verified" doesn´t help too much.

As far as non-english sources wikipedia says the following:

"Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones, provided that English sources of equal quality and relevance are available."Non-English_sources

These sources don´t exist in the english language in the subject of european individualist anarchism and so sources like the works of Xavier Diez in both Spanish and Catalan must be brought here

"When quoting a source in a different language, provide both the original-language text and an English translation in the text or a footnote. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations by Wikipedians, but translations by Wikipedians are preferred over machine translations. When citing such a source without quoting it, the original and its translation should be provided if requested by other editors: this can be added to a footnote or the talk page. When posting original source material, editors should be careful not to violate copyright; see the fair-use guideline."

And so I can very well provide these translations as soon as I can.--Eduen (talk) 20:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

As the article stands now, there are no dead links related with anarcho-naturism.--Eduen (talk) 20:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Individualist anarchism[edit]

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

Reference named "infoshop":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT 03:23, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

User Byelf2007´s proposals[edit]

"Schools of individualist anarchism"[edit]

This is completely a personal opinion as no sources are given that support the affirmation that Individualist anarchism has "3 schools of thought" and not more or less than that. But also In my view the particular choice of those 3 positions that user Byelf2007 chooses look as arbitrary as can be and not even the personal reasoning for choosing those three positions and not others is given. From my reading experience on this subject the concept itself of "schools of individualist anarchism" is something that has not been proposed by any historian of the subject. What can be seen is suggestions of individualist anarchists of a pacifist or of a violentist tendency, more involved in the issues of economics, others more involved in lifestyle anarchism and issues of free love and sex, others with a tendency towards naturism, etc. Nothing more than that and frankly as fragmentary as that or even more. In any case I suggest anyone really interested in discussing this issue to check the bibliography provided by this same article which deals with individualist anarchism.--Eduen (talk) 01:52, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

the separation between individualist anarchism and social anarchism[edit]

From a quantitative point of view such a division has important problems since individualist anarchism has been a minoritarian position as compared to what is usually called "social anarchism". this is the reason why it has been common to speak of individualist anarchism alongside other positions such as collectivist anarchism, anarchocommunism and anarchosyndicalism or else to emphasize classical important theorists such as Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin and sometimes Stirner as well as particular developments such as stirnerian egoism or US mutualist individualism (Benjamin Tucker, Josiah Warren). As far as post-classical positions the division individualist/social becomes even more problematic since there are positions such as insurrectionary anarchism and post-left anarchy which combine an individualist existentialist position inspired by Max Stirner with anarchocommunism.--Eduen (talk) 01:49, 17 May 2012 (UTC)