Talk:Anarchism

Archives

A descriptive list of talkpage archives can be found at Talk:Anarchism/Archives. The archive of a mediation discussion concerning this article is available at The anarchy battlefield. As of December 14, 2008, threads on this page are automatically archived by MiszaBot I (talk · contribs) once they are 30 days old.

Current discussion

Intro

The intro says "Anarchism is usually considered to be a radical left-wing ideology, and much of anarchist economics and anarchist legal philosophy reflect anti-authoritarian interpretations of communism, collectivism, syndicalism or participatory economics; however, anarchism has always included an economic and legal individualist strain, with that strain supporting an anarchist free-market economy and private property (like classical mutualism or today's anarcho-capitalism and agorism)."

This dilineates mutualism as being not of the left wing. Is this really what you want to say? Introman (talk) 02:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that's not bad, as mutualism was/is considered a middle way between socialism and capitalism by many. The lack of clarity is largely due to the simplistic left-right model. PhilLiberty (talk) 02:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Phil and Nihilo here; if you're curious about the alignment, I'd suggest reading Kevin Carson or Roderick Long on "free market anti-capitalism". Regards, Skomorokh 02:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Carson and Long both consider mutualism to be left wing. So what are you saying? I'm saying that the intro classified it as NOT being left wing. Reading the sentence, it says that anarchism is usually considered left wing, but those who hold that view are wrong, because anarchism has always included an non-left wing, individualist strain. Introman (talk) 03:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

"Non-left wing" is your inference, and is not in the article. What it says is that mutualism is an example of an "economic and legal individualist strain ... supporting an anarchist free-market economy and private property". One could quibble on the semantics of "private property", but the thrust of the claim is sound. Skomorokh 03:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

No, read closer. The word "however" is key. It's saying that everything after the however is not left wing. If you look at the source where this came from, that's what it's saying to. It's saying that the common view that anarchism is left wing is misguided because there has always been an individualist strain. Individualism is not usually considered to be on the left. Collectivism is what is political philosophy usually considers to be on the left. Look at what the source says. It says ""Usually considered to be an extreme left-wing ideology, anarchism has always included a significant strain of radical individualism, from the hyperrationalism of Godwin, to the egoism of Stirner, to the libertarians and anarcho-capitalists of today." Surely he's not saying the "libertarians and anarcho-capitalists of today" are left wing. He's saying that these are NOT left wing (with left wing being understood as collectivist). Introman (talk) 03:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

This is another of those cases where an author throws around terms like "extreme left-wing" in an introductory passage, without any argument, citation or even clear definition, and we try to shoe-horn it into an article as if it was a scholarly statement. Is anarchism "usually considered to be an extreme left-wing ideology"? Is is this all sufficiently dubious to leave out? I'm inclined to think the material merely adds confusion. Libertatia (talk) 05:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I've isolated that source into one statement. Introman (talk) 00:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Another problem is that the article says, in the Mutualism section, that Mutualism is in between individualism and collectivism, yet the intro is saying that mutualism is individualist. Not to mention, it's also saying that it's not left wing. Introman (talk) 04:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Mutualism is market and property, and the semmatics of that line of the intro is explaining about market anarchisms, anyway market and property usually is considered economic invidividualism. And left o socialist -in sense of socialization of property- usually is considered economic collectivism. I mean, is an intro, and an intro should be general, not so specific (we have many lines below the intro to be more speciffic and make nuances). --Nihilo 01 (talk) 14:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, I didn't know there was a discussion about this item... I believed that issue was so many discussed in the past :P. And excuse my english, I'm hurry.--Nihilo 01 (talk) 14:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

This article has sources saying that mutualism is in between individualist and collectivist anarchism. The Mutualism article also says that mutualism is not individualist anarchism. Introman (talk) 18:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Intro

The intro says "Anarchism is usually considered to be a radical left-wing ideology, and much of anarchist economics and anarchist legal philosophy reflect anti-authoritarian interpretations of communism, collectivism, syndicalism or participatory economics; however, anarchism has always included an economic and legal individualist strain, with that strain supporting an anarchist free-market economy and private property (like classical mutualism or today's anarcho-capitalism and agorism)."

This dilineates mutualism as being not of the left wing. Is this really what you want to say? Introman (talk) 02:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that's not bad, as mutualism was/is considered a middle way between socialism and capitalism by many. The lack of clarity is largely due to the simplistic left-right model. PhilLiberty (talk) 02:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Phil and Nihilo here; if you're curious about the alignment, I'd suggest reading Kevin Carson or Roderick Long on "free market anti-capitalism". Regards, Skomorokh 02:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Carson and Long both consider mutualism to be left wing. So what are you saying? I'm saying that the intro classified it as NOT being left wing. Reading the sentence, it says that anarchism is usually considered left wing, but those who hold that view are wrong, because anarchism has always included an non-left wing, individualist strain. Introman (talk) 03:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

"Non-left wing" is your inference, and is not in the article. What it says is that mutualism is an example of an "economic and legal individualist strain ... supporting an anarchist free-market economy and private property". One could quibble on the semantics of "private property", but the thrust of the claim is sound. Skomorokh 03:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

No, read closer. The word "however" is key. It's saying that everything after the however is not left wing. If you look at the source where this came from, that's what it's saying to. It's saying that the common view that anarchism is left wing is misguided because there has always been an individualist strain. Individualism is not usually considered to be on the left. Collectivism is what is political philosophy usually considers to be on the left. Look at what the source says. It says ""Usually considered to be an extreme left-wing ideology, anarchism has always included a significant strain of radical individualism, from the hyperrationalism of Godwin, to the egoism of Stirner, to the libertarians and anarcho-capitalists of today." Surely he's not saying the "libertarians and anarcho-capitalists of today" are left wing. He's saying that these are NOT left wing (with left wing being understood as collectivist). Introman (talk) 03:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

This is another of those cases where an author throws around terms like "extreme left-wing" in an introductory passage, without any argument, citation or even clear definition, and we try to shoe-horn it into an article as if it was a scholarly statement. Is anarchism "usually considered to be an extreme left-wing ideology"? Is is this all sufficiently dubious to leave out? I'm inclined to think the material merely adds confusion. Libertatia (talk) 05:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I've isolated that source into one statement. Introman (talk) 00:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Another problem is that the article says, in the Mutualism section, that Mutualism is in between individualism and collectivism, yet the intro is saying that mutualism is individualist. Not to mention, it's also saying that it's not left wing. Introman (talk) 04:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Mutualism is market and property, and the semmatics of that line of the intro is explaining about market anarchisms, anyway market and property usually is considered economic invidividualism. And left o socialist -in sense of socialization of property- usually is considered economic collectivism. I mean, is an intro, and an intro should be general, not so specific (we have many lines below the intro to be more speciffic and make nuances). --Nihilo 01 (talk) 14:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, I didn't know there was a discussion about this item... I believed that issue was so many discussed in the past :P. And excuse my english, I'm hurry.--Nihilo 01 (talk) 14:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

This article has sources saying that mutualism is in between individualist and collectivist anarchism. The Mutualism article also says that mutualism is not individualist anarchism. Introman (talk) 18:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Different sources make different claims, all with some justice. In fact, mutualism has a strong individualist streak (going as far back as Proudhon's approving comments on "complete insolidarity" in the "Revolutionary Program") and a collectivist component (evidenced from Proudhon's focus on collective force and collective beings through Andrews' pantarchic "anarchist church and state") . The piecemeal character of Wikipedia entries makes it hard to represent this stuff clearly and correctly. Libertatia (talk) 22:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Mutualism is economic and legal individualism, and in this way it isn't collectivist. Also, we should use general deffinitions to help the readers and not to confuse them with very very nounces from many interpretations. Not only in anarchism, but in economics and political sciences collectivism is socialization and individualism is market, I mean, in a political order sense (in a philophical way you could be more abstract and even contradictory, but in this case is better to beging with politics).--200.69.186.152 (talk) 04:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Proudhon's position was that "complete insolidarity" would lead to "a centralization analogous with that of the State, but in which no one obeys, no one is dependent, and everyone is free and sovereign." He opposed property on the grounds that it ignored the central question of "collective force," and built his sociology around the notion of collective beings (from the family and the workshop to society and Humanity) which were in many ways "superior" to individuals, despite the absolutely vital importance of human individuals in the whole process. At the time he wrote his earliest works, he was probably neither an individualist nor a socialist, since those terms had been coined to designate extremes. Later, he was both. Greene thought mutualism with the triadic synthesis of communism, socialism and capitalism. Etc. Libertatia (talk) 04:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

In this way of consider "collectivist" the human collective organization (like family, company, community, etc) even all individualist and market anarchist (market is a social interaction) aren't individualist but collectivist (!). I believe that's not the usual sense economics and political science use the words individualism and collectivism. --Nihilo 01 (talk) 04:32, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi again, I remmember Introman he should wait a consensus in discussion before makes so big changes in the last consensued intro (he's not only changing the redaction, but also the sense). I believe, that's the better way. --Nihilo 01 (talk) 04:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not making "big changes." I just moved mutualism out of the sentence claiming that it's individualist anarchism. And I've given two sources for it not being individualist anarchism. Introman (talk) 00:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

This reference puts in one group mutualists and anarcho-capitalists like exponents of legal an economic individualism. Certainly you are making "big" changes in the sense of redaction, there are many persons that have a previus consensus about the redaction, and you should consider it. --Nihilo 01 (talk) 20:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Page number? Introman (talk) 20:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The list of all the authors of that theories [1] (Tucker, Spooner, de Cleyre, Molinari, Nock, Rothbard, Friedman, Hoppe, etc). --Nihilo 01 (talk) 21:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Besides that I dont see anything there saying mutualism is individualist anarchism, this is some anonymous person's review of the book so it's not relevant anyway. This isn't actual text from the book. Introman (talk) 22:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Another one [2]. --Nihilo 01 (talk) 21:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you give a quote from that page that says mutualism is individualist anarchism? I don't see it. And note that if you find sufficient number of sources (enough for it not to be a fringe view) saying that mutualism is individualist anarchism then both views have to be taken into account, that it is and that it's not. To assert one of the other would be POV. Introman (talk) 22:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

You need to see the names of mutualist theoricians like Warren, Tucker, and in someway Spooner in the first review. The last page explains origins of mutualism (like an old economic proposal of individualist anarchism). I believe there is a confussion, I was sure that you knowed the issue, I was telling you about it in that way. Anyway present refferences indicate the same mutualist theoricians like individualis anarchists. --Nihilo 01 (talk) 17:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Not all mutualists, or those who people call "mutualists," are the same. Tucker's "mutualism" (and very few people call him a mutualist) is different from Proudhon's. The Mutualism article points out that Proudhonian Mutualism is not individualist. The American version is different from Proudhon's version. Proudhon is for collective enterprises. The individualist anarchists aren't. If Tucker is shown to be an individualist, this doesn't make all mutualists individualists. Do you or do you not have real sources saying that "mutualism" is an individualist anarchism? There are many sources saying that it's not. Introman (talk) 17:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Why is Anarcho-syndicalism under Anarchism without Adjectives?

I don't think it was before. Zazaban (talk) 04:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah why is that? - free2resist —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.221.67.29 (talk) 17:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why it was moved, but I've put it back with collectivist and communist where it belongs. Skomorokh 17:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Anarcho-totalitarianism

Will someone please second the proposal for deletion of the oxymoronic article on Anarcho-totalitarianism? PhilLiberty (talk) 06:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Gladly. In future, for items generally related to anarchism on Wikipedia, requests like this are likely to get a better response at the taskforce talkpage. That way we can keep this page for discussions of the anarchism article itself. Mahalo, Skomorokh 06:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I think what the article is referring to is anarcho-monarchism. 16:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jadabocho (talk • contribs)

That's real, actually. I'll move the article, and then maybe it may have the small chance of survival. Zazaban (talk) 18:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Nice Intro

Congratulations on finally getting a balanced set of introductory paragraphs! The last few sentences of the last paragraph of the intro gets a little mushy, but overall great job. I know how long you--and occasionally I--have been fighting over these words, but this version manages to clearly communicate most of the ambiguities raised by various parties within and outside of anarchism. Way to go! Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 16:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias

As you can see I have found some cases of clear bias in this article which have been talked about in Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. A tour around wikipedias in other languages and their articles on "anarchism" might show you that the article "anarchism" in wikipedia in English suffers from too much concentration on the USA experience. I will proceed in explaining each case where i found a problem:

-individualist anarchism: From what this article is showing Individualist anarchism is and was, it makes one think individualist anarchism was mostly a USA phenomenon with two individuals who are not american who were Max Stiner and Proudhon. Also it makes one think individualist anarchists are people mostly concentrated on economics. Of course this is not the case as one can see by checking the articles on the following european individualist anarchists from different countries: France: Anselme Bellegarrigue, Émile Armand, Han Ryner, Albert Libertad, Zo d'Axa, Michel Onfray, Illegalism Italy: Renzo Novatore, Illegalism. Here´s a link to articles from individualist anarchist magazines from france [[3]] and one to a historical account on female french individualist anarchist [4] UK/Germany: John Henry Mackay Russia: Lev Chernyi Spain: A strong scene of individualist anarchism influenced by the french currents and in this way by positions such as free love, and naturism as can be seen in this scholarly article [5]which later was expanded as a book[6].

Individualist anarchism has to be considered one on the major schools of anarchist thought alongside anarcho-communism, collectivism, and anarchosyndicalism. The section on individualist anarchism in this page must be significantly changed from what we have now and of course with a shortening on the treatment of american individualist anarchism. It must also show how individualist anarchism was a diverse current with a big emphasis on lifestyle.

-Postclassical schools of thought and "anarcho" capitalism: Here we have a strong bias towards "anarcho" capitalism. Why does "anarcho" capitalism have one very long paragraph and another smaller one while other currents such as anarcho-primitivism, insurrectionary anarchism, and postanarchism, only brief mentions.

From the beginning we can say we are clearly having a big bias. And now on top of that it happens that while inssurrectionary anarchism and anarcho-primitivism exists in many countries and have strong historical precedents in illegalism in the first case and anarchist naturism in the second place, "anarcho" capitalism is seriously controversial as many times it has been said to be outside anarchism while being in fact a form of right wing neoliberalism with a null or almost non existent historical connection with the history of anarchism and on top of recent invention and lets not forget that it doesnt seem to exist outside the United States.

If we decided anyway to accept "anarcho" capitalism inside anarchism, there´s no good reason to give it such big coverage on this article. There´s also no good reason for it to be mentioned in the introduction as it is clear that it is too much of a controversial current (all the rest of anarchism is anti-capitalist) and on top geographically restricted to the USA. In this line of thought lets consider Wikipedia:Neutral point of view when it states clearly: "In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, a view of a distinct minority.""Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as a majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views." With the exception of "anarcho" capitalism the opinion in all anarchism is that anarchism can only be anti-capitalist and that pro-capitalist anarchism cannot exist and that shows why anarchism is identified as an anti-capitalist ideology alongside communism and marxism and in many places it is shown as a part of socialism. This includes individualist anarchism (Benjamin Tucker, Proudhon, Émile Armand, Renzo Novatore and Max Stirner).

This undue coverage of "anarcho" capitalism in this article also might be caused by too much concentration on the USA experience.

I am waiting for comments on this controversy. I plan to start correcting this problems in the following days. Hopefully we can have a rational discussion based on evidence.--Eduen (talk) 07:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I have restore the bias tag, but not made it USA specific. I have also removed the reference to Stirner espousing individualist anarchism - he didn't!Harrypotter (talk) 12:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

¿Stirner didn´t expose individualist anarchism? wow. and according to you who does? If I have already heard that i´m scared what you will say next.--Eduen (talk) 23:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Well. i wish that the people reverting what i contributed come here and discuss the specific issues. Otherwise this is going to be a silly edit war. Harrypotter, if you want proofs Stirner is perhaps the most important and influential individualist anarchist i can do that.--Eduen (talk) 03:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Nihilo erased the part of european individualist anarchism without explanation. Nihilo can come here and discuss the specific things he disagrees with my contributions as anyone. All the changes i have made i have explained before and im ready to support them and discuss them and alos i am open to come to agreements.--Eduen (talk) 03:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The upshot of your edits is that you simply don't like anarchocapitalism or the US. Fine. If you find something that needs to be corrected--fine. But to have some notice that the anarchocapitalism section focuses too much on the US is just beyond silly. That's like having "anarcho" communism focus too much on Europe. -Knight of BAAWA (talk) 04:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I do not doubt that Stirner was influential on followers who promoted him as an an individualist anarchist, but that does not mean he ever promoted anarchism. Perhaps if you read, or re-read his writings you can search for one passage where he promotes anarchism. Whether you find such a passage is another matter!Harrypotter (talk) 09:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

"anarcho" capitalism doesnt exist outside the USA. there is no reason why it should have more impotance in this article than other non classical new schools like insurectionalism or postanarchism. i admit that i dont think "anarcho" capitalism is part of anarchism. "anarcho" capitalism is part of neoliberalism. anyway i didnt erase references to it in this article. i just think if wikipedia decides to accept it within anarchism in this article it has to go as a minor mention within non classical schools as it is clear all anarchism before it an now is anticapitalist.--Eduen (talk) 09:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

but anyway. if you want to discuss things im open to do it. a different thing is if you just come here and you change things without having a support or an argument. that is very close to vandalism. i want to have a rational discussion supported in evidence.--Eduen (talk) 09:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Anti-socialist anarchy

Isn't that what "small town america" is lately? Are there any sources supporting it? To potentially include it in. --AaThinker (talk) 10:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)