Talk:Anarchism

Mises.org as RS?

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

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

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

Anarcho-Capitalism

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

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

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

Article content review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In Our Time

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

Anarchism is a branch of Libertarianism.

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

Anarchism, "libertarianism" and minarchism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DarkStar1st is simply a long-term disruptive editor from Libertarianism who was coming here to disrupt things to make a point, so I wouldn't concern yourselves too much with this issue. (See [1]). -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 17:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Анархия