Talk:Anarchism

Recent mergers

I noticed Hoponpop69 merged the articles on anarchism without adjectives and expropriative anarchism into this article.[1] I have to object to the manner in which this merge was done, as they have just shoved the text from these two articles into the "Branches" section, without thought for how that fits with the rest of the text. This has resulted in the citations in the article losing their consistency, as most of the citations in the merged text are not Sfn formatted and many aren't even particularly reliable. It has also completely thrown off the weight of the section, giving the same amount of weight to these two tendencies as the entire sphere of classical and post-classical anarchisms.

I've reverted these changes (both the mergers and the deletions),[2] as I don't think they were constructive to this article and have in fact made the article worse. I'm not sure why there wasn't so much as a talk page message left, let alone an actual merge discussion, that preceded this move. This could have been done with greater care and more prior consensus building. -- Grnrchst (talk) 09:17, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Grnrchst, my first impression is that your revert is correct. Esp "Expropriative anarchism" the citations were far from RS. Cinadon36 20:39, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion to change the complete misunderstanding of the citation in Gender, sexuality, and free love section.

The second citation in the second paragraph of Anarchism#Gender,_sexuality,_and_free_love misunderstands the source it cites from completely and is VERY problematic. The current version says:

Sexual violence was a concern for anarchists such as Benjamin Tucker, who opposed age of consent laws, believing they would benefit predatory men.

I quote Lucy 2020, pp. 177-178:

Sexual violence has long been a concern in anarchism, ... While some early individualist manarchists may have used anarchist arguments to undermine attempts to protect women from sexual violence, such as Benjamin Tucker's 1888 use of anarchism to oppose age of consent laws that would inevitably benefit predatory men, there is consensus that an anarchis ethos of sexuality means that it ought to be free of coercion, ...

This passage says that Tucker used anarchist arguments to undermine protection of women from sexual violence by opposing age of consent laws, and that this will benefit predatory men, NOT that the age of consent laws will benefit predatory men.

I suggest changing this to:

Sexual violence was a concern for anarchists, but some like Benjamin Tucker opposed age of consent laws, which would benefit predatory men.

--Thas (talk) 16:01, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't think your reading is unambiguous? Even with your explanation I could reasonably read it either way.

We probably should just remove the statement entirely if it can't be sourced unambiguously. Loki (talk) 16:17, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

That's fine by me, or remove the ambiguous part and just say:

Sexual violence was a concern for anarchists, but some like Benjamin Tucker opposed age of consent laws.

--Thas (talk) 05:12, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

What I meant by removing the ambiguous part is that the source may be ambiguous regarding the predatory men part, but it is unambiguously providing a counter example to the consensus. "While some early individualist manarchists may have used anarchist arguments to undermine attempts to protect women from sexual violence such as Benjamin Tucker ..." vs "there is consensus that an anarchist ethos of sexuality means that it ought to be free of coercion, ..." --Thas (talk) 05:20, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

"most scholars disagree ANCAP is a form of anarchism"

Having Most instead of Some is some of the most blatant propaganda I have ever seen on this website 2607:FEA8:2CDC:96D0:79FF:BFB5:B693:4283 (talk) 14:44, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

nietzsche and anarchism

Hi @Grnrchst:, I am sorry I have reverted your last edit [3] but I feel that Nietzsche's influence on anarchism is well studied and should be mentioned at the article. In the article, we should strive to tell the various histories that shaped the idea and political movement of Anarchism. Nietzsche criticized hierarchical institutions and celebrated freedom and autonomy. Anyways, I am open to discussion. Cheers, Cinadon36 22:27, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

@Cinadon36: Problem is that neither of these sources actually discuss Nietzsche's connection to anarchism. Bookchin doesn't even talk about Nietzsche in any detail, he just quotes his phrase "transvaluation of values" in passing. I'd be open to including a section about Nietzsche, but that needs to come from reliable sources that verifiably discuss the subject, not a synthesis of primary sources, which is what that paragraph is. -- Grnrchst (talk) 07:13, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the removal. If the mention of Nietzsche was in context of why a general reader needs to understand his connection as part of an overview of the larger topic, then perhaps I could see it, but that's not the current text. It reads as a non sequitur. czar 11:43, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

@Grnrchst and Czar: Ok guys, you have convinced me. "I'd be open to including a section about Nietzsche, but that needs to come from reliable sources that verifiably discuss the subject, not a synthesis of primary sources, which is what that paragraph is". I 'll dive into my resources during weekend and I will let you know if I find anything worth mentioning. Cinadon36 14:47, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

A good starting point would be with Bataille's work on Nietzsche such as "Nietzsche and the fascists" or the monograph On Nietzsche as a starting point. Simonm223 (talk) 15:15, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

anarcho-capitalism

an editor has made an edit that is not actually supported by the sources they provided, their sources do have a problem of neutrality in themselves, and the editor has made an accusation of gatekeeping.

clearly, this edit should have been discussed before it was made, given the maturity of the article and its "good article" rating.

i'll be flagging this for review as well.

commie (talk) 21:37, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

• User:BigMouthCommie, I think you need to take it easy: this is not a battleground, or at least it's not supposed to be. User:X-Editor, I don't quite understand why anarcho-capitalism needs to be mentioned in the lead, with a discussion and a half dozen or more sources. The article is fat enough already. Drmies (talk) 22:18, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I apologize for being a bit too aggressive with the gatekeeping accusation, but my edit does not add anything about anarcho-capitalism to the lede. My edit simply adds that there are anarcho-capitalists who argue that their ideology is real anarchism. If the sources in question to not back up that claim, then I apologize for adding the content to the article in the first place. X-Editor (talk) 22:22, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I looked at the sources and all of them argue that anarcho-captialism is a form of anarchism.

"In other words, we believe that capitalism is the fullest expression of anarchism, and anarchism is the fullest expression of capitalism. Not only are they compatible, but you can't really have one without the other. True anarchism will be capitalism, and true capitalism will be anarchism."[4]

"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" The Individualist Anarchists: An Anthology of Liberty

"There are two main varieties of anarchism: the socialist variety (aka "social anarchism" or "anarcho-socialism") and the capitalist variety ("anarcho-capitalism")"[5]

I can't copy paste for the last source, but you can find the mention of ancap in the second paragraph. [6] X-Editor (talk) 22:29, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

@X-Editor individualist anarchism is not synonymous with capitalist anarchism commie (talk) 22:33, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

@BigMouthCommie While that's true, all of the sources that I've provided argue in some way that anarcho-captialism is a form of anarchism, showing that your claim that the sources don't say that is wrong. My proposed addition of "although others, including anarcho-capitalists and right-libertarians, have argued that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism." lines up with what the sources say. X-Editor (talk) 22:44, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Do we have any sources from people who aren't self-identified right-libertarians or anarcho-capitalists claiming that anarcho-capitalism is an anarchist tendency? Because if we only have self-identification then, honestly, WP:FRINGE might be apropos. Simonm223 (talk) 15:55, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

The self-identification argument applies to many of the sources used to back up the claim that anarcho-capitalism is not real anarchism as well, since several of these sources are from anarcho-socialists. Two of the sources provided above are not written by anarcho-capitalists, including "The Individualist Anarchists: An Anthology of Liberty" and the "Heywood Political Ideologies" source. I'm not sure why and when WP editors suddenly decided that ancaps aren't real anarchists and considering there are several sources that go against this claim, I might bring the issue to the NPOV noticeboard. X-Editor (talk) 03:39, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

The Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy also considers ancaps to be anarchists: "In some cases anarchism is related to libertarianism (or what is sometimes called “anarcho-capitalism”)."[7] X-Editor (talk) 03:44, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Then again, I might have to do more digging into the sources in order to figure out if there are enough that accept anarcho-capitalism as anarchism in order for this to be a major issue. X-Editor (talk) 04:03, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

The Stanford Encyclopedia entry seems to be leaning on the following for its description of Anarcho-Capitalism: Casey, Gerard, 2012, Libertarian Anarchy: Against the State, London: Bloomsbury. So I'd suggest that the reliability of that text would be the basis for determining whether this should be treated per WP:FRINGE Simonm223 (talk) 12:52, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

I'd consider him to be a marginal case: Gerard Casey (philosopher) - he certainly meets the self-description clause of WP:FRINGE but I'm not sure how well received his poli-sci work has been by the academic community. Simonm223 (talk) 12:55, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm having trouble finding information on his h-index or any similar measures of frequency of citation. Anyone able to confirm? I personally would consider somebody associated with the Mises institute a fringe source for discussing leftist politics but reasonable minds may disagree. Simonm223 (talk) 13:02, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Isn't Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy RS? It doesn't seem necessary to track down what it "seems to be leaning on."--MattMauler (talk) 15:40, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm kind of iffy on using the Stanford Encyclopedia for claims that anarchism includes capitalists when those inclusions all point to a sole source affiliated with the Mises institute or to no source at all. I'm not saying that the Stanford Encyclopedia is not an RS. I'm saying it is not a sufficient RS in this case. Simonm223 (talk) 15:42, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Random false statement

"Humans have lived in societies without formal hierarchies long before the establishment of states"

This statement is untrue. There has never been a non-hierarchical society.