Talk:Anarchism/Archive 55

This is an archive of past discussions about Anarchism. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 50

←

Archive 53

→

Green anarchism and anarcho-primitivsm

Hello,

The section on green anarchism really needs to be cleaned up. I would do it myself, but I'm just a translator for the Esperanto Wikipedia, and not a qualified contributor. Also, since there is now a section on anarcho-primitivism, it seems that this school of thought would only need to be mentioned briefly in the green anarchism section.

In fact, I don't know if having a sub-section on anarcho-primitivism is such a good idea. If there's one on that, there may as well be one on social ecology as well, and this sort of constant addition of schools of thought would make an infinitely long article. Perhaps anarcho-primitivism could be linked and mentioned in green anarchism, and not included as a section at all.

Thanks, --Nick Kalivoda 03:52, 28 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Hi Nick, that section has been problematic for us for a long while. You don't any qualifications to edit, especially not around these parts, so if you have reliable sources, please feel free to rewrite the section as you wish. Be bold! Skomorokh 04:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Here is my proposal for a new section on Green anarchism. We could theoretically just delete the anarcho-primitivism sub-section, since it is mentioned and linked in my proposal, and the anarchism article is already incredibly long. I admittedly heavily copied the introduction to the Green anarchism article itself--is that allowed?

Green anarchism puts an emphasis on the environment. Some green anarchists can be described as anarcho-primitivists and sometimes anti-civilization anarchists, though not all green anarchists are primitivists. Likewise, there is a strong critique of technology among some green anarchists, though not all reject it entirely. Sometimes green anarchism is said to be techno-positive or techno-negative to differentiate between those who advocate use of advanced green technology to create and maintain an anarchist society and those who mainly see civilization and modern technology as something negative. Murray Bookchin's social ecology is a more techno-positive variant.

--Nick Kalivoda 10:43, 28 Apr 2008 (UTC)

I agree the new proposed section looks better than the old one.--Fang 23 (talk) 19:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Resources

Below are some quotes from articles about anarchism in mainstream news media. I'd like to come to a consensus about how to incorporate some of the information from these sources into the article. Aelffin (talk) 16:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

New York Times

Book Fair Unites Anarchists. In Spirit, Anyway.

By COLIN MOYNIHAN

April 16, 2007

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/16/nyregion/16anarchists.html?scp=16&sq=anarchism&st=nyt

Despite the diversity, there are a few main tenets shared by nearly all anarchists, including opposition to the sort of authority embodied by the state, capitalism and organized religion.

There are almost as many definitions and interpretations [of anarchism] as there are adherents.

Critics, from the late 19th century to the early 21st century, have condemned them as a disorganized mob of nihilists bent on creating chaos. But many anarchists see themselves more as revolutionary idealists seeking to make society more humane by replacing authority with autonomy.

New York Times

Anarchism, the Creed That Won't Stay Dead; The Spread of World Capitalism Resurrects a Long-Dormant Movement

August 5, 2000

Joseph Kahn

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E04EFDE153CF936A3575BC0A9669C8B63&scp=2&sq=anarchism&st=nyt

Anarchists consider themselves of the left, not the right.

Ideologically opposed to power and ambivalent about organization, anarchists perpetually live on the fringe of great movements -- and on the verge of defeat.

And at the turn of this century, [anarchism] is undergoing a fresh resurgence.

Self-described anarchists are small in number. But anarchism, broadly construed, is becoming fashionable.

With the decline of socialism, you have seen anarchism go through a revival as an easy way to oppose global capitalism, said Paul Avrich, a leading historian of anarchism who teaches at Queens College in New York.

But anarchist groups are reappearing in every major city, [Avrich] says. Today they have their own bookstores, like Blackout Books on the Lower East Side and Social Anarchism in Baltimore.

Proudhon advocated free bank credit and rejected parliamentary politics as hopelessly dominated by the elite. But anarchism was defined and popularized by Bakunin, a heavily bearded Russian insurrectionist who helped foment uprisings across Europe in 1848.

But nothing has revived anarchism like globalization. Anarchists are now battling what they see as a concentration of power in multinational corporations.

[Anarchists] have also attacked the World Bank, the World Trade Organization and the International Monetary Fund because these are seen as superseding national governments.

Many other anarchists call anarcho-primitivism a disturbing trend, and, perhaps not surprisingly, sectarian strife among the anarchists is rampant.

[Non-primitivist anarchists] have called Mr. Zerzan a McAnarchist who dumbs down anarchism and corrupts young gullibles with mystical visions of life before civilization.

[Bookchin] says some anarchist groups have taken the ecological message too far, becoming misanthropic nihilists who ignore anarchism's core humanitarian message.

This is an opinion piece by the way, so if anybody decides to use it, make sure you check out the WP:RS guidelines for using opinion pieces. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 02:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

New York Times

Abraham Bluestein, 88, Dies; An Advocate of Anarchism

ROBERT MCG. THOMAS JR.

December 14, 1997

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B01E1DD163FF937A25751C1A961958260&scp=4&sq=anarchism&st=nyt

To adherents of a movement that had been among the fiercest opponents of Communism in Russia, Nazism in Germany, Fascism in Italy and dictatorship in Spain, the Spanish Civil War proved an irresistible lure for many anarchists in the United States…

New York Times

Ideas & Trends -- Heartland Radical; Anarchy Explained

RANDAL C. ARCHIBOLD

August 29, 2004

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE0D91E3EF93AA1575BC0A9629C8B63&scp=7&sq=anarchism&st=nyt

[Anarchist Chuck Munson:] In an anarchist model, people would be working in a cooperative workplace, worker-owned.

Fox News

Why Democrats Are Failing in Congress

October 31, 2007

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,306520,00.html

Fact is, the far left hates these supposedly national Democrat leaders. And since the leaders can't control the wild-eyed bomb throwers, the far-left anarchists rule by fouling things up at key moments.

This too is an opinion piece by the way, so if anybody decides to use it, make sure you check out the WP:RS guidelines for using opinion pieces. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 02:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The London Times

February 21, 2004

The death of anarchy is pants

Felipe Fernández-Armesto

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/article1024347.ece

The term anarchism was invented in 1840 to mean a society run on principles of reciprocity, like a mutual or co-operative society.

I predict a resurgence. Today anarchism makes better sense than any other discarded ideology of the last two centuries.

With officerless armies, [anarchists] fought fascism and Bolshevism, clericalism and capitalism.

The problem with using sources like these is that they are not conscious of the broader context of anarchism, the articles are not in-depth examinations of "the" anarchist movement. I think if a section on contemporary anarchism is to be included, it should not be from sources such as the NYT or the Times, which I think most are agreed do not have a great track record of accurately reflecting the state of anarchism. I personally would prefer scholarly sources such as Graeber's Fragments of an Anarchist Anthropology or articles from Anarchist Studies, Anarchy: A Journal of Desire Armed and other books and journals that are reliable on the topic.

I mean, no problem saying something like "Anarchism enjoyed a resurgence in North America at the turn of the 21st century, coinciding with the growing anti-globalization movements which opposed institutions such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. In the 2000s United States, anarchist bookshops were established in major cities, and anarchists were strongly opposed to the two dominant political parties." But a) it's completely biased towards one country out of dozens with anarchist movements and b) is all this of such importance? Skomorokh 18:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that peer-reviewed scholarly sources are to be preferred. However, I chose these articles for two reasons... First, I hope to avoid any controversy about the reliability of the sources; these are widely-cited throughout Wikipedia and should not raise any eyebrows. Second, I wanted to provide a wider range of opinions, showing that the acceptance that anarchism is almost wholly a leftist phenomenon is not just held by "partisan" sources, but by uncontroversial outside parties as well.

That being said, there are a couple of other quotes I included just because I find them interesting. Aelffin (talk) 19:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Aelffin, Paul Avrich (who you quote as "a leading historian of anarchism who teaches at Queens College in New York") classified Murray Rothbard as an "American economist, historian, and individualist anarchist." -- Vision Thing -- 21:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Aelffin, I have no problem in general with these kinds of sources; they are great for verifying factual information about events i.e. "Susie fell down the well.[New York Times]". As daily/weekly news organisations, however, they are less good at giving broad overviews, which is what I think you are asking for here. On the topic of proving anarchism as a leftist phenomenon, even aside from all the market anarchists, the post-leftists and postanarchists would surely baulk at being described as leftist, and I can't imagine the green anarchists or primitivists would be too happy with that either. It's easy for reporters to characterize anti-WTO protestors as "left-wing" by association, but I think we should look for a higher standard of analysis for our article here. Thanks for the hard work and interesting quotes though. Skomorokh 21:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd argue that they are a good representation of how anarchists view themselves and the popular perception of anarchism as well as being a source of simple factoids. Anyway, this is just a quick sampling, and I encourage other editors to peruse and make use of the by now quite substantial press coverage available, which I think counts as rather more reliable than the dated materials the current article is largely rooted in. Aelffin (talk) 23:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with citing articles from these sources as long as it is understood that these sources are not authoritative about anarchism or the anarchist movement. It's one thing to quote a New York Times article that reports on an anarchist event happening. It's quite another to cite the NY Times as a credible source on anarchism. These publications represent the agenda of the ruling class, which has a long, documented history of publishing inaccurate, prejudicial and sensational stories about radicals of any stripe. Reporters are also ignorant of the subject matter and will often piece together something quite skewed from their notes. Chuck0 (talk) 03:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, half the sources cited in the article aren't credible, but Wiki policy counts them as reliable sources, so they are acceptable. By what criteria do we pick and choose among reliable sources? The Times may or may not have their own opinions on what anarchism is, but they beyond doubt reliably report what anarchists believe themselves to be. When reliable sources disagree, isn't consensus view to document the disagreement as such? Aelffin (talk) 04:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The Times is certainly more up to date than many of the sources currently cited. The Times is well respected--it has fact-checkers and is known to correct its errors. Besides, the assertion that certain reliable sources are more reliable than others constitutes original research. Aelffin (talk) 04:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Anarchism and Property

For the sake of consistency within Wikipedia, I believe the disproportionate emphasis given to anarcho-capitalism in the article should be addressed. The following selections from various Wikipedia articles illustrate why the the strict "anti-government" definition is too narrow since the term has almost always had anti-capitalist, or at least anti-property implications. (italics added)... Aelffin (talk) 17:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The Cynics of Ancient Greece were originators of anarchism; the philosopher Zeno of Citium, in opposition to Plato, argued that reason should replace authority in guiding human affairs. (History_of_anarchism) Their philosophy was that the purpose of life was to live a life of Virtue in agreement with Nature. This meant rejecting all conventional desires for wealth, power, health, and fame, and by living a life free from all possessions. (Cynics)

In the modern era, the first to use the term "Anarchy" to mean something other than chaos was Louis-Armand, Baron de Lahontan, in his “Nouveaux voyages dans l'Amérique septentrionale”, (New voyages in northern America) (1703) where he described the indigenous American society, which had no state, laws, prisons, priests or private property, as being in anarchy. (History_of_anarchism)

Pierre-Joseph Proudhon is regarded as the first self-proclaimed anarchist, a label he adopted in his groundbreaking work “What is Property?”, published in 1840. It is for this reason that some claim Proudhon as the founder of modern anarchist theory. He developed the theory of spontaneous order in society, where organization emerges without a central coordinator imposing its own idea of order against the wills of individuals acting in their own interests; his famous quote on the matter is, "Liberty is the mother, not the daughter, of order." In What is Property? Proudhon answers with the famous accusation "Property is theft." In this work, he opposed the institution of decreed "property" (propriété), where owners have complete rights to "use and abuse" their property as they wish. He contrasted this with what he called "possession," or limited ownership of resources and goods only while in more or less continuous use. About this latter type of property, Proudhon wrote "Property is Liberty," and argued that it was a bulwark against state power. (History_of_anarchism)

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. If at three paragraphs anarcho-capitalism has undue weight in this article, it remains to be proven. Appeals to what other articles say is essentially original research. I agree that the way we have allocated weight in the article up to now has not been on the basis of relative importance in the real world, but I have seen no evidence from reliable sources that indicates that we should give any particular school of thought more or less weight. If someone comes up with a reliable source that says something like "anarchism of type x is the most popular and active faction as of 2008, with anarchism of type y is dwindling in importance", then I think we have good grounds for reviewing emphasis. Until then, this is just editorial opinion on your part. Skomorokh 18:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not citing Wikipedia as a source, just pointing out that we are being inconsistent between our articles when we emphasize a layman's definition (anarchism=anti-government) in this article while simultaneously describing anarchism according to a more technical definition (anarchism=anti-leader) in other articles. I'm hoping to spur some debate on whether or not we should address this inconsistency. Basically, I'm saying that going back and forth between these different definitions is a form of equivocation, so we should either pick one or be more careful in explaining which we're using in which contexts. As for the undue weight issue, well my understanding is that anarcho-capitalism is a marginal, distantly related concept, so I'm not sure how we cover other such marginal phenomena in articles on other political movements. Whatever the consensus is on that is what we should follow. Aelffin (talk) 19:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Point taken about consistency. As to anarcho-capitalism being marginal and distantly related to anarchism, I think for our purposes, that remains to be proven. The anarcho-capitalism as a form of anarchism question was put to rest here long ago by an extensive (though not exhaustive) survey of the sources - see Anarcho-capitalism#References. I know certainly that in academic philosophy (and indeed in economics: see Anarchy in Somalia), the term anarchism almost exclusively denotes anti-statism rather than anti-hierarchy, and I think in terms of the history of anarchism as a social movement excluding individualism, the anti-hierarchy definition is much more prominent, so it's difficult to see a decisive definition we should follow. I imagine the best way to clear up the definitional inconsistency, where it exists, is to trot out the line from The Oxford Companion to Philosophy that "there is no single defining position that all anarchists hold, beyond their rejection of compulsory government, and those considered anarchists at best share a certain family resemblance." Opposition to compulsory government is at least a minimalist definition. Is it just the history of anarchism article you feel is inconsistent with this one? Because the bulk of work on that article was completed a long time ago; it could be worth updating in line with this one. Skomorokh 22:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Not having the books at hand, I can't judge quality of the sources that consider anarcho-capitalism to be a form of anarchism except to note that a large number of them appear to be references on politics in general, rather than anarchism in particular. That said, I'm not going to deny that some sources do use the more general definition of anarchism = anti-government. However, I think the quotes above establish at least the popular perception of anarchism as a leftist phenomenon. Even leaving aside both the opinions published in actual anarchist writings and the historical roots of the movement as documented in History of anarchism, I think the difference in definitions, and consequently the difference in opinion on "what counts as anarchism" at least deserves to be mentioned in the opening paragraphs where we define the term. Aelffin (talk) 23:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

What would you think of having a Background or Overview section where we can lump all the definitional/taxonomic issues in together? The lede of the article is already dominated by trying to spell out what anarchism is and isn't, when it is supposed to be summarizing the article. Thoughts? Skomorokh 18:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'd be happy with an overview immediately after a short lede. Perhaps this could be the outline...

=== What is anarchism? ===

Dictionary defninitions.
Rejection of dictionary definitions.
Definitions from prominent anarchists, in chronological order.
Differing taxonomies resulting from differing definitions.
Comparison between socialist and capitalist definitions.

Aelffin (talk) 19:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The "historical" definition means absolutely nothing! How many times must this be stated? Historically, atheism was defined as not only being "godless", but "evil" as well. Being black was defined as being "subhuman" and "inferior". Jews were defined as "vermin" and "christ killers". Should we then claim that those "definitions have any merit whatsoever just because they were "historically used"?

Further, the section on anarchocapitalism is small compared to the entire rest of the article, and compared to the combined collectivist anarchist positions (all that aren't individualist are collectivist): it's dwarfed. So I fail to see where you're coming up with "disproportionate emphasis". - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 18:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Presumably, most Wikipedia editors think history is somewhat important, judging from the number of pages we have dealing with historical matters. You can't throw historical accuracy out the window. Yes, many terms, such as anarchsism and atheism have been used as insults in the past, and we should certainly make a note of such usage. However, your metaphor is flawed. The inaccurate uses of words like atheism are always applied by those *outside the movement*. That is why they are inaccurate. Likewise, the definition "anarchism = no government" is something used by those outside the movement, and that is why it is inaccurate. As for the the emphasis, you're free to have your opinion. I think accuracy demands weight on a different definition. Aelffin (talk) 20:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Then, by your reasoning, it is accurate to describe atheists as "immoral", blacks as "inferior", and jews as "vermin" simply as that. That IS what you're actually demanding. You're not simply saying that the past usage should be noted, but rather than those past usages are also accurate. You go too far in your desire. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 20:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

That's not at all what I'm saying. I'm saying that there are many definitions of anarchism, some that are newer, some that are older, some that are used by anarchists, some that are used by anarcho-capitalists, and some that are used by people who don't call themselves anarchists at all. None of these is intrinsically right or wrong. They're just words. However, some are more directly relevant to the anarchist movement, and those should be emphasized. The most relevant to traditional anarchists is "anti-hierarchy". The one most relevant to non-anarchists and anarco-capitalists is "anti-government". The one most relevant to opponents of anarchism is "violent rebellion". Each of these has a place in the article, but I think the one that deserves the biggest share of attention is the one favored by the biggest share of people who call themselves anarchists. I suppose relevant is a better word than accurate, since it doesn't imply a right or wrong. Aelffin (talk) 00:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

If none are intrisically right or wrong, then one wonders why have definitions at all. We can just make up usage as we go along. Words will cease to be useful.

And considering that the majority of the article deals with the collectivist side of anarchism, I would say that your "more relevant" definition is more than adequately covered. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 04:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not about right or wrong, it's about relevance and clarity of description. Yes, collectivist anarchism is weighted nicely as a movement, however the definitional disagreement is not dealt with very well, and not where it should be for most clarity--at the begining. Aelffin (talk) 04:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the way to achieve a clear explanation of the subject is to start with the lede saying, basically "Anarchism is a term applied to several distinct political philosophies in the ~~classical~~ liberal tradition, loosely derrived from ancient Greek traditions. Though the term has often been used in a derrogatory manner, this article will deal only with its usage as political philosophy." Then, the next section should deal with the various political definitions. This way, we provide a clear and concise context right up front before the reader dives into the zoo of sub-movements and related phenomena. Fair enough? Aelffin (talk) 04:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

How the hell is anarcho-communism in the classical liberal tradition? Central to the classical liberal tradition is the idea of a free market. Anarcho-communists are opposed to a free market. Operation Spooner (talk) 20:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Presumably Anarcho-Capitalism is lumped in with market Anarchism, Agorism and t some extent Individualist Anarchism as a relatively 'new' and 'contemporary' development while Anarcho-Communism, Syndicalist and Collectivism are viewed as older, or 'classical' Anarchist philosophy. This argument is sometimes used to portray the latter has having a kind of superiority. Aside from this usage, it is a potential valuable categorisation (as it provides a concession so opposing views can get along) so long as it is unbiased, cleaned up and 'codified'. Although I would argue that Mutualism is the original Anarchism with Proudhon being the father of the philosophy. Interesting that little tid-bit is often left out along with the point that he advocated property (despite advocating possession) as a boundary to defend the individual against incursions by the state. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Yeah, that's another problem that clouds the issues. "Market anarchism" and "anarcho-capitalism" are used interchangeably. In fact, I consider myself market anarchist, as well as an anti-capitalist. Unfortunately, this sloppy useage extends to both sides of the issue, and is so deeply entrenched that the terms are effectively identical when applied to modern anarchists. When applied to historic anarchists however, we have to make the distinction more carefully, because many of the individualists were--like me--both pro-market, and anti-capitalism and lumping them together gives the false impression that all or many of the individualists were therefore anarcho-capitalists. Also, I definitely don't want to use the priority/majority positions to falsely inflate the importance of one movement or another, however I think it's important to draw a distinction between these radically different and historically distant movements. Otherwise, the importance of anarcho-capitalism is being inflated by riding the coattales of the other movement, so to speak. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 15:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

If you're a market anarchist and anti-capitalist, what differentiates you from an anarcho-capitalist? Operation Spooner (talk) 02:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

A market is just a means of distributing goods and services. (Or, to quote Market--a market is a social structure that has emerged more or less spontaneously or has been constructed deliberately by human interaction to enable the exchange of rights (cf. ownership) of services and goods.) Anarcho-capitalists support a totally hands-off market with virtually no management. I support voluntary exchange of goods and services in a wealth-leveled marketplace, with democratic management. I also support collective ownership of natural resources, such as land and water, as well as the ending of rent, intellectual property, and other passive income schemes. Finally, I think hierarchical business structures are de facto governments, so all businesses should be flat networks, run similar to the way Wikipedia functions, where anybody can come in and start doing the work they think needs to be done, and share in the profit. I see anarcho-capitalism as a sort of economic primitivism--essentially saying "don't tamper with the market, take away all regulations" is like saying "don't tamper with the weather, take away all umbrellas". Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 11:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Let me put this way...hierarchy is government, they're the same thing. So, if you hire some employees and set up a business, and you decide who gets what percentage of the profits, then you a one-man government to those employees, and you are regulating their economic interactions. So, for a market to truly exist without government, you can't have bosses. I support such a market. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 12:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have a strange idea of anarcho-capitalism. Anarcho-capitalists don't favor hierarchical institutions over non-hierarchical. You're making a strawman out of anarcho-capitalism. Anarcho-capitalists are for allowing you to run busniesses however you want to run them, hierarchically, democratically, or whatever. In fact the anarcho-capitalist David Friedman says he prefers a society of enterpreneurs, with no employees, instead of one based in wage labor. All capitalism is is private, as opposed to state or community, ownership of the means of production and free market to trade these means of production and what's produced. However people want to manage their enterprises is up to them. Operation Spooner (talk) 17:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say anarcho-capitalism favors hierarchic forms, I said it favors a hands-off market. I favor a hands-on market. I was being asked to explain how it is possible that I can be an anti-capitalist market anarchist, not to go into the nuance of ancap theory. Anyway, this discussion is not about my views so if anybody would like to continue this tangent, you're welcome to direct comments to my user talk page. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 19:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Spooner, you're right. I should have said the "liberal" instead of "classical liberal". The traditional anarchists are definitely within the liberal tradition, but only the anarcho-capitalists are within the more restricted classical liberal tradition. Which is precisely the reason why most anarchist view it as a distantly related, but clearly separate movement from anarchism proper. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 15:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Aelfin, I would ask why you would want to elevate the collectivist, anti-hierarchy position of Anarchism to a higher position than that of the market Anarchists? Yes, collectivist Anarchists have a long tradition, but so do market Anarchists and you cannot sideline them on the basis that one branch of the philosophy is controversial.--58.166.247.164 (talk) 10:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to imply a greater importance to one or the other, just to clearly portray their (distant) relationship. Anarchism proper is a branch of liberal socialism, including the individualist anarchists. There one or two questionable exceptions, but otherwise, everybody who called themselves an anarchist prior to Murray Rothbard, saw themselves as part of an anti-capitalist movement. Rothbard, on the other hand, was clearly within the classical liberal tradition, not the socialist tradition. Therefore, his back-mapping of his philosophy onto the market anarchism of the individualist movement is historical revisionism. The only reason this confusion persists is because of the constant equivocation by both sides between the older and newer meanings of the words "market" and "capitalism". I do not advocate inflating the importance of one or the other movement. However, I strongly oppose conflating movements that have different histories and philosophies, and I strongly support giving a clear sense of perspective when it comes to the importance of both movements. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 15:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

"everybody who called themselves an anarchist prior to Murray Rothbard, saw themselves as part of an anti-capitalist movement." That statement doesn't mean much because capitalism wasn't always defined as it is today, which is a free market. Operation Spooner (talk) 02:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Bingo. Which is why it doesn't make much sense to point at old style (anti-capitalist) market anarchists, conflate that with capitalism, and then turn around and say anarcho-capitalism is a part of that tradition. In modern times, the word capitalism has become almost meaningless (see the "zaxlebax problem" above). It's worth noting, however, some people still use the old definitions accurately, and it's also worth noting in the article that among the people who use the older definitions are virtually all anarchists, with the exception of anarcho-capitalists. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 02:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

You can't state as a rule that old style market anarchists were not anti-capitalists if you use a contemporary definition of capitalism. For example there is very little difference between Lysander Spooner and Murray Rothbard. Spooner never opposed capitalism, i.e. private property, including in land, and free markets. Operation Spooner (talk) 17:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, Spooner was very much opposed to what we call capitalism today, and what Rothbard thought of as capitalism in his day. Read contemporary definitions of the word capital (basically just meant "having money"), and then re-read Spooner's work. It's pretty clear that he was anti-capitalist in a modern sense. Whether he was anti-capitalist in the older sense is unclear, as the term's usage was almost as zaxlebaxy then as it is today. Regardless, the only way to call Spooner and Rothbard part of the same movement is to misconstrue the old uses of the word "capitalism" as meaning the same as modern uses. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 19:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

It depends on how broadly you define "the same movement." Bejamin Tucker, Lysander Spooner, and Murray Rothbard are all certianly in the individualist anarchist movement and the market anarchist movement. There are things Tucker disagreed with Spooner over, but they're still both individualist anarchists. To be part of the individualist anarchist, or less broad the market anarchist movement, doesnt require agreement on much of anything except support for private ownership as opposed to state or public ownership. Your premise seems to be that individualist or market anarchists have to agree with each other. Market anarchism, and especially individualist anarchism, is a big tent full of conflicting views. Operation Spooner (talk) 21:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not about how broadly I define individualist anarchism, it's about how broadly the individualists defined their movement. Certainly, none of them would have seen modern capitalism as part of their movement, and all the major individualists were long dead by the time Rothbard was born, so it smacks of historical revisionism to say he was part of their movement. It's as if Jimi Hendrix decided to call himself a Baroque composer. No doubt you could find some people to go along with that, but a historian of music will know better. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 22:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The movement is very difficult to define other than extremely broadly, because it's been all over the place. Even the 19th century individualist anarchists themselves would drastically change their positions from one day to the next. For example, Benjamin Tucker said that land could legitimately exchange hands by force. He said that if someone take land by force from someone else, that makes him the new owner. Tucker said "In times past...it was my habit to talk glibly of the right of man to land. It was a bad habit, and I long ago sloughed it off. Man's only right to land is his might over it. If his neighbor is mightier than he and takes the land froim him, then the land is his neighbor's, until the latter is dispossessed by one mightier still." The fact that Rothbard disagrees with that, and believes in only peaceful trade of land to establish ownership and natural rights, doesn't make Rothbard not an individualist anarchist. Individualist anarchism is a big tent. It's simply all anarchism that is individualistic. You say "certainly, none of them would have seen modern capitalism as part of their movement." It depends on how you are defining "modern capitalism." How are you defining it? Operation Spooner (talk) 03:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I'll be more precise. Certainly, all notable individualist anarchists would have seen the anarcho-capitalist mantra of laissez-faire capitalism as antithetical to their cause, even the ones whose writings helped to inspire Rothbard. The individualist tent was big, yes. But it didn't have an open door policy. And even if Rothbard had lifted theories from the fringe of the individualist anarchist movement (which is what the ancap claim boils down to), the point remains that he was an outsider to the movement. Rothbard was not part of individualist anarchism for the very simple fact that when that movement was active, Rothbard had not yet been born. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 15:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

You don't understand that individualist anarchism is active TODAY. Anarcho-capitalists ARE individualists anarchists. You don't seem to be able to grasp that "individualist anarchism" means simply anarchism that is individualistic. Anarcho-capitalism is individualistic. Therefore it's individualist anarchism. Individualist anarchism is still active. There are numerous sources that say anarcho-capitalism is a form of individualist anarchism. Individualist anarchism is not confined to a specific time period. If one is an anarchist and an individualist, he is an individualist anarchist. This is true whether he lived one hundred years ago, one thousand years ago, lives today, or will live a thousand years in the future. The only necessary conditions of being an individualist anarchist is that one is an anarchist and an individualist. Most anarcho-capitalist probably do not even call themselves anarcho-capitalists, but individualist anarchists or market anarchists. Wendy McElroy, for example, simply calls herself an individualist anarchist, but her philosophy is the same as Rothbard's. You need to understand what "individualist anarchism" means before we can have a coherent conversation. Operation Spooner (talk) 16:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I think I understand individualist anarchism fairly well. The crux of the issue is that either you and I have a different understanding of what a movement is, or you think individualist anarchism was something other than a movement. My position is that individualist anarchism was a political movement. It wasn't a philosophy because there were no shared philosophical positions (I say this for the sake of argument because that's your contention, not mine, by the way). Neither was it a doctrine or set of doctrines (again, according to you). We can all agree that it wasn't a political party, a union, a social club, or any other type of political organization. So, it was a movement. A political movement. Read what a polital movement is. According to the wiki article: A political movement may be organized around a single issue or set of issues, or around a set of shared concerns of a social group. That's what a political movement is...it's a social movement organized around a particular set of shared political positions, or shared political concerns of a particular social group. According to you, individualist anarchism is not "organized around a single issue or set of issues" and according to the historical record, the individualists and the anarcho-capitalists were two different social groups separated by several decades. So, anarcho-capitalist "individualist anarchism" and 19th century individualist anarchism also do not represent "a set of shared concerns of a social group". In other words, they are two different movements. Different ideology + different social group = different movement. Even if they use the same terminology, even if they call themselves by the same names, because of the gap in both time and philosophy, they are two different movements. If they were to be considered part of the same movement, there would have to be philosophical and/or sociological continuity between Josiah & Friends and Murray & Friends. In precise parellel, I think we can all agree that the anarchist movement started by Proudhon is not the same movement as the anarchist movement started by the ancient Greek Cynics. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 18:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

You still don't get it. "Individualist anarchism" is a CLASSIFICATION, just as communitarian anarchism (or social anarchism) is a classification. Anarcho-capitalism falls under the individualist classification. Anarcho-communism, for example, would fall under the communitarian classification. Individualist anarchism is not a movement. It's a classification under which several movements fall. It's easy to show that Rothbard is part of the evolution of Benjamin Tucker's movement. Rothbard wrote in the same journals that Laurance Labadie wrote in, who was the son of Joseph Labadie who was an associate of Tucker. There is a clear link. If you want to confine Tucker's movement to Tucker himself, go ahead. It just depends on how you are defining the movement. If you don't allow for evolutions in a movement, then sure, Rothbard is not part of the same movement to which Tucker belonged. But then neither would Tucker be part of the movement when he evolved to egoism. Operation Spooner (talk) 01:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

That's right, "individualist" and "communist" are classifications...of...movements. "Individualist anarchism" is a term used primarily to classify a 19th century socialist movement, and also used by some to classify a 20th century libertarian movement. No matter what label you choose, they were different movements. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 15:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't care whether you call them different movements or not. It's just semantics. It depends on how broad you're defining "movement." If "individualist anarchism" is a movement, then Murray Rothbard, Max Stirner, William Godwin, and Benjamin Tucker are all part of the same movement, because they're all individualist anarchists. And, the 19th century individualist anarchists in America were not socialists. Take a look at the definition of socialism. Socialism is social control over the means of production. Individualists are for individual control, not socialized control. They were not socialists. What definition of socialism are you using? Operation Spooner (talk) 16:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

There have been three distinct anarchist movements: 1) the Greek Cynics, of which little is known, 2) the movement started by Proudhon that continues to today's WTO protesters, and 3) the movement started by Rothbard and revived by neolibertarians. These three movements could all fairly be called "anarchist", and they all have some things in common, and they've influenced each other in various ways. However, they revolve around three different sets of shared principles, and they are held by three different social groups. That makes them three different movements. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 15:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

And once more, I will cite the examples of Jews for Jesus (who see themselves as Jews but are rejected by those who are recognized as Jews) and Creation scientists (who see themselves as scientists but are rejected by those who are recognized as scientists). This article's explanation of Anarcho-capitalists (who see themselves as anarchists but are rejected by those who are recognized as anarchists) should be consistent with the explanations of those other fringe movements. It's not necessarily a matter of importance, but a matter of consistency and clarity--although admittedly, readers may choose to make their own judgements on importance when reading an accurate portrayal of the relative size and sway of the two philosophies. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 16:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

"Anarcho-capitalists (who see themselves as anarchists but are rejected by those who are recognized as anarchists) " <--What is that supposed to mean? Anarcho-capitalists are included in those who are recognized as anarchists. They don't reject themselves. Operation Spooner (talk) 02:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

And some people see creation science as a branch of science--and not just creation scientists themselves, mind you. So, why should wikipedia handle anarcho-capitalism differently than it handles creation science? I'm not saying creation science, anarcho-capitalism, or Jews for Jesus are wrong or less important or whatever, I'm just saying that this is an analagous situation, and the articles should be handled similarly. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 02:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

To put it a different way...all sources recognize anarcho-syndicalists and anarcha-feminists as anarchists, all sources recognize geologists and physicists as scientists, and all source recognize Ashkenazis and Shepardis as Jews. On the other hand, Jews for Jesus, creation scientists, and anarcho-capitalists are only recognized by some sources as Jews, scientists, and anarchists, respectively. Fringe groups should be clearly portrayed as such. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 02:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Your premise on sources is wrong. Of course you can find particular anarcho-communists who say anarcho-capitalism is not genuine anarchism, just as you could find anarcho-capitalists say that anarcho-communism is not genuine anarchism. But these are polemical pieces. Virtually all secondary and tertiary sources recognize anarcho-capitalism as anarchism. Operation Spooner (talk) 17:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Look, from a Wikipedian stance, word anarchist is almost irrelevant (although this usage is seen as baiting and is extremely offensive to most anarchists). Whether one is more "genuine" than the other is also irrelevant to Wikipedia. The important issue from a Wikipedian point of view is whether one is a subset of the other. Forget the word for a minute, and look at the point I'm trying to get across: My point is that "anarchist" type 2 is clearly not a subset of "anarchist" type 1, even though they both lay claim to the label "anarchist". Think of it this way... Let's say there's a group we'll call "Type A1". This group conists of several subgroups, such as A1-red, A1-green, and A1-pink. Now if "Category S" and "Category C" are non-overlapping subsets of "SuperCategory L", and "Type A1" is a subset of "Category S" while "Type A2" is a subset of "Category C", then is it possible for "Type A2" to be a subset of "Type A1"? If you see that the answer is "no" then you should also see that it makes no sense to list "Type A2" alongside A1-green and A1-red. Putting "Type2" anarchists into the set of "Type1" anarchists does a disservice to both, and is inaccurate to boot. I know that all sounds a bit obtuse, but that's the actual taxonomic structure of these movements, and if the article is to be accurate, it has to find a way to communicate all of that. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 18:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Most secondary and teriary sources don't explicitly classify anarcho-capitalism as a type of anarchism. Most of them list two different uses of the word anarchism, one being anarchism=anti-government, and the other being anarchism=anti-hierarchy. So yes, implicitly anarcho-capitalism is included in one of the two main definitions of the word. This ignores the fact that virtually all primary sources on anarchism define the term as anarchism=anti-hierarchy or some variant thereof. So, again it's equivocation between two different meanings of the word, strangely rejecting the one used by the primary sources...and we're back to creation "scientists" and "Jews" for Jesus. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 22:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Most secondary and tertiary sources indeed explicitly classify anarcho-capitalism as a type of anarchism. And, no most of them do NOT list two different uses of the word anarchism. And, you could be right that most primary sources on anarchism define it as anti-hierarchy but that could just be that most primary sources are anarcho-communists. Because anarcho-communists define it as without hierarchy, that doesn't mean that how it should be defined in this article. All that gives is the definition of anarcho-communism. Primary sources should for the most part be ignored by Wikipedia articles unless they're used as a reference for the source itself. In other words, you can't use a definition of anarchism from an anarcho-communist primary source as the definition for anarchism. You have to use a definition from a secondary or tertiary source. Operation Spooner (talk) 03:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I've Always been puzzled by this claim that one subset of Anarchism is not 'anti-government', but 'anti-hierarchy'. From my understanding Bakunin opposed Marx, the authority cited by most 'anti-hierarchy Anarchists', on the basis that beureaucratic government was the true evil in society, despite being a Communist and radical Syndicalist. This whole evolution of the 'ANCAP v ANSOC' debate into the 'anti-hierarchy', 'anti-government', debate has gone from bad to idiotic. Excplitly 'anti-hierarchy' positions used to attack market Anarchists, Mutualists, Agorists and Anarcho-Capitalists are redundant as the original Anarchists seem to be pretty firmly against government itself. There, at least, seems to be common ground. I think it's a pretty obvious fact Anarcho-Capitalism is a disputed label - there is evidence for that everywhere. But I also think that you, Aelffin are calling Anarcho-Capitalists supporters of today's current Corporatist state when they generally aren't! (obviously you get a minority, like how you'll find libertarian communists who support state-sponsored communism, but that's no reason to judge the rest)--58.170.123.159 (talk) 09:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't be too puzzling, since the anti-government position was derived from the anti-class position (later generalized to anti-hierarchy). Proudhon's foundational work makes that pretty clear. That's why most anarchists see it as inherently socialist. Essentially, modern anarchism is derived from Proudhon, with the sole exception of anarcho-capitalism (and perhaps anarcho-primitivism). It really is a smooth transition from early socialism to modern anarchism. Virtually all anarchist theory from Proudhon to Bob Black has been a logical extrapolation of the basic principle that you can't have one type of equality without having *all* types of equality. Anarcho-capitalism is derived almost entirely from classical liberalism, so even if we all agreed to label it as "anarchism", we should be able to agree that it's a different movement. At least according to Wikipedia's explanation of what a movement is. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 15:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

No, modern anarchism is not derived from Proudhon. Proudhon is simply an influence on modern anarchism, and not much of an influence at that. And early individualist anarchism in America was not derived from Proudhon either. Josiah Warren and Thoreau were not exposed to Proudhon. Early individualist anarchism in American was derived almost entirely from classical liberalism. Later, Proudhon influenced early American individualist anarchism. Proudhon didn't influence the individualist anarchism of Max Stirner either. Operation Spooner (talk) 16:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous, why do you say I'm "calling Anarcho-Capitalists supporters of today's current Corporatist state"? I've done nothing of the sort. I know better than that. Anyway, saying these are different movements is not a judgement, it's just an insistence upon accurate taxonomy instead of this fuzzy, anhistoric lumping together of all things that kinda look like they're opposed to government. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 16:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

No, most secondary and tertiary sources are general dictionaries. Most general dictionaries give multiple definitios, including the two mentioned above. Most dictionaries do not contain the term anarcho-capitalism. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 16:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

No, dictionaries aren't secondary sources. They're tertiary sources. And, The Oxford English Dictionary, arguably the most important dictionary, defines anarcho-capitalism. Operation Spooner (talk) 16:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Terminological Confusion

Since there has been a lot of confusion about the current and historical meanings of terms, I thought it would be useful to post some word etymologies here. Below are the etymologies of some key terms relating to anarchism. (from Etymonline)

anarchy - 1539, from M.L. anarchia, from Gk. anarkhia "lack of a leader," noun of state from anarkhos "rulerless," from an- "without" + arkhos "leader" (see archon).

capital - The financial sense (1630) is from L.L. capitale "stock, property," neut. of capitalis.

anarchist - (1678) got a boost into modernity from the French Revolution.

capitalist - 1791, from Fr. capitaliste, a coinage of the Revolution and a term of reproach.

commune - 1792, from Fr., "small territorial divisions set up after the Revolution," from M.Fr. commune "free city, group of citizens," from M.L. communia, orig. neut. pl. of L. communis, lit. "that which is common," from communis (see common). The Commune of Paris usurped the government during the Reign of Terror.

socialist - 1827, from Fr. socialiste, in reference to the teachings of Comte de Saint-Simon, founder of Fr. socialism.

socialism - Attested from 1837, apparently first in reference to Robert Owen's communes. "Pierre Leroux (1797-1871), idealistic social reformer and Saint-Simonian publicist, expressly claims to be the originator of the word socialisme" [Klein]. The word begins to be used in Fr. in the modern sense c.1835. Socialista, with a different sense, was applied 18c. to followers and pupils of Du. jurist Grotius (1583-1645).

capitalism - First recorded 1854; originally "the condition of having capital;" as a political/economic system, 1877.

commune - Applied to a government on communalistic principles set up in Paris in 1871. Adherents of the 1871 government were Communards.

communism - 1843, from Fr. communisme (c.1840) from commun (O.Fr. comun; see common) + -isme. Originally a theory of society; as name of a political system, 1850, a translation of Ger. Kommunismus, in Marx and Engels' "Manifesto of the German Communist Party." The first use of communist (n.) is by Goodwyn Barmby, who founded the London Communist Propaganda Society in 1841. Shortened form Commie attested from 1940.

Nihilism - With a capital N-, it refers to the Rus. revolutionary anarchism of the period 1860-1917, supposedly so called because "nothing" that then existed found favor in their eyes. Nihilist first attested 1836, in the religious or philosophical sense; in the Rus. political sense, it is recorded from 1871.

While I respect the attempt to clarify terminological difficulties, this approach is utterly futile because the meaning of words changes over time. The way anarcho-capitalists and social(ist) anarchists use the terms "capitalist" and "socialist" are completely different. What is commonly referred to now as "libertarian" is completely different from what the anarchist communist, Dejacque had in mind when he coined it. Wikipedia rightfully looks askance at dictionary definitions: "Wikipedia is not in the business of saying how words, idioms, phrases etc., should be used (but it may be important in the context of an encyclopedia article to discuss how a word is used: e.g. freedom)." I do not know what you hope to achieve by this approach in improving the article. Skomorokh 18:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm not trying to say that these are better or worse definitions than modern ones, but since a lot of our conversations deal with what so-and-so was saying back in 18-whatever, it's good to have a reference point as to what these words meant to the people who were using them. And, of course it's also good to recognize that some of these definitions are still in use today by some parties whereas other parties may use meanings of more recent coinage. Aelffin (talk) 19:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

An observation: The etymology given for "anarchy" is wrong; the dictionary cited is inconsistent when it uses the term "leader" instead of "ruler." To quote:

archon - one of the nine chief magistrates of ancient Athens, 1659, from Gk. arkhon "ruler," prp. of arkhein "to rule," from PIE *arkhein- "to begin, rule, command," a "Gk. verb of unknown origin, but showing archaic Indo-European features ... with derivatives arkhe, 'rule, beginning,' and arkhos, 'ruler' " [Watkins]. link

"Archon" itself is derived from a word for "throne." Clearly it refers to rulers, and not voluntarily followed leaders. PhilLiberty (talk) 18:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

More resources

Here are some stories from the Associated Press archives (mentioned specifically as a high-quality source in WP:RS). Unfortunately, you've got to pay a small fee (a buck fifty) to read the whole article, but if you're interested in improving the Wiki, it may be worth it. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 02:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Despite poor image, anarchism is catching on among young activists disillusioned with capitalism

Author: MALCOLM FOSTER Associated Press Writer Date: January 18, 2003 Publication: Associated Press Archive

Brien Gartland goes "Dumpster diving" every day for his food. He raids the garbage bags outside gourmet groceries looking for slightly bruised mangos, unopened containers of rice pudding and the like.

Known as "Deadbolt," the bearded 21-year-old sleeps in a vacant building and refuses to get a job because he's disillusioned with capitalism and Western democracy, systems he believes exploit the poor and give power to the elite....

Participants in Seattle protests long for a simpler world

Author: JEFF BARNARD Associated Press Writer Date: December 12, 1999 Publication: Associated Press Archive

On a quiet street in Eugene's oldest and funkiest neighborhood, a mural on the side of an art gallery expresses the idyllic world vision of many of the anarchists who took part in the Seattle protests against the World Trade Organization.

It is a far cry from the scenes of confrontation and violence that included black-clad youths jumping through the broken windows of a Seattle Starbucks. Instead, the mural reflects a longing for a world where people live in small villages...

Anarchists occupy building to protest WTO

Author: NICHOLAS K. GERANIOS Associated Press Writer Date: December 4, 1999 Publication: Associated Press Archive

Speaking through a mail slot, anarchists occupying a warehouse to protest the World Trade Organization declined to be interviewed Friday, and suggested reporters call their publicist.

"Have a nice day," a female voice said. Police and others in this violence-weary city have blamed a small number of anarchists as the source for much of the vandalism that marred this week's WTO meeting.

The anarchists illegally occupying the downtown building...

Reliable Sources

Since there has been considerable discussion here on what constitutes reliable sources, I've gathered a few policies below that may be applicable to this article to remind editors when it is appropriate to use some of the types of sources we've mentioned in the past. In particular, I believe there is room within wikipolicy to cite anarchist publications within certain contexts. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 02:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

News Organizations (from WP:RS)

Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed, particularly the high-quality end of the market, such as the The Washington Post, The Times of London, and The Associated Press. When citing opinion pieces in newspapers and magazines, in-text attribution should be used if the material is contentious. When adding contentious biographical material about living persons that relies upon news organizations, only material from high-quality news organizations should be used.

Use of Electronic or Online Sources (from Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples)

"Websites and publications of political parties, religious groups, anti-religious groups, or any other partisan group, may exhibit bias and should be treated with caution. Neither political affiliation nor religious belief stated in these sources are in themselves a reason not to use them, as these websites can be used to present the viewpoints of these groups, if properly attributed. Such sources should be presented alongside references from other sources in order to maintain a neutral point of view."

Extremist and Fringe Sources (from WP:RS)

Organizations and individuals that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist should be used only as sources about themselves in articles about themselves or their activities, and any information used must be directly relevant to the subject and their cause of notability. Articles using such sources should not repeat any contentious claims, or any claims made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources. Finally, these sources should never form the primary source for an article.

Using Questionable or Self-published Sources (from WP:ATT)

Questionable and self-published sources should not normally be used. There are three exceptions:

1. Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves

Material from self-published or questionable sources may be used in articles about those sources, so long as:

it is relevant to their notability;
it is not contentious;
it is not unduly self-serving;
it does not involve claims about third parties;
it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it;
the article is not based primarily on such sources.

So, there are some guidelines that I hope will encourage editors to make wider use of the many materials available on the subject of anarchism. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 02:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow! That policy is worse than I remember. Almost all anarchist publications would be barred from citation if people just followed the idiotic "extremist" section of this policy. The bias against electronic sources and self-published sources are also unfriendly towards anarchists. It's ironic that Wikipedia, which prides itself on being an open, free encyclopedia is now so narrow-minded about sources. I say that people should use direct action and cite sources that this policy frowns upon. Chuck0 (talk) 15:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, you can rewrite the policies and hash it out over there for sure. But I don't find them to be as restrictive as people claim. The way I understand these policies, most anarchist writings are fair game for use in articles about anarchism. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 17:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Chuck, I've reverted the edits you made to my policy post above. These are direct quotes from Wikipedia policy, so if you don't like them, go to those policy pages and argue with the editors there. Besides, it's always bad form to edit another person's post. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 16:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

It was not my intention to edit your post. I edited the Wikipedia policy to reflect a policy that we can use through direct action to write anarchism-related pages. If Wikipedia doesn't like our policy, they can come stop us. Otherwise, every anarchism-related page should get disputed tags and other tags to note that these pages rely on sources that are biased against anarchism. Chuck0 (talk) 02:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'd support disputed tags. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 03:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

People, "anarchist" does not mean "extremist"! There are lots of extremist Republican sites out there, a fair number of extremist Democrats, and yes, some extremist anarchists, but it is blatantly not NPOV to brand a source "extremist" solely because of its political philosophy. The question you need to ask instead is whether the source values its credibility - in other words, is it possible that they would lie just to make a few extra points? Unless and until someone on the policy page gets a consensus to write ALL anarchists are extremists into formal policy, you don't have to go by it... and if they do it may be time to break a rule.

As for self-published sources, make sure you look over the specific case. Just because a magazine or a Web site was published by anarchists doesn't mean that they took every scrap of paper people send in and publish it without reservation. I don't know your specific situation, but you should be able to find lots of anarchist sources being published by third parties with at least the cursory level of review that FOX News would give one of its columnists! Wnt (talk) 01:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

"Extremist" is an empty propaganda label with no real denotative meaning. There is no philosophy called "Extremism" and no people who call themselves "extremists." Something is "extremist" if it's outside the bounds of respectable discussion, and you end up outside those bounds if powerful people find it convenient to put you there. The term "fringe" in the same policy would be sufficient in itself and more accurate. EbonyTotem (talk) 00:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

More resources for editors

Here are a couple more articles from a reputable news agency that anybody here could use to flesh out the article, especially on the subject of recent developments in the movement. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 17:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Picking sides: Young minds molded for 21st-century activism tend to embrace the far left or far right, with little political middle ground in sight

Dennis Roddy

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Sunday, July 25, 2004

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04207/350301-51.stm

On the left, disarray reigned after the fall of communism. Without Marxism standing as the guardrail on the far left lane, a new interest in anarchism arose and, with it, an anticapitalist, antiglobalist politics that shunted aside old theorists in favor of new.

"Electoral politics doesn't move people as much as it did once," observes Todd May, a professor of philosophy at Clemson University. May traces the current action on the left as coming in several waves, building in the antiglobalization protests of eight years ago.

"That [activity] was coming from young people, and it was coming from a relatively new theoretical place," May said. "The Marxist ideas just don't resonate with anyone anymore." Instead, there was a post-Marxian form of anarchism, a complex system that fuses personal liberty with opposition to centralized wealth and power and an abiding sense that whichever of the two major parties holds power, the game is not significantly changed.

Anarchists: Can they get it together?

Dennis Roddy

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Sunday, February 02, 2003

http://www.post-gazette.com/columnists/20030202edroddy02p1.asp

One of the most visible but least-explored tributaries of the anti-war left comprises a group of people, mostly young, who dress in black, conceal their faces with masks and combine street theater with street fighting. They call themselves anarchists.

...they define their philosophy by what they are opposing, be it war, capitalism, world trade or the police.

This combination of personal libertarian views, coupled with the theory that people can be individuals only among other people, leads the anarchists to accept the idea of shared property, shared societies, but a sort of direct democracy that makes a political unit larger than a village or neighborhood hard to imagine.

Like others who broke away from the peace rally last Sunday, Shaffer found himself marching behind a banner that read "No War Between the Nations, No Peace Between the Classes." The theory of class warfare is embraced without apology, as is the theory that, come the day of the anarchist, there won't be any nations to make war.

As the 20th century was aborning, the term anarchist was sufficient to demonize the far left.

Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 17:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

New policy on reliable sources

I'm re-posting my re-working of Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources. The main policy is offensive towards anarchism, in that it penalizes anarchist sources in favor of biased mainstream sources. I think that we should adopt this as our working policy through direct action. People working on anarchist entries are welcome to edit the block I've added below. Chuck0 (talk) 02:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I may be an anonymous participant and barely ever do any editing, but I would wholeheartedly support such a campaign.--58.170.123.159 (talk) 09:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Reliable Sources (for entries on anarchist topics)

Corporate News Organizations (from WP:RS)

Material from mainstream news organizations can be used for citation, such as articles from the The Washington Post, The Times of London, and The Associated Press. When citing opinion pieces in newspapers and magazines, in-text attribution should be used if the material is contentious. When adding contentious biographical material about living persons that relies upon news organizations, only material from high-quality news organizations should be used. It should be understood that articles from mainstream corporate news organizations are often inaccurate and/or sensational about anarchists and anarchist subjects. There is a long history of bias against anarchists from mainstream news sources.

Use of Electronic or Online Sources (from Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples)

"Websites and publications of political parties, religious groups, anti-religious groups, or any other partisan group, may exhibit bias (like any other source). Neither political affiliation nor religious belief stated in these sources are in themselves a reason not to use them, as these websites can be used to present the viewpoints of these groups, if properly attributed. Such sources should be presented alongside references from other sources in order to maintain a neutral point of view."

Ephemeral Sourcess (from WP:RS)

Organizations and individuals that express views in ephemeral sources such as zines and pamphlets can be used. Articles using such sources should not repeat any contentious claims, or any claims made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources. Finally, these sources should never form the primary source for an article.

Using Questionable or Self-published Sources (from WP:ATT)

Questionable and self-published sources should not normally be used. There are three exceptions:

1. Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves

Material from self-published or questionable sources may be used in articles about those sources, so long as:

it is relevant to their notability;
it is not contentious;
it is not unduly self-serving;
it does not involve claims about third parties;
it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it;
the article is not based primarily on such sources.

While I appreciate the effort, I can't imagine this proposal will get very far given the current crop of editors we have on this article. The way to rectify these policies, IMHO is to go to the discussion page for WP:RS, explain the issues we've encountered here, and try to develop a policy you like better. I know it's time consuming, but sometimes you've got to put in the time to get the effect you want. Again though, as far as I can tell, the existing policy is not really a problem for what you want to do. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 19:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

While you're at it, you might be interested in my comments on the Jeremiah Wright controversy. That article is pretty strictly Democrat vs. Republican, but there are a lot of crummy sources in it and I was asking there where to draw the line on blogs and the like and ended up quoting from the same policy but not being sure how to interpret it. I do think that because of "New Media" that the Wikipedia policy is already becoming obsolete, and that it will be a respectable intellectual challenge to try to decide how to draw the line fairly in the future. Perhaps this alternate ideological context can offer some complementary insights on the problem. Wnt (talk) 01:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't this have been better carried out on the Anarchism Task Force talk page? It's only indirectly related to this article.--Cast (talk) 03:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The Russians wanted an Anarchism

I have heard that during the soviet period, many Russians wanted an Anarchism. Falcon-eagle2008

Really? where did you hear this? I find that quite interesting please tell more.. and feel free to mention it in the article (that is if you can cite it!). Randy6767 (talk) 21:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. Supposedly, the original Soviet revolution was an anarcho-syndicalist one before the Bolsheviks started a civil war and seized control. I'm far from a scholar on the Russian revolution, but there is a documentary on youtube which suggests this. It's called Russian Revolution (Freedom and Hope), and Russian Revolution (Fear and Paranoia). It's still up on Youtube; I just checked.72.78.13.96 (talk) 01:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions about Anarchism. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

←

→

Libertarian socialism section

I have removed the "libertarian socialism" subsection from the summary of anarchist schools of thought as it is not in the latter article. If someone wants to add a properly referenced section on lib. soc. to that article (making sure it has a sourced claim to be a major anarchist school of thought) we can add it back in here later. Skomorokh 23:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I replaced "social anarchism" with "libertarian socialism." I have never heard the word "social anarchism" except the magazine Social Anarchism. Without the magazine, libertarian socialism is used much more commonly for communitarian anarchism than social anarchism. According to Google libertarian socialism has 19,400 results while [1] social anarchism has 210 [2] (talk) 18:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)