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

Unencyclopedic material[edit]

Unencyclopedic material removed to be integrated:

(add 14-3-03) anarcho-punk was & is not purely about the music it was/is about action and discourse. over the past 20 years many people were and are being tuned into positive progressive politics through this music. no one is nieve enough to believe that everyone who likes the sound will be, or that those who are will be into our noise. that said it has been an entry point of many to politics and getting people to think for themselves and about others and the society/ies we live in. ok some of us like the puppet bands even still it's not that we 'sold out' it's just we like their noise with out seeing their politics as particularly positive. shame so many of our fellow clowns see more importance in how they look than how they act, or listen without hearing / hear without listening. anyway no one is perfect, there is no god and i suppose we can all offer lessons as we learn.

Anarchist Metal?[edit]

Does anyone know of any good anarchist metal bands? I really like punk, but (some) metal sounds really cool, but most of the lyrics suck. Anyone have ideas. I just got Napalm death's new cd and that's pretty good. Any ideas?

DRI all the way... "Dealing With IT" should serve your needs of political metal or how bout SOAD hahahaha j/k
Depends how metal you want it to be. Behind Enemy Lines (w/ members from Aus Rotten) has very political lyrics but a fairly metal influenced sound. Also, a lot of the Hardcore Nordic punk bands are anarchistic and have influences from the death metal scenes in Sweden/Norway (such as The Victims, Skitsystem and similar bands). FluxFuser (talk) 00:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Napalm Death are punk ('Grindcore' to be precise) alongside groups like Anal Cunt and Extreme Noise Terror. Groups like DRI & SOD are thrash / crossover.

CATHARSIS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Class War[edit]

I'm a non-British anarchist, so I don't know enough to edit this. But as far as I'm aware, Class War (as witnessed by their name, no less!) are NOT post-leftists in the slightest. If they were, they'd be the first post-leftist that I'm aware of who embrace class rhetoric. The defining feature of the post-leftist anarchist movement is that they consciously shun all connection with the left, including leftist variants of anarchism. Class War does not fit this bill at all. Can someone clarify this? 20:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


I edited the lifestylism link to "lifestyle anarchism" where there's actually an article. I guess you got to write an article on 'lifestylism' if you don't like the edit, or don't think the article is related enough.

I think it's suspicious to say "this is a music genre" and then avoid mention of any representative artists. Who are the anarcho-punks? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by user: (talkcontribs) .

The last paragraph of the intro gives three notable examples, and there is an entire list of musicians of anarcho-punk linked to at the end of the article. The Ungovernable Force 21:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Musical definition[edit]

While Anarcho-punk is a highly ideological denomination of punk, it is also a musical one(or at least more so than, say, Scum punk or straight edge). I think a section should be added describing Anarcho-punk musically.

I don't think 1-st were Sex Pistols[edit]

It's said that 1-st anarcho punx were The Sex Pistols, but I think that were Iggy Pop! Wasn't it? I mean he was not so political, but well, @ least a little!

New additions[edit]

First off, User:, you have made some good edits here, although they do need to be cleaned up a bit. I'm sort of worried though because we have a bit of a decision here. Is this article about all punk bands that are anarchist, or are we focusing on the classic British 80's anarcho-punk musical style (ie, Crass, Flux, Subhumans, Conflict) and others with a similar sound (like the American band A//Political)? Specifically, should we be including crust bands like Nausea and hardcore ones like MDC and Reagan Youth? They are all good bands and are anarchists, and I know they are sometimes called anarcho-punk, but others would rather label them as crust or hardcore and leave the anarcho label only for the bands with a particular sound. I'm not really sure what we should do. Suggestions? Also, you put a link to peace punk, which redirects to this page. What exactly differentiates peace punk from anarcho punk, if anything? I've wondered that for a while now. These are really subjective issues and so I don't expect any clear or easy answers to come from them. Also, one minor thing is the characterization of crust as slow. Some of it is, but some of it is very thrashy and fast as well, similar to D-beat. The real difference between crust and D-beat IMO is the beat (D-beat has a d-beat, duh), the bass-heavy sound of crust, and the atmospheric darkness of crust music, which often employs both slow chuggy parts, and super fast thrashy stuff with fast rhythms and all that jazz. That's less of an issue for me at this point though. I'm going to just do some minor clean up on the new addition until some people weigh in. Ungovernable ForceGot something to say? 03:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, who are Polemic Attack? I've never even heard of them? Are there any more notable examples anarcha-feminist bands (perhaps Poison Girls)? And we should probably source a lot of the new stuff about anarchism w/o adjectives (and probably some other stuff), because although I agree with you, it isn't something that is as obvious as other things and probably needs a source. There should also be a mention of Crimethinc and post-leftism. Ungovernable ForceGot something to say? 03:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

One more thing. We should add folk punk to the common subgenres that anarchists are involved in if we go with the broad approach. I'm also starting to think that the best route would probably be to mention that it could refer to the specific sound I was talking about, but that it is often applied to all anarchist punks as well. Ungovernable ForceGot something to say? 02:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that crust doesn't have to slow (listen to Aus Rotten, for example), although maybe that's what the term meant originally and the meaning has changed over time. As for the scope of this article, the article needs to comprehensively describe how people use the term "Anarcho-Punk," so what you're describing is sort of the only solution. P4k 02:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Comparing versions, i like the additions, and the following cleanup that was done. aside from some VERY minor (and maybe petty?) clarifications about who's crust and who's anarcho-punk, i think the current version looks good. Murderbike 03:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

In my experience, anarcho-punk can refer to either the specific sound, or to DIY, grassrots anarchist punk bands. I've often heard crust/folk/whatever bands described as anarcho-punk, but rarely bands like Dead Kennedys or Propaghandi, who were/are anarchists, but are part of a completely different scene/subculture apart from having a different sound.
Anyway, I like the focus of the article being on the broader definition, but the intro paragraph should mention that it also can refer to the specific sound.
As for peace punk, I've only ever heard that used in reference to late 70s/early 80s anarcho-punk bands, not crust or similar, so maybe it refers to the specific sound? ~Switch t 04:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
That's what I was thinking regarding peace punk, but I wasn't sure. Ungovernable ForceGot something to say? 05:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I'll keep my eyes out for refernces to Penny Rimbaud's comments about 'disliking'the term anarcho-punk. Its something he's said to me in person before, but i'm not sure if its actually in print anywhere. I must admit I added it to this article long before the more rigorous demands for citable material and references were (quite rightly) added to the wikipedia rule book. Other than generally needing more references and citations I think the article reads pretty OK at the moment. It would be nice if the anon contributor could create themselves a user identity though to ease communication quercus robur 12:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Have added a reference to The Day the Country Died by Ian Glasper which is probably the source book for this article, apart from various ancient record sleeeves, fanzine interviews and so on. Well worth getting a copy if this is your area of interest! quercus robur 12:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I'm the bloke who made all those recent changes to the page and I'm glad everybody is happy with it. I've got a few points to make: 1) My re-write was motivated by my feelings that anarcho-punk should be used to describe punk bands with "serious" anarchist beliefs (i.e. not G.G. Allin, The Exploited, The Sex Pistols etc). If someone wants, they can make a paragraph about the early '80s anarcho sound (i'd find this very hard as in my opinion Crass and Conflict sound about as different as Doom and Discharge). Also there seems to be a lot of cross over between these various sub-genres. For example, Aus-Rotten (Crust or Anarcho?), Beesthoven (D-beat or Crust?) and Reagan Youth (Anarcho or Hardcore?) 2) I agree that the Dead Kennedys should be added to this page as Jello Biafra is an anarchist (although I do recall him saying that the world is not ready for anarchy YET) and his record label (alternative tentacle) has been responsible for signing many major anarchist bands (Nausea, Amebix, D.O.A.). 3) I'm really happy someone added the Ian Glasper book as this is the source of much of my information (the Polemic Attack stuff for example). I feel that this article should focus on what glasper terms "anarchy and peace" punks. That does not mean pacifists, but rather the largly consistant, anarchy without adjectives stuff that takes anarchy as a serious alternative to the way things are. We should write a paragraph explaining that this article is not aboout what Glasper calls "anarchy and chaos" punks such as G.G. Allin, The Exploited, The Sex Pistols, Chaos Uk etc. Much thanks to everyone who has gotten involved. Learn, Teach Anok and peace!

Yeah, I was pretty disapointed that All Music Guide's article on anarcho-punk lists the Exploited as a huge band in the genre...WTF?! I'm going to need to find that book. And I agree that a paragraph on the early anarcho music's sound would be difficult and Crass vs Conflict was exactly the example I was thinking of. Someone else might want to try. I personally see two (or maybe three) major sounds in the early anarcho-scene: the experimental, and sometimes artsy and free formish stuff like Crass, Flux, Anthrax and such (and the American A//Political) and the more harsh stuff like Conflict, Icons of Filth, Oi Polloi etc, which were basically proto-crust in some respects. Then you've got straight up punk like Subhumans. That's how I see it at least. Ungovernable ForceGot something to say? 06:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
BTW, I just created a page for Thatcher On Acid. I can't find any info on them really, so it's pretty sparse. If anyone knows more please contribute. Ungovernable ForceGot something to say? 08:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Anarcho-punk federation[edit]

This group seems pretty important and deserves a mention on this page. Does anyone have any info? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by D-Raven (talkcontribs) 20:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC).

This topic is one sided and bias[edit]

this topic very one sided and bias and just focus' on the peaceful side of anarchy within punk rock and totally leaves out every other side. Ive been a anarchists and a punk rock for over 20 years now and have met many punk rockers who happen to be anarchist that are opposed to a peaceful world and a loving world and who don't care in the least about animal rights. why don't you post about this side of the punk rock and anarchy movement? because in the end its just as big (if not more so if you look at real people on the street and not just at bands) then the peaceful movement of punk rock.

you obviously have no idea what anarchism really is - what do you think it is, just chaos? that's not anarchism, that's just nihilism. i suggest you read into what anarchists really do - noam chomsky, emma goldman, rod coronado, naomi klein, ashanti alston, jello biafra - if your idea of what the word means comes from the sex pistols, i'm afraid you've been grossly misinformed and you should stick to listening to your cute little corporate-punk music and leave the real anarchists alone—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

lookup what anarchy means and you will see it doesn't just fit your narrow point of view (and you and the few persons that wrote most of this topic would know that if you truly researched anarchy in punk rock and not just looked at the band crass) and all of those points should be accounted for in topic and also i didn't do anything that is not allowed in the rules so this isn't vandalism im just trying to make this topic fair and unbiased.

umm - why don't you look up what anarchism really means - The word "anarchy" is from the Greek, prefix an (or a), meaning "not," "the want of," "the absence of," or "the lack of", plus archos, meaning "a ruler," "director", "chief," "person in charge," or "authority." Or, as Peter Kropotkin put it, Anarchy comes from the Greek words meaning "contrary to authority." [Anarchism, p. 284]

While the Greek words anarchos and anarchia are often taken to mean "having no government" or "being without a government," as can be seen, the strict, original meaning of anarchism was not simply "no government." "An-archy" means "without a ruler," or more generally, "without authority," and it is in this sense that anarchists have continually used the word. For example, we find Kropotkin arguing that anarchism "attacks not only capital, but also the main sources of the power of capitalism: law, authority, and the State."

i sincerely doubt you've been an anarchist for "20 years" - it just doesn't make sense that you've gone this long without someone telling you how wrong you are - find another word please cos this one is ours and people like you give it a nasty and tacky connotation. you seem to have gotten your ideas not from anyone who actually knows or teaches anarchism like howard zinn or derrick jensen but from "the exploited" or god-forbid "slc punk". i know i'm supposed to refrain from personal attacks, but anyone here will tell you how stupid you're being

I'd like to take this moment to politely suggest that you both read WP:CIVIL before posting again. Murderbike 18:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

As you have said before anarchy and anarchism fighting (or at the very least being opposed to having) authority in ones life. But what people like you seem not to realize is that people that adapt those beliefs don't always do it for the reasons of peace, love or even just solely for the sake of freedom. Some people are in it for hate some people are in for just for boredom some people are in it for a since of meaning some and some people are in it for the sole rush of it (more so then any drug or act of kindness or anything else in the natural world). And there is alot of people of the later set that not only use violence to get there means but also love it and just because the later people that i talked about are using anarchy for a different reason then you or other people it doesn't mean that they aren't truly a part of it. Its like freedom of speech some people fight for it because they want to report the news in a true and candid manner some people fight for it so they can read the bible in public and some just want to fight for that freedom so they can get rich selling porn (larry flint) now would you say that any of those people aren't fighting for the same cause...

And i don't see how someone (with an open mind) who has been a part of punk rock could not see this side of punk rock and acknowledge it and not pass it off as more then people acting out out of shock value. (And i would like for you to look at how many people join peaceful movement of anarky just because they think its trendy or just because they want to fill good at the end of the day now would it be fair for someone to say that that that the peaceful side of anarchy in punk rock was started out of undersurge of blotted need for selfworth though the care of others.) There are people all over the world that share the belief of anarchy and not only don't care about the sex pistols but also don't care about bands in general and are just in punk rock for the freedom punk rock stands for. anarchy and punk rock is not all about peace and love and saving the world it can be equally about chaos, destruction and just having fun but yet this side of punk rocks history is pushed to the side these days. Well, times change but history doesn't and it seems like people just want to use wikpedieda to write their own pov and leave out what they don't like about a subject and when someone trys to question them or put in the missing peaces they just say that they are a vandalizing the site and try and get them baned well fine if doing everything within reason and within the rules (i.e. put up ref's on key points and calling a nuterity check on a topic that is written in a bias manner) and fighting for a fair and unbiased view of a topic (and topics that are unref to be removed or cleared up.) then fine kick me off. Because i want to be a part of a site that really worried about getting the facts strait not ones that are just worried about people getting their fillings hurt because im a grown man and its not like i cant deal with someone post something on this site that i don't like and along as they take the time to back it up with facts im not going to take it down and if i put something up without a ref and someone takes it down and asks for a ref fine ill go and get one somehow get one no big deal. Its not like im going to fly off the handle and say that everyone that asks for a ref is vandals. Why cant the other people see that? Again i don't care if you kick me off because i don't see how what im doing is outside reason and the rules of this site and it will just prove that this is just a glorified message board and i could care less about being a part of that. But what i don't like is that it shows that people that do this just glances over what i do or write and get angry and don't bother to look at the context behind what i write or do and are not interested in the facts strait of the topic at hand but are just interested in just getting the pov across that you see as right. Like i said before the more i post on this site the more it looks like this site is just a glorified message board and not a free alternative to an encyclopedia. And if thats true fine but there should be a disclaimer. Because about a week or so ago i had to look up some important info up for my mother and when i typed it in it brought up this site and when i clicked to the subject it didn't have any resources. Lucky i went to a reliable site and got the info that she needed but what about everyone that comes to this site and thinks that everything written here is as reliable facts?. And since this seem to be a glorified message board im sure that most people that respond to this are not even to to bother reading a word of this and just post that i don't know what im talking about....Guess i am an idiot for taking the time to write that and try to give some clear some light on a subject and know that noone will bother to sit down and read it with an open mind....

i'm not against questioning the reliability of unsourced material and i'm certainly not against having an open mind - but this is not a grey area at all- if you don't like what anarcho-punk or anarchism are, then don't call yourself an anarchist and don't listen to anarcho-punk music, it's that simple. everyone seems to know what it is but you. i'm sorry to attack your belief that anarchism simply means "chaos", it's nothing personal at all and i really don't mean to offend you, but that's a very common stereotype and total misconception that you'll find gets on the titties of a lot of anarchists - that's in part why so many of em use "anarchism" instead of "anarchy" - because so many people use the latter term to refer to a completely violent state of people looting and raping and killing and whatever. i defy you to find any anarchist in history who actually subscribes to that weirdness, short of maybe the unabomber or a bunch of 12 year olds who listen to whatever johnny rotten says cos he has cool hair. when she saw the people taking control of their lives in the spanish civil war, emma goldman said something like, "you will destroy forever the notion that anarchism means chaos". i guess she was wrong.

sorry to get mad at you before, but like i said before, that misconception is really common and it reeeeeeeeeeeally annoys people, including myself. regarding yr comment that none of yr friends who call themselves anarchists care about animal rights - well, certainly not all anarchists are vegetarians, vegans, or even freegans, but you'll find a huge number of them are because a core principle of anarchism is fighting power hierarchies and exploitation in all its forms whether it be against humans or non-humans, and many anarchists (the brave ones, that is) do this by attacking that orwellian monkeybusiness w/ orgs like the Earth Liberation Front and Animal Liberation Front. just look at this article (which of course, i did not write): Anarchism and animal rights - really, no offense is intended, and i really do mean sorry

I agree that this is pretty clear. And yes, not all anarchists care about animal rights, but I've yet to meet an anarchist who wasn't pro-peace. And we aren't saying all punks are like this, but anarcho punks are. What differentiates anarcho punks from other punks (inlcuding those that would call themselves anarchists like the Exploited or Sex Pistols) is that anarcho punks are interested in anarchism as a social and political movement and do (at least in theory) work towards those ends, which have always included opposition to war. I'm looking at my book The Day the Country Died: A History of Anarcho Punk 1980-1984 by Ian Glasper ( The synopsis (which is on Amazon) even says "Anarchy, as regards punk rock, no longer meant 'cash from chaos', it meant 'freedom, peace and unity.'" Now some quotes from the introduction: "[...]Anarcho punk kick-started the mindset of a generation that would ultimately make serious headway in the struggle for human and animal rights." "The 'anarchy and chaos' punks, as examined in Burning Britain, professed not to care, but the 'anarchy and peace' punks did care" (Burning Britain was Glasper's first book). So sure, there are "anarchist" punks who are into chaos and violence, but they aren't anarcho punks, which is specifically differentiated from those other punks by their committment to actual anarchist ideas (which have always included opposition to war and mindless violence). Ungovernable ForcePoll: Which religious text should I read? 08:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

So I've never edited a wiki article or talk page or whatever before so if I'm breaking some convention or what have you I hope you'll forgive me. The issue that I see with what um... this guy up here is saying (that there are anarchists who are pro-violence just for the sake of violence, etc. etc.) is that someone who is in favor of a world full of violence and hate is NOT, whether they call themselves an "anarchist" or not, in fact in favor of a world without hierarchy since violence and hate create hierarchy, at the very least in a moral sense. If I stab you, it implies that I am morally above you and thus am justified in taking away your natural human rights. Yay? Nay?

I hate to have to point this out again, but Wikipedia talk pages are not forums for discussing the nuances of this question. It is for discussing the article itself, and its contents. If you want to discuss anarchism and violence, their are plenty of forums on the internet where that would be appropriate. Murderbike (talk) 21:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

(edit) I wasn't using this as a forum to discuss anarchism and violence in the abstract, I was just pointing out the reason why the side that this other person proposed isn't a side that needs to be discussed in the article. (Namely that people who advocate that are definitionally not anarchists, since they do not advocate for the abolition of power, simply power shifting hands. Since they aren't anarchists, they don't have to be talked about in the Anarcho-punk article, am I right?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


I removed two tags, one claiming that the article doesn't cite any sources, because it does cite some sources and already has a tag saying it needs to improve its sources, and the other which said it needs to be expanded. This tag is totally absurd, as the article is plenty long, and just makes a mess of the top of the article unneccisarily. Murderbike 00:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Total Re-evaluation[edit]

I think this article needs a complete re-evaluation -- namely exploring the question of whether kids with guitars can really claim to be anarchists. I mean, isn't there something terribly bourgeois about a bunch of mostly from the suburbs or hick-towns kids picking up guitars and claiming the anarchist mantle? It's very poseur. This article needs to examine it. I'm sure the leading theorists of anarchy would find it very odd indeed. Feedler (talk) 14:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Perhaps you should read the anarchism article, because you seem to have some misconceptions about that ideology.Spylab (talk) 15:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Like, rock on dude! But seriously, what would the founders of anarchism think of this? I believe they would be appalled by the bourgeois aspect of it all. Feedler (talk) 18:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

"the founders of anarchism"? please read a book on the subject before you embarrass yourself any further. noam chomsky, howard zinn, emma goldman, david graeber, lucy parsons, derrick jensen, thoreau, tolstoy, ashanti alston, take your pick, you seem a little confused... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toes+umbrellas chacha (talkcontribs) 18:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC) |

Wikipedia articles are to maintain a neutral point of view, which would definitely not include what some dead "founders" (like Peter Kropotkin maybe, who was not just formerly bourgeois, but a former prince.) would've thought of it in their future if they weren't dead. If you can find criticisms of anarcho-punk (from people who didn't die before it existed), insert them, and cite them. Otherwise you're just inserting YOUR point of view into this talk page, and that is not what talk pages are for. Murderbike (talk) 20:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry if I upset anybody. But the point is, what would Proudhon for example think? And the tens of thousands of Anarchists who were persecuted or murdered for their beliefs -- how would they feel about their cause being hijacked by kids with guitars because Anarcy is "cool." It just rubs me the wrong way, how popular cultural fads kidnap these ideas. It would be good if someone addressed that in this article -- or at least explained how anarchist thought found its way into rock and roll. I'm concerned that some kid will come here and think that anarchism is a guitar style. 15:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Feedler (talkcontribs)
Ok, what you have to remember, is that "Anarcho-punk" IS a musical style, and it has been written about by reputable sources. What you're talking about, is your personal opinion, and speculation about what some racist guy who died over 100 years ago would (maybe?) think about something that happened 100 years later. Would you suggest that we mention in the Born in the U.S.A. article what George Washington may have thought about it were he alive? The problem with Wikipedia is that we can't just write what WE think about things. We have to use reliable sources and cite them. Oh yeah, some people don't think those beliefs are "hijacked", but being carried on faithfully. Murderbike (talk) 18:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Couldn't agree  more than with Feedler - what have a bunch of usually middle lower class kids (maybe didnt feel working class enough to consider oi)who think anarchy is a fashion statement as are the tickbox politics - "oh i'm anarchist so I must want to be nice to animals, not like war, talk about oppression, pretend I don't like the police (tho go running to them if any nasty rough kids came and burgled my house/beat me up), have crappy black graphics on my record sleeve)got to do with a proper discussion of anarchy?

Is this even a legitimate topic?[edit]

I mean cmon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Murderbike (talk) 04:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Anarcho punk in genre boxs[edit]

Now, this arcticle seems to state pretty clearly that it is a subculture/movement in punk rock. I agree with this as I have not seen any reputable source define ir as such. However, many user see fit to put Anarcho punk in the genre box in many pages of many bands, such as Crass, and the Dead Keneddy's. As these things seem to contradict each other, it appears to me that we must reach a consensus on whether or not this is a genre. Personally, I belive it is not, but I would like to hear the opinions of other's. Johan Rachmaninov (talk) 21:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I feel it is a genre, just as much as most of the other genres used in Wikipedia, many of which are open to a certain level of debate, with consensus among editors often being the deciding factor. The genres included in infoboxes should help the reader understand more about the subject of the article, and excluding anarcho-punk as a genre in articles such as those on Crass will not benefit this encyclopedia.--Michig (talk) 17:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Of course it's a genre, and here's a definition. You wrote on the Crass talk page that AllMusic is "one of the most inacurrate websites i've ever seen, to the point of stupidity" but I don't agree with you at all. Their description is actually pretty accurate. By the way, see also Murderbike's comments, two subjects up.  Channel ®   23:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
As a non-anarcho-punk, I don't see why it can't be both. If anarcho-punks have a consistent set of traditions regarding their musical aesthetics, they are taking part in a genre. Further, if they share consistent set of traditions regarding their ethics, politics, fashion, and even eating habits, than they are taking part in a sub-culture. This article can reflect both of these sides of anarcho-punk, and already does. Editors may continue including "anarcho-punk" in the genre boxes. This is not a problem.--Cast (talk) 06:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
So, why is "folk-punk" classifed with anarcho-punk? All punk crosses over into other punk, but fokkpunk is pretty far off from anarchopunk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:26, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

---Because most folk-punk takes part in the anarcho-punk subculture (in that many folk-punk bands are made up of anarchist punks. See also: Defiance, Ohio, etc etc.) even if not in the anarcho-punk genre of music (ala Crass, Flux of Pink Indians.) Riiiight? -Fjw. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


i don't really pay attention to lyrics often, and i'd rather not break that habit, so i'll ask you all. are there anarcho-capitalist punk bands, or just the commies? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

This polish band called Biała Pięść is AnCap but they suck. Also Michale Graves of Misfits fame is AnCap but his lyrics aren't.Deathtalon (talk) 18:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I knew Mike was a libertarian but I never knew he was an AnCap. Are there any Mutualist punk bands? (talk) 21:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

General Overhaul[edit]

This article is pretty degraded and I'd like to do a general overhaul along regional/decade lines like a lot of the other music sub genre articles. check out my recent overhaul of folk punk. Speak now or forever hold your pizza.Carrionist (talk) 16:37, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anarcho-punk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:23, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Checked. Set to true. Yintan  11:35, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Anarcho-punk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:18, 4 July 2017 (UTC)