Talk:Anarchism/Archive 60

Accurate reporting
The definition of anarchism is not one that an encyclopedia like this one can settle. The only role Wikipedia can have is to say what more respected theorists and sources themselves say. However, I therefore have a problem with the introduction of this article because it assumes that there is one political philosophy called anarchism which merely has a number of "strains." The article says:

Anarchism is a political philosophy...

And for example:

however, anarchism has for some time included an economic and legal individualist strain,[18] with that strain supporting an anarchist free-market economy and private property (like old anarcho-individualism and today's anarcho-capitalism).[19][20][21]

However, this flat-out contradicts what many anarchists on the left say, which is that anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism. For example see The Anarchist FAQ, which lists numerous original sources. I'm not familiar with much of what anarcho-capitalists say about left anarchists, but I think lumping ideas that are so virulently opposed to one another under one philosophy is a distortion.

Instead of defining anarchism as one philosophy, it should instead be defined as a group of philosophies that happen to all call themselves "anarchist." Then from the very beginning, when these different philosophies are delineated, it can be made clear that some explicitly reject others as being examples of anarchism. They should not be described as being "within anarchism" as this article does, but rather as merely using the title of anarchism, with it being left to the reader to decide on the true classification of any given philosophy.

I think this would help a great deal in both accurate reporting of the facts and in ending editing wars. Khin2718 (talk) 19:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * One would think it would help but, perhaps I am cynical, it will probably make things worse. It's best not to dispute an anarchist's conception of what anarchism is, the situation will get nasty. Zazaban (talk) 08:18, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What I'm pushing here is basically what the socialism page already does. Left anarchism and anarcho-capitalism are, according to almost all left anarchists I've talked with and sources I've seen, irreconcilably different. So this is not disputing anarchist conceptions. It's the end of such disputation.Khin2718 (talk) 19:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

This is not the place for editors to proffer their own conceptions of what anarchism is. Skomorokh  03:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Right. So I assume you agree that this page should stop doing that. Khin2718 (talk) 03:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * In response to the ongoing editing battle--my edit is simply a mirror of what socialism already does. Khin2718 (talk) 04:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for explaining, but the fact that one article does things one way is not a rationale for changing another.  Skomorokh   04:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Labor vs. Labour
Since this is turning into an edit war, I've created this so that the two parties can discuss this like rational people instead of just reverting each other. Thank you. Zazaban (talk) 22:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:ENGVAR is pretty clear: British topics get British spelling, American topics get American spelling, etc., and articles without specific national ties get the spelling used by the original editor or major contributor. There's absolutely no reason to change the spelling of "labour" and leave other words in American spelling (such as "favor"). — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Good article nominee
I've just put myself up to review this article which is listed at the GA nomination page. However, I can't see the expected template on this talk page and it doesn't look as if the nominator mentioned the nomination here.

So, before I start investing what might be a lot of time to review this article, are the regular editors surprised by this nom and do you think it is at or close to GA quality? If not then we can pretend the nomination never happenned and just remove it from the GAN page. Otherwise I'll take a deep breath and dove in. Thanks--Peter cohen (talk) 21:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Relative coverage of recent schools of thought
How much of the Schools of thought section should be given over to discussion of forms of anarchism that emerged in the late 20th century? See also the anarchist schools of thought article, of which the section is a summary. Skomorokh  19:57, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I guess it depends on how notable post classical anarchists are, as far as size relative to classical. And then once that is decided, how notable each post-classical anarchist is relative to other post-classical anarchists or the types of anarchism they espouse, as far as how much space is given to them or their ideas. Maybe the way to determine that is through Google count searches. I see there being two alternatives for the article. One is listing each school of thought and covering both classical and post-classical within them. Or separating the classical from post-classical then repeating the schools of thought, such as individualist and socialist and describing only the post-classical within these. Jadabocho (talk) 20:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Your approach sounds good, though I would be wary about using Google since that would vastly-overrepresent anarchist activity from the past decade or two. CrimethInc., Infoshop and Killing King Abacus are prominent in the anarchist internet for example, but not notable in the history of anarchism such that it would deserve mention here. I think it would be difficult to get any solid numbers on current adherents of older schools, and so prefer the thematic (e.g. collectivist/individualist/syndicalist/post-modern) rather than historical approach.  Skomorokh   20:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes I think it would be better to just have the themes, and then include post-classical anarchism under those instead of having seperate sections for classical and post classical. Is that what you're saying you prefer? Then you could simply include the more recent communists, individualists, and so on, in later paragraphs within the sections. Jadabocho (talk) 21:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes that is what I am proposing; for example dealing with Kevin Carson in the mutualism section, platformists in the anarchist communism section and the anarcho-capitalists in the individualist anarchist section, leaving a post-classical section for the entirely novel green anarchism, post-left, insurrectionary anarchism and so on.  Skomorokh   21:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have just slimmed down the social anarchism section. It looks much better now. It wasn't even a summary before, it was more or less identical to what was at anarchist schools of thought. Zazaban (talk) 00:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Anarchism
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Anarchism's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "carlson": From Individualist anarchism:  From Freeganism:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

contemporary anarchism
so this article aparently is nominated for good article. i added a section on contemporary anarchism but seems it needs some references. maybe someone could help on this. maybe i will do when i have some free time.--Eduen (talk) 04:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've reworked and referenced some of it, and removed some other sections; you might want to update the contemporary anarchism article accordingly. I will say that such material is very welcome, as it was a notable omission from the encyclopaedia before. Any further help bringing the section up to standard would be most appreciated...  Skomorokh   05:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Social movement section: historical or topical?
It's been great to see the article move on from an obsessive focus on documenting in detail every faction of theorists to attempting a broader and deeper portrayal of the anarchist movement. I think there has naturally emerged some unevenness however that asks for addressing. Until relatively recently, the "Social movement" section was broadly chronological, following the evolution of anarchism from the International, through the labour and syndicalist movements in Europe and the US, through the Russian Revolution and anarchist Ukraine to the Spanish Civil War and anti-fascist resistance. In that it covered the most important events in the movement's history, this was a rather coherent summation.

In the current version, however, we have sections on free love and libertarian education (as well as a welcome section on the contemporary movement), which don't fit into the historical scheme (i.e. free love activism did not largely only within the window between the International Anarchist Congress of Amsterdam and the October Revolution). These new sections are valuable, and cover topics which are important aspects of anarchism as a social movement, but added into the historical section they come across as disjointed. It strikes me that we have a few options here: I'd worry that the first two options would be trying to put square pegs in round holes; it would be hard to write the anarchist experience in the Russian revolution up as a theme (a sort of generalised anti-authoritarianism, the perils of pacifism vs. insurrection, or perhaps "never trust a leftist"?), or to pigeonhole a perennial anarchist interest like libertarian education or for that matter the organised labour movement into a specific few decades. I'm most inclined towards the third option, according to which there would be a major-events-based history section, the existing schools of thought section, and a sociological section detailing the important characteristics and causes peculiar to anarchism.
 * 1) Abandon the historical character of the "Social movement" section and just arrange it topically; this would require reworking the telling of each event into a description of the underlying theme.
 * 2) Abandon the topical character of the section and try to situate the "free love" and "libertarian education" sections as historical events (which could be problematic in both cases given the 1960s revivals)
 * 3) Separate the historical content from the topical, perhaps by merging them respectively into the existing "Origins" and "Internal issues and debates" sections which in the current version are looking rather anemic alongside "Social movement" and "Schools of thought".
 * 4) Some mix of or alternative to the above

Discussion and suggestions most welcome,  Skomorokh   06:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, three sounds best. Zazaban (talk) 06:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, three does look to be the best choice. However, if these topical subjects were moved to the "Issues" section, that section may need to be retitled. It was named "Issues" to address controversies. "Issues" carries a subtext of discussion which carries a certain amount of disagreement, requiring clarification. ("Private property? Nationalism? Oh boy, we got issues there, folks.") There has been little fundamental controversy with subjects such as liberatory experiments in education, or free love. Emma Goldman and Lucy Parsons briefly clashed over free love and contraception, but that hardly constitutes a real dispute in the global context. So, maybe this section should be renamed. I would like "Topics of interest in anarchism". Free love? Oh ho, why yes, that is interesting, comrade. d(~_^)b I'd sign up for that free skool workshop!


 * Topics of interest includes our controversial "Anarchism and ___" series of articles, such as "and capitalism", "and violence", and "and religion", among others. It would also include less combustible subjects, such as "Anarchism and the arts", subjects on self organization, and DIY culture. That's why when you think of what to do, think: what would Cast do? ...which would be to write a declarative sentence ending with a question mark? But after that, vote to retitle the sub-section—for glory and awesomeness. Thank you. --Cast (talk) 06:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * *Applause* This is why I wish you'd comment on content issues here more often :D. Point taken on the trickiness of expanding "Internal issues" though; would we need to rework the subarticle first or just head into uncharted waters here and see how it goes?  Skomorokh   15:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I would start the process here. If we find that the set up works better, we change the sub article. If the name change doesn't seem to fit; if we bump into unforeseen complications, a simple edit can retitle the section once more. --Cast (talk) 16:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I too was inclined towards number 3 of the various options but agree with Cast's suggestion of trying out a themes section here.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Alright, this seems uncontroversial. I'm going to make the first edit now and let it build over time. Cross your fingers and hope for the best. FA status, here we come!--Cast (talk) 18:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Anarchist communism is an oxymoron
Here's something that the article actually says:
 * Anarchist communism proposes that the freest form of social organisation would be a society composed of self-governing communes with collective use of the means of production, organized by direct democracy, and related to other communes through federation.

Alright, so, how can you have a government (like a federation or a direct democracy) while being anarchist, again? I'd love to hear how these people reconcile this doublethink with themselves. Macai (talk) 06:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * First of all, about 90% of all anarchists have been historically been anarchist communists, so it's WP:FRINGE to claim that their status as anarchists is dubious. Now, there's no problem with saying that a minority do dispute it, but that's already there. Secondly, I would seriously question your knowledge of the subject if you think they propose any kind of government. Thirdly, your addition was unencyclopedic, uncited POV. And I notice you brought up this same thing before and were fairly thoroughly alone in your opinion, in fact you seemed to agree that it was a bad idea to try to insert this sort of thing. Zazaban (talk) 07:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * First of all, just because a bunch of people say something is true, doesn't make it so. You can get every Wikipedia editor out there to agree with you and your positions don't become more valid because of it. If you disagree with this, you are wrong. Second of all, they are proposing a form of government; it says so in the article. You know what form of government that is? It's called "federation". So either the article is misrepresenting communist anarchist perspective, communist anarchist perspective is internally contradictory, or you don't know what a federation is. Third, if I can prove objectively that two things contradict one another, it's not POV anymore, it's just reality. Macai (talk) 07:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I'm sorry, it is POV. This has been brought up before, including by yourself, it's no different now, you're not going to get this included. You have an extremely, extremely rudimentary understanding of socialist anarchism, and you somehow think this supersedes reliable sources. It goes against the grind of every basic policy of wikipedia. I'm very sorry, but this just is not going to happen. Zazaban (talk) 07:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "But you don't understand... No, this won't happen. It can't happen. No. No! No!!" Seriously, if this is the best you can do to defend your position that it's not an oxymoron, I suggest you step aside. Besides, if you think marxists.org (an unprofessional, nevermind reliable website actually cited in this article) is a reliable source, then I question your judgment on reliability. Macai (talk) 07:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You should go ahead and read WP:Talk, WP:Civility, and WP:Reliable. And then you should stop trying to push your POV and trying to work with everyone else improve the article. And stop being disruptive, or it will probably be you that will be forced to "step aside".Jrtayloriv (talk) 07:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, I can't even find this marxists.org cite you speak of. Could you tell me what citation number is it? Zazaban (talk) 07:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's citation number 119. I'll be on more tomorrow. Macai (talk) 07:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a digital copy of a work from 1874, translated by Sam Dolgoff, that happens to be hosted at marxists.org. I'd hardly think anything to do with the website applies to the cited text at all. I suppose I could find the same text on another website if you want, but I don't really see what the difference is. And it's citing that communism and collectivism are compatible off all things, which isn't remarkably controversial. Zazaban (talk) 07:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You don't need to find a new source for it -- Marxists.org is totally reliable for this particular situation. It is cited in the Washington Post and Chicago Tribune in articles they published about Marx, for example. Jrtayloriv (talk) 07:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Macai, what is it you are looking to do here? Improve the description to better explain what anarchist communists believe, or make a point about the inadequacies of this school of thought? Because only one of those is something Wikipedia ought to be a forum for. I'd recommend reading Cast's comments below. Regards,  Skomorokh   05:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but Macai is ~not~ alone in his views! Communism and Socialism are fundamentally at odds with true Anarchism. Some may speculate that a society could be built that somehow accomplishes collectivist cooperation without appealing to force, but this is a pipe dream. Socialist and Communist countries have and always will involve massive, bureaucratic governments, and this is something that all true Anarchists oppose. I can only imagine how confusing this article would be to someone lacking a basic understanding of political science. To portray Anarchism (the abandonment of government) as though it were merely a branch of Socialism is misleading at the very least. Any political view that advocates an establishment of government or of a governmental process (e.g. "voting") is ~not~ Anarchism! I agree with Cast that at the very least, some rewording is in order. ChihuahuaAssassin (talk) 19:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Please read this. It is the wide, wide consensus that anarchist communist is not an oxymoron, and your original research does not change that. Zazaban (talk) 19:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * We could discuss the philosophy of all this until the end of time, and likely to no avail. You have your view, and I have mine.  I respect that.  But given that this is Wiki, this article should ideally be objective and endorse neither view.  To characterize Anarchism as left-leaning is not objective; it is POV. ChihuahuaAssassin (talk) 20:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The article reports what WP:RS say, that "anarchism is often considered to be a radical left-wing ideology". How is that POV? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It's POV because "left-wing" implies some sort of egalitarian goal, which basic Anarchism doesn't necessarily embrace. The Wiki article on left-wing ideology sums it up thusly: "In politics, left-wing, leftist and the Left are generally used to describe support for social change with a view towards creating a more egalitarian society."  Anarchism is a reaction against society and not an attempt to construct a perfect one.  You could find just as many "reliable sources" that claim Anarchism for the Right.  Would these supersede those cited?  It's an ideological debate and no amount of sources will resolve it.  A compelling argument could be made that if the Left advocates more government, the Right less government and the Anarchists no government, then Anarchism is a Far-Right philosophy.  My point is that this controversial line in the article invites endless debate as to which side of the aisle Anarchism claims. ChihuahuaAssassin (talk) 10:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * First of all, anarchism absolutely is not a reaction against society, which is a bizarre notion, and yes it has always had a strong egalitarian element. And I doubt you will find reliable sources calling it far-right. I think this may be a misunderstanding. Anarchism does not advocate chaos or disorganization. Zazaban (talk) 20:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/anarchism There's nothing about "egalitarianism" or left-wing ideology.  It's simply not part of the definition.  The early history, perhaps, but these are two very different things.  If Anarchism is a blanket term (it is), then there's no reason to cubbyhole it with language that only applies to some of its followers. ChihuahuaAssassin (talk) 21:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, I would respectfully disagree with your statement that "Anarchism does not advocate chaos or disorganization". That would depend of which anarchist you ask.  Not one of them is solely appointed to speak on behalf of all anarchists, as has been thoroughly illustrated by the diversity of opinion on what constitutes an "anarchist" to begin with. ChihuahuaAssassin (talk) 21:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Personally, I feel that anarchism should be recognized as neither left, nor right. These two conceptions of the political spectrum have always applied to views of how best to utilize the government as a tool for social change. The right tends to favor using the government to conserve traditional social arrangements. The left prefers to use the government as a tool to engineer social change. For this reason, these camps have come to be known as conservative and progressive, respectively. Neither share a relationship to anarchism, which does not encourage the use of government as a catalyst for social change. The historical association between anarchism and "the left" is a result of certain philosophical and social connections between leftists and anarchists in their rejection of contemporary centers of power. The left, authoritarian socialists, wanted to take power from the 18th century elite. The libertarian socialists, some of whom were anarchists, wanted to destroy these institutions of power. Where they agreed on economic and social platforms, they chose to work together and eventually became joined at the hip until their eventual clash during the revolutions and counterrevolutions of the 20th century. Where they disagreed, anarchists were marginalized and the left prospered. The loudest voices, calling for cohesion and stability, also called for the anarchists to stop demanding so much, and to start accepting the decisions made by committee. I believe the traditional conflation of the left with authoritarian driven progress with anarchism is another aspect of contention anarchists cannot themselves let go of, because many anarchists still view the left as a bastion of good intentions. Civil rights, for example, they are told from childhood, are good. The left has fought for civil rights. Therefore, anarchists should fight for civil rights and join the left in championing free speech and freedom of assembly. If an anarchist were to point out that no rights should be derived from the government, and thus that civil rights are a fiction, and that anarchists must prefer "liberty" rather than "rights", they would be looked upon dubiously. "But civil rights are liberty." I believe this should be included in the section on topics of interest. That is, the relationship of anarchism with traditional positions of the left and right. What are anarchist views of freedom of speech; civil rights; private property; equality; and such? Consider what Emma Goldman wrote of women who sought the right to vote. What do anarchists think of suffrage and electoral politics? We may try to tie this in with contemporary issues. Gay marriage. How does this relate to traditional anarchist views of equality and liberty, when compared to historically anti-marriage views of some anarchists? Do anarchists support the "right" of homosexuals to be "recognized" in their union by the state? Should anyone seek such recognition? I know full and well that there is a trove of information on this discussion. There is much to be made of anarchism and its relationship to the positions held by the left and the right. We should not simply tie anarchism down to one of these camps without properly explaining this context. It would mislead many readers. (And by the way, I like chaos myself. We should really think of chaos as a neutral social force from which spontaneous order may arise. It is neither negative, nor positive. I think a society free of statecraft would be a beautiful chaos.)--Cast (talk) 21:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. And eloquently put. ChihuahuaAssassin (talk) 14:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * To be clear, when I say 'chaos' I mean Law of the Jungle, kill whomever gets in your way type stuff. Zazaban (talk) 00:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Just so that we're clear, it has historically been understood that the communist aspect of anarcho-communism refers to the desired economic system of shared resources put to use by those most in need—to paraphrase, "from each with ability to each with need". Anarcho-communists in no way aspire to implement the authoritarian-socialist interpretation of communism. That would be that an institution with authority of oversight ensure this system is implemented; a dictatorship of the proletariat. Beyond the desired economic goal, libertarian-socialists and authoritarian-socialists share no resemblance to each other. I believe you are taking the use of the term "communism" out of its historical context. Remember, when anarcho-communists arrived on the scene, there was still a global debate being waged as to what the first socialist society would be like. In a more beautiful world, anarcho-communists may have carried the day. Sadly, that is not this world. --Cast (talk) 01:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think at this point it might be a good idea to put something of that nature in the main article. It is a bit confusing in a world where most people equate 'communism' with totalitarianism. Zazaban (talk) 02:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Cast, your words are enlightening and I 2nd Zazaban's sentiment that some clarification of that might be in order. I think the historical context of this debate is clouding the issue of the essential nature of Anarchism as a philosophy. ChihuahuaAssassin (talk) 10:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

A problem of word craft?
I think an issue being overlooked by some is that the sentence describing anarcho-communism can be better written. Of course, that is what Macai claims to be advocating, but the editor's preference thus far as been to disparage the tradition of anarcho-communism rather than to make improvements. In the future, I hope editors will make the edits they wish to see. Now, from a discussion I've had with Lawrence Jarach on the matter, I agree that "anarchy" (that is, an anarchist society) is incompatible with "direct democracy". The problem isn't that anarchists object to consensus decision making processes that include voting as a basic tool. The problem is that "direct democracy" doesn't exist in any practical form. If we vote as part of a process that is short term and organic for a basic decision making process, this is hardly an institution of government. Institutions are organizations which exists outside of their members. Like the government of the United States, the "Communist" party of China, the Catholic Church, or the Skull & Bones society, they will exist long after their current members have died (or at least, we anarchists hope not). They are institutions. A representative democracy is an inherently hierarchical structure used in some institutions, such as the United States, to share power among the ruling elite. If we, that is anarchists, were to break down the system to the community level, and decide what will happen in our communities through consensus, and our communities did not out live us, they would not be institutions, and they would not function through a process of "direct democracy". "Direct democracy" in this form, is a synonym for "anarchism on the community level". A network of communities in contact with each other may meet and send delegates who were chosen at the community level to meet at distant locations, and formulate trade and pacts of alliance. (This was all theorized well before the advent of the internet. LOL. Now we can just twitter? ¯\(°_o)/¯ ) Anarcho-communism isn't a "pure" or "distilled" version of democracy. That's marketing speak by people like Noam Chomsky looking for mainstream approval and sympathy. The line of thinking goes: "Global consensus is that democracy is good and anarchy is bad. So we must spin global consensus to associate anarchy with a better democracy!" This same thinking leads people to claim people as anarchists when they are not. Sometimes it is an appeal "cool" and so you get people claiming Fight Club is a 20th century anarchist thesis, and Tyler Durden is a famous anarcho-primitivist.

So, my suggestion: write out references to "self-governing", "direct democracy", "federation", and other phrases which can be confused with government, and get over trying to appease the mainstream? This argument can be settled with a few rewritten sentences. I really shouldn't have had to go through the process of writing this paragraph. Here, I'll do it for you:


 * Anarchist communism proposes that the freest form of social organisation would be a society composed of self-sufficient communes with collective use of the means of production, organized by consensus decision making processes, and related to other communes through alliance.

It's a tragedy that some anarchists thought coming up with "anarchy w/out adjectives" would solve this problem a hundred years ago, and yet people continue the same infighting their stubborn, dead anarcho-forebears did. Your arguments are entirely rudimentary and based on miscommunication. We have greater enemies in this world than each other, and we are possibly each others greatest friends, if only we would look past 19th century texts to see it.--Cast (talk) 15:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Individualist anarchism and property
I think there´s a problem with this :"Socialist anarchism is the largest school of anarchism. In contrast with most forms of individualist anarchism, which stresses the importance of private property or possession, socialist anarchism rejects private property, seeing it as a source of social inequality, and emphasises cooperation and mutual aid."

With the exception of the recent US centered neoliberal "anarcho" capitalism all Individualist anarchists have been in economics either mutualists or egoists. mutualism recognizes only that which is used as deserving recognition as "yours" according to the labor theory of value and so they also can advocate expropiation on the bourgoise. egoism is opnely disrespectful of private property and so inspired illegalism. We can consider the view of italian individualist Renzo Novatore on this issue: "Only ethical and spiritual wealth" as "invulnerable "This is the true property of individuals. The rest no! The rest is vulnerable! And all that is vulnerable will be violated!""To create new ethical values. To create new aesthetic values. To communalize material wealth. To individualize spiritual wealth.. " Emile Armand says that the individualist anarchist "inwardly he remains refractory -- fatally refractory -- morally, intellectually, economically (The capitalist economy and the directed economy, the speculators and the fabricators of single are equally repugnant to him.)"

Oscar Wilde even went as far as defending socialism as the only way to guarantee individualism in his essay "The soul of man under socialism". Benjamin Tucker said his economic views were socialist and Lysander Spooner views were similar and strongly opposed wage labor mainly trying to defend small family agrarian economics. But Wilde and Novatore take a nietzchetian stirnerist humanist view in which individualism is mainly a defence of the individual integrity and self determination (we could even call it aesthetic individualism as well as how L. Susan Brown called it "exixtential individualism") and so it is very different from the liberal "possesive individualism" which focuses on the right to have things. Emile Armand somewhere even says that an individualist doesnt focus too much on economics. Colombian stirnerist Biofilo Panclasta was so uninterested in possesing things as to live as a vagabond as some sort of stirnerist sadhu. Here i think we are dealing with an individualist impulse who, in the terms of Nietzche, rejects the herd mentality of religion and working conditions under mass industrial capitalism and what later will be called by the Frankfurt School, the culture industry.

That enciclopedia which is given as a reference might say something different but the fact is that US views and the research and influence of neoliberal think tanks have obscured the views of individualist anarchism in general. This has been joined i think with the prejudice of social anarchists againts individualist anarchism and so the research on it and the avalability of it in the english language is very poor as well as the translations of european and latin american individualists.--Eduen (talk) 21:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You really need to stop calling everything you disagree with as "neoliberal". People might take you more seriously if you made some attempt to not push your POV. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 23:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

i dont see why you take it as an insult. neoliberal and neoliberalism is a widely used term in academia and politics. the wikipedia article on it says "The label refers to a redefinition of classical liberalism, influenced by the neoclassical theories of economics" the positions of Murray Rothbard clearly fit this description.--Eduen (talk) 01:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed that the free market form of individualist anarchism is totally ignored in the Individualist Anarchism section. Jadabocho (talk) 02:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, I believe it was pruned by Skormorokh in the GA push. Zazaban (talk) 02:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That's ridiculous. This article was much better before. Jadabocho (talk) 02:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

well, the individualist anarchism section is preceded by a section dealing with mutualism and since in post classical schools of thought "anarcho" capitalism is also covered "free market anarchism" is well enough covered in this article.--Eduen (talk) 05:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No, there probably should be something about the boston anarchist at least. Tucker, Spooner, de Clayre and whatnot. Zazaban (talk) 06:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. - N1h1l (talk) 15:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

if they get a mention also european individualist anarchists like Emile Armand and Han Ryner should get mentioned.--Eduen (talk) 09:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I have no strong feelings about what the section should cover, other than thinking that the propertarians/natural law individualists get short shrift in the current version, but there is no scope for further bloating of the schools of thought. Three paragraphs on the two major currents is more than enough for this summary article. Skomorokh  15:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

well this could be solved with 2 or 3 sentences in the individualist anarchism section covering on the one side "boston anarchists" and another dealing with european individualists like Emile Armand, Han Ryner, Albert Libertad, Adolf Brand, Lev Chernyi, Miguel Gimenez Igualada and illegalism. Equal treatment and brief. we could also add in the "main articles" both the american individualist anarchism and the european individualist anarchism links. now as far as american individualists in the long run Henry David Thoreau has been very influential in green anarchism but seems to me the most influential of all the american individualists since he wen to influence people like Leo Tolstoy, Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. as well as being also the person who could be said started anarcho-pacifism. Anyway i suggest Warren, Thoreau, Spooner, tucker. I hope no one wants to reduce american individualism to "natural rights" economics. Ecology and free love were almost as important or just as important.--Eduen (talk) 19:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

As this process has gone with a nice consensus based process, i want to proceed on that line. So i propose the following to replace the parragraph i complained about:

"Social anarchism is the largest school of anarchism. In contrast with most forms of individualist anarchism which focus on the individual and his/her relation to society and its products, social anarchism emphasises the themes of revolution, cooperation and mutual aid."

now the reasons:

-Individualist anarchism is not economics centered. From Max Stirner onwards it contains a strong existentialist humanist content and revolt againts societarian products (Murray Bookchin called it lifestyle anarchism). These harmful anti-individual societarian products denounced by individualists have included mass society, religion, morality, patriarchy, homophobia, wage slavery, work, pop culture, etc. This has been the dominant trend in european individualist anarchism and it is also an important current in US individualist anarchism as can bee seen in Henry David Thoreau and the individualist free love and feminist propagandists. From the individualist lifestyle anarchism viewpoint self creation and self determination is individualism, not possesion of things. From a humanist viewpoint, this is the case as well.

-Mutualism is market socialism, it is for noncapitalist markets. As such its defends non capitalist private property. Egoism has been combined with both mutualism and anarchocommunism. So the sentence that individualist anarchism "stresses the importance of private property or possession" overgeneralizes things and presents an economicistic view of individualist anarchism

-From the economic viewpoints of egoism and mutualism, as exposed before, one can only affirm that most individualist anarchism has been in fact, a socialist viewpoint. As such, the distinction between "socialist anarchism" and "individualist anarchism" is absurd. This is the reason why historically the distinction has been between "social" and "individualist" anarchism.--Eduen (talk) 12:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

class war
about, the image which says that not all schools of anarchism agree upon. it will be nice to have some explanation about this. i hope the person who wrote that is not implying we should give excessive importance to the recent US centered anomaly which calls itself "Anarcho" capitalism. anyway, i will not defend the presence of that praticular image in the article.--Eduen (talk) 20:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The concept of class war is also disputed in some post-left and primitivist circles. But I agree, it's not the best example. Zazaban (talk) 21:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The class war lettering looked very reminiscent of the early logo of Class War which woud confuse the issue.--22:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

post left anarchy does not critizice class war. it criticizes anarchosindicalism and it develops a more individualistic view on class war similar to individual reclamation but in the end it develops a position similar to left communism and autonomism. for a nice post-left anarchy view on class war and communism check this by Wolfi Landstreicher.--Eduen (talk) 23:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Biased Source
Quoting Infoshop.org's "Anarchist FAQ" as the sole source for why social anarchism is the "largest school of anarchism" is not a good practice. According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Anarchist_FAQ, the Anarchist FAQ "documents anarchist theory and ideas while arguing  that social anarchism is a better form of anarchism than individualist  anarchism which it critiques." Reading through the site, it is HEAVILY biased in the favor or social anarchism, and even tries to claim that  individualist anarchism is really a form of socialism. The motto on their main page is "Kill capitalism before it kills you!" I'm sorry, but this is not a reliable source. I think some people have been reading too much of this literature, and it has affected their concept  of what Anarchism is on the whole. This article still needs several adjustments to meet Wiki's NPOV. ChihuahuaAssassin (talk) 16:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed, it's gone. Though individualist anarchism has historically considered itself socialist. Zazaban (talk) 21:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "Strains of anarchism have been divided into the categories of socialist and individualist anarchism or similar dual classifications." So... why the 2 classifications, then, if both are the same?  Is there a form of Anarchism that's non-socialistic?  What ever happened to "every man for himself"? ChihuahuaAssassin (talk) 11:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Considering that anarchism evolved out of socialism, I'd say it would be unusual to find a form of it that isn't socialist to some degree. Anarcho-capitalism isn't, but it is a small minority and is fairly recent. Although both forms are socialist, they are different kinds of socialism, sort of like how social democracy and marxism are both socialist, and yet not the same thing. I've never heard "every man for himself" as an anarchist ethos. Zazaban (talk) 20:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I would respectfully disagree with your notion that the free-market capitalists comprise an insignificant minority of the Anarchist community. But for lack of any statistical data on the subject, we'll probably just have to agree to disagree.  In light of history's revelation of the totalitarian nature of socialism, I don't see social anarchism surviving the test of time.  And I personally believe in "every man for himself".  So what does that make me if not an Anarchist?  A Buddhist, perhaps? ChihuahuaAssassin (talk) 10:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If we're going to go through the "biased source" business again, can we at least get it right that the Anarchist FAQ is a published source, independent of Infoshop.org. Citing Wikipedia's much-contested article on the FAQ is hardly NPOV itself. Libertatia (talk) 02:21, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments." -Friedrich Nietzsche ChihuahuaAssassin (talk) 11:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * ? Zazaban (talk) 20:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Libertatia was apparently trying to suggest that the Anarchist FAQ is unbiased... lol. As for NPOV, I freely admit that I'm POV-pushing just like the rest of you are.  That's what the "talk" page is for!  The difference is that I'm not doing it in the main article.  And hey, if "published source" = "reliable source", I bet we could even cite a few lines from Hitler's "Mein Kampf"!  :?P  ChihuahuaAssassin (talk) 10:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, I was just pointing out, not for the first time, that An Anarchist FAQ is not "Infoshop.org's." The motto is the site's motto, and not the motto of the FAQ or its collective. The FAQ certainly makes an argument in favor of social anarchism, but Wikipedia's sourcing criteria (of which I have been very critical) don't really give us any clear way to differentiate among published arguments. Libertatia (talk) 19:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, well I suppose bias is in the eye of the beholder. Sorry if I came off as derisive. ChihuahuaAssassin (talk) 20:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

In the previous section I developed extensively on how individualist anarchism has been an anticapitalist form of thought. But also let´s consider that the Anarchist FAQ only deals with US individualist anarchists and it concludes correctly how american individualist anarchism was anticapitalist. European individualist anarchism was in many cases even more strongly anticapitalist.--Eduen (talk) 04:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC) An Anarchist FAQ is a project independent of Infoshop.org, but we are the primary hosting location for the FAQ. Several of the FAQ's domain points to the Infoshop version. Speaking of which, we just moved the FAQ to our new content management system. I've updated a few links on several entries. We've set up redirects on our site to the new locations, so people should update links where relevant. As far as using the FAQ for citations here--the FAQ has a bias and point of view, like any written document on politics. Let's remember that all Wikipedia entries are biased and have a point of view. If I were writing the main entry on "Anarchism", it would look much different than the current version here. But the Anarchist FAQ is an authoritative source on the different kinds of anarchism. It's been developed over 13 years and the authors have consulted with individualist anarchists. It's also been published, in part, as a book, so that should satisfy Wikipedia citation sticklers. Chuck0 (talk) 16:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Draft for new opening sentence for Social Anarchism section.

 * Social anarchism, or libertarian socialism, calls for a system with public ownership of means of production and democratic control of all organizations, without any government authority or coercion. It is the largest school of anarchism. Social anarchism rejects private property, seeing it as a source of social inequality, and emphasises cooperation and mutual aid.
 * A source for it being the largest needs to be found, which shouldn't be hard to do. I tried to clarify that it absolutely does not advocate authority any more than any other school of anarchism. It needs work- oh how it needs work! But since there has been some dispute, I figure this would be a good thing to do. Zazaban (talk) 04:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Rather than making claims and attempting to find sources to support them after the fact, might it be a better practice to err on the side of only making claims that originate from reliable sources to begin with? And is the breakdown really all that important in the long run?  I think the consistency of a philosophy is far more valuable in an academic context than the sheer number of people who believe it.  People believe a lot of silly things!  It's one thing to give equal weight to questionable views.  It's another to elevate them above others merely as a result of their proclaimed prevalence. ChihuahuaAssassin (talk) 10:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that new proposal is fine but saying that social anarchism is the same as libertarian socialism does not take into account non anarchist forms of libertarian socialism such as autonomism or council communism. A good thing is that it takes out the definition of individualist anarchism as a strong defender of private property which as i already argued before, is not the case.--Eduen (talk) 04:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the libertarian socialism part was a last minute addition and I wasn't sure about it myself. Zazaban (talk) 06:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The new paragraph shows how individualist anarchism´s main characteristic is emphasis on the individual as its name suggests. The issue of private property is ambiguous in individualist anarchism incluiding strong rejections of private property and so, saying that "it emphasizes private property" is false. As this has not been challenged here I proceded with the change.--Eduen (talk) 20:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Infoshop update
Infoshop.org has resolved its downtime problems that have plagued the site for much of last year. I know this has been an issue for people who want to make links to our content from Wikipedia entries. Infoshop has the most content online of any anarchist or libertarian website. We are also moving some older files, but adding redirects from old locations. We are cleaning up dead links and adding new ones. We are planning to add hundreds of books, documents, and images to the Infoshop Library and other sections of the site. We apologize for our downtime issues and thank you for your patience. Chuck0 (talk) 16:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Nice that you would think to give the anarchist community on Wikipedia a heads up, but the princess is in another castle. --Cast (talk) 17:14, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Terrorism post 1880s
There doesn't seem to be here anything about Anarchist terrorism from the 1880's onwards. I guess this shows the bias of this updating this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.86.243.150 (talk) 14:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course, there's nothing to stop you from adding some well researched information, if you cared to pull your thumbs out of your ass and get on it. --Cast (talk) 04:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think this anon is interested; most of his edits are on pages related to the Iraq and Vietnam wars, and consist of changing wording and removing sourced content entirely so that the tone is strongly in favour of the United States. Well, he would be interested, but I'm not sure it would be good for the page. He also added this exact same message to Talk:Terrorism. But I do agree there could be a bit more on propaganda of the deed. Although many modern anarchists disown it, it's still a major part of the movement's history. Zazaban (talk) 06:33, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Propaganda of the deed.
I've added a section on this. It fills a large gap in the 'as a social movement' section, and more information was needed on the subject anyhow. Zazaban (talk) 06:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

propaganda of the deed is mainly trying to motivate action through showing something is possible. This means propaganda of the deed is not nessesarely a violent action and so civil disobedience as proposed by anarcho pacifists can also be propaganda of the deed. im will see if i can find something more specific and well referenced on this. What i think is a bit problematic though is saying "Propaganda of the deed was abandoned by the vast majority of the anarchist movement after World War I (1914–18) and the 1917 October Revolution.".--Eduen (talk) 05:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Featured article push?
I know it may be too soon: but we should at least get together a list of things that need to be improved so that we can start working at it slowly, now. The good article push was phenomenal. the whole article was revamped, and is now actually stable for what is likely the longest time ever. FA status doesn't seem inconceivable to me. Zazaban (talk) 01:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The section on topics of anarchist philosophy will need to be expanded. Instead of carrying small entries for each of the "Anarchism and ___" series of articles, we could paint in broad strokes. The section on internal issues is excellent for covering several topics all in one neat package. A section on anarchism and culture is needed to cover "Anarchism and the arts", as well as anarchist sub- and counter-cultures. --Cast (talk) 02:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I concur. A section on anarchism and the counterculture of the 1960s would be useful. Perhaps an article, first, though. Anarchism on the arts should be here first, though, as it's a major issue. Zazaban (talk) 05:55, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Anarcho-pacifism and christian anarchism
I noticed these are not dealt with in this article. Anarcho-pacifism goes back as far as Henry David Thoreau and so it is a clear tendency within anarchism which mainly through Thoureau also influenced individualist anarchism. Christian anarchism meets with anarcho pacifism in Leo Tolstoy and afterwards in the 20th century it will play influential roles in things like the antinuclear movement, antiwar movements and civil rights movements. Anyway i will love to hear opinions on how these could be dealt with and i could present a proposal for inclusion.--Eduen (talk) 05:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

direct democracy
I have a problem with this line. While some anarchist communists favour direct democracy, others feel that its majoritarianism can impede individual liberty and favour consensus democracy instead. Direct democracy is when decisions are made directly by the citizens. It can be by majority vote or consensus. 24.180.173.157 (talk) 18:29, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Consensus only occurs in representative democracy. Representative A wants a military base in his area, while Rep. B wants the governmet to fund anti-war groups in hers.  They form a consensus to support each other's projects.  This presents a different outcome from direct democracy because the majority is forced to accomodate the minority.  TFD (talk) 19:58, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * What evidence is there that some anarcho-communist support representive democracy. 24.180.173.157 (talk) 00:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Anarchist organizations use representative democracy, e.g., the International of Anarchist Federations and the IWW. TFD (talk) 14:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

The problem of this sentence is that it rewords a symmantic argument held several weeks ago, without actually solving the original problem. At the time, the sentence stated that anarcho-communists favored direct democracy. An editor with a subtle anti-anarcho-communist agenda began to highlight this as an example of anarchist hypocrisy. After a brief argument ensued, I pointed out that the term "direct democracy" was a misnominer, as anarcho-communists have often used "democracy" as a short hand term to describe a voting process in decision making, rather than an institutional form of hierarchical power. I proposed that the term "consensus decision making" should be used instead, as it more fundamentally described what was at heart of anarcho-communist theory. It would seem that the sentence was reworded to travel down the middle of the road, without satisfying either side in the debate. Now the issue has risen anew. I once again insist that this is just a symantic issue. Representative democracy is inherently non-anarchist, as representation is inherently hierarchical. This flies in the face of actual anarcho-communist and syndicalist theory. It is also ahistorical. Original descriptions of worker federations did not suggest that worker delegates would be voted into an institutional position of authority. They are temporary delegates. The federations were not intended as institutions of power. They are structural boundaries in a society which shift and change as social context dictates. The IWW is not an example of representative democracy. it is a worker syndicate. The IAF is not a representative democracy. It is federated conglomeration of organizations. Further, consensus takes place in direct democracies as well, with individual voters reaching consensus on propositions for vote and agreeing to recognize the legitimacy of any law that is passed. Democracy is a viable format for power sharing when political entities agree that social stability is preferred to the usurpation of political power. Among anarchists, there is agreement that cooperation is at times more useful than competition (with various scenarios either legitimizing individualist or communalist branches of thought) but there is mutual agreement that institutions organs of power are the driving force for statism, as institutions exist outside, and exert power over, the individual power/ego of the individual. So can we hurry up and reword the sentence? --Cast (talk) 16:49, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Pardon, I think it's also important to note that the IWW is not an officially anarchist-organization, but it doesn't seem TFD was actually intending on referencing them, as the wikilink is piped to a different organization. A typo? --Cast (talk) 16:54, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * My reference was piped to the IWW, but to the "Organization" section. You may think that the IAF and the IWW are not "official" anarchists, but is there an anarchist organization that decides who is official?  While I accept that delegates to conventions are "temporary", the same is true with representatives in representative democracy.  Only in the UK and Canada do parliamentarians hold office for life (and even then the Commons only hold office for a maximum of 5 years.)  TFD (talk) 22:49, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * A delegate and a representative are two very different things. A representative makes choices on behalf of others, whereas a delegate may only report what their delegating group has already decided. Remember, this organizational model predates the telephone. Delegates were once seen as necessary because conference calls between organizations were once impossible. With new technology, new organizational models are now possible among anarchists. Delegates may be outmoded, but representatives were never even on the table. As for "official" anarchist organizations; an anarchist organization is one which declares itself anarchist. The IWW has made it very clear that it is a non-sectarian socialist syndicate. It does not endorse any specific philosophical school of socialist thought. The IAF seems to be an explicitly anarchist organization, but it still doesn't make sense to pipe to it's page when referencing the IWW. They are two different organizations.--Cast (talk) 01:45, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Back to the issue: does anarchism mean that decisions are made through direct democracy or consensus?  TFD (talk) 05:24, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Pardon for the late response. I think the article makes it clear that there is a divergence of organizational practice among different anarchist tendencies. There is no uniform conception of an anarchist society. Historically, those communities which took part in anarchist revolutions, organizational structures were often adhoc and hardly uniform. Even in the largest scale anarchist revolution of western Europe, Spain of 1936, the organizational form depended on local circumstances. In the absence of a overseeing authority, communities choose what models worked best for them. We can expect hypothetical future anarchist socities to function as hybrid, mixed economic and political orders. But that is also besides the point, because the issue at heart is: "does anarcho-communism mean that decisions are made through direct democracy or consensus?" Consider that the -communism in anarcho-communism does not refer to a governing system. It refers to post-scarcity economic model. Anarcho-communists did suggest modes of political organization, but this was secondary to their theoretical modes of economic organization. I think this paragraph and sentence are missing the point. It doesn't need to explain what anarcho-communists wanted on a political level. It should explain what their economic goals were. --Cast (talk) 06:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)