Talk:Anarchism/Archive 62

Mises quote
Hello, this quote is currently attributed to Mises in the article, "the first anarchist in the history of human thought" in reference to Zhuangzi. However, the citation provided points to an article written by Rothbard in which the sentence, "The influential Chuang Tzu, a great stylist who wrote in allegorical parables, was therefore the first anarchist in the history of human thought", appears to be written by Rothbard himself and not attributed to anyone else. Does someone have the citation for the quote by Mises, or was this a mistake? Thanks Evidenceplease (talk) 17:17, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Been a couple weeks with no response. I'm going to assume it was a mistake until there is reason to think otherwise.  Rothbard was certainly not the first to suggest that anarchist tendencies could be dated as far back as Taoist figures, nor that Taoists were the first anarchists.  Off the top of my head I know that Edward Abbey, Rudolf Rocker and Kropotkin all made similar claims previously.  Further, others (like various primitivists) have suggested even earlier instances of anarchism dating to pre-history.  The claim to anarchism that stretches back farthest in history that I can find would be from Kropotkin, who argued that "we can therefore say that from all times there have been Anarchists and Statists".  Kropotkin claimed this in addition to specifically referring to Lao-tzu and Zeno, as well as having written 75 years before Rothbard, so he would seem a better choice to be quoted here.  I'll go ahead and make this change in a couple weeks, unless there is good reason not to do so. Evidenceplease (talk) 17:27, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

First paragraph
In the first paragraph of the article there is a sentence that reads: "Proponents of anarchism (known as "anarchists") advocate stateless societies based on non-hierarchical[3][9][10] voluntary associations."

This simply is not true. Voluntaryists, specifically, advocate an entirely voluntary society. Many anarchists including anarcho-communists and anarcho-capitalists believe in varying forms of coercion. As a matter of fact I believe ALL other anarchist schools of thought would all use some kind of force or other with the installation of a centralized system so voluntaryists are the only anarchists that advocate a society based on voluntary associations. Elodoth (talk) 00:05, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

>> "based on voluntary associations" is not synonymous with "advocate an entirely voluntary society". Also, if we're talking about anarchist schools of thought that explicitly advocate entirely voluntary societies, we need to provide citations or refer to thinkers who've proposed this. (Ahwoooga (talk) 19:49, 4 December 2011 (UTC))

I have read many major works on anarchist history by main anarchist historians such as Max Nettlau, Daniel Guerin and George Woodcock and works on both anarcho-communism history and individualist anarchism history and I have done this in the english, french and spanish languages. In all of theses I never found the word or a supposed section of anarchists that call themselves "voluntarists". I don´t know from where User:Elodoth gets the word "voluntarysm" but it seems to me it is definitely not something coming from anarchist history and tradition and I don´t see it in contemporary anarchism either.--Eduen (talk) 06:14, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

It would be useful to see the sources that Elodoth is reliant upon for these suggested edits. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

History/Origins/Para.1
I don't know about this topic so I can't fix it myself, but the following (run-on) sentence is nearly incomprehensible:
 * "Such a distinction reverberates subversive religious conceptions like the aforementioned seemingly anarchistic Taoist teachings and that of other anti-authoritarian religious traditions creating a complex relationship regarding the question as to whether or not anarchism and religion are compatible."

Can someone please fix that gobbledegook so that it makes some sense? This is Wikipedia, not your Masters' thesis; write for a general audience, please. 24.210.212.158 (talk) 15:14, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

"anarchist themes can be found in the 6th century BC, among the works of Taoist philosopher Laozi,[43]" <--The source [43] states only:  "At the same time it evidently found its expression in the writings of some thinkers, since the times of Lao-tsze, although, owing to its non-scholastic and popular origin, it obviously found less sympathy among the scholars than the opposed tendency." The source does not state that anarchist themes can be found in Laozi's works, as the Tao De Ching is anything but an anarchist work (道德經沒有). 71.33.177.109 (talk) 16:47, 29 December 2011 (UTC)12/29/11

Anarchists Defendants in North America
With the rise in visibility for anarchism/anarchists in contemporary politic discourse, it seems to me that there should be a page or subcategory of "anarchists defendants" chronicling the history of north american anarchists brought to court by the state or other parties. Does anyone have experience with wikipedia that could help? There are both contemporary and historical articles elsewhere on wikipedia that detail these specific cases, and it seems notable and relevant to compile summaries of each onto one page, and link to it in the "anarchism" category portal. (Ahwoooga (talk) 20:50, 4 December 2011 (UTC))
 * Ahwoooga, that sounds like a promising project. Might I suggest you join us over at the Anarchism Task Force and we can hammer it out? (The usual process is to write the separate article, and then summarise it in the main Anarchism article once it's finished). Regards,  Skomorokh   20:56, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I would keep different countries separate. TFD (talk) 18:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If anyone is interested in working on this, i created a user-page draft for this, it exists here: Anarchist Defendants in North America (draft) (Ahwoooga (talk) 08:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC))
 * While some of the people on your list are clearly anarchists (Sacco and Vanzetti, Emma Goldman), others are not normally described that way (MOVE, the Unabomber). It seems that any list would have neutrality problems.  Also, all the persons/groups listed are Americans.  TFD (talk) 16:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Lawless and chaotic
I'm sure wiki editors are aware of this but not often the general public. The words anarchic, anarchist and anarchy in this article relect a more formal usage. However, in common useage they are most associated with lawless and chaotic behavior or they are used as pejoratives. To avoid this morphing from formal defiinitions, I sometimes hear people now useing anti-hiarchy or anti-hierarchism. I certainly think a cautionary statement should be included in the introduction. To prove my point, here are some thesaurus and dictionary examples from Encarta ® World English Dictionary © 2005 Microsoft Corporation, which probably commonly used.

Thesaurus; anarchist insurgent, nihilist, rebel, revolutionary, terrorist Dictionary; anarchic   adj   1. lawless: showing no respect for established laws, rules, institutions, or authority 2. chaotic: characterized by a lack of organization or control 3. encouraging anarchy: likely to cause the overthrow of a formal system of government or a breakdown of law and order   anarchist   n   2. lawless person: somebody who tries to overthrow a government or behaves in a lawless way anarchy   n  1. chaotic situation: a situation in which there is a total lack of organization or control Abject Normality (talk) 14:47, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Anarchism vs. Anarchy
Can we please have a section explaining the difference between these two similarly named terms? I, for one am quite confused to what the distinction is.--Coin945 (talk) 02:26, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Anarchists of course are the people who want to create and propagandize for the social situation called anarchy. Anarchy means human relations without hierarchy. I think we could include the definition of "anarchy" in the "Etymology and terminology" section. --Eduen (talk) 07:19, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I didn't mean the difference between anarchists and anarchy - that is simple enough. I meant the distinction between Anarchism and Anarchy - something which is discussed at these (albeit non-notable) websites . Despite the examples being from non-notable sources, I think it is an important enough notion to include in the article, for anyone trying to get an overview of the concept.--Coin945 (talk) 03:32, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Anarchists schools of thought should go before history
This is consistent with other articles. Before we go over the history of anarchism, we need to go over what it is. In order to do that, we need to explain what the different types of anarchism are and how they differ. Byelf2007 (talk) 10 February 2012


 * I don't have an opinion one way or the other; I've seen articles the other way as well. However, I must ask you to please stop edit-warring while this is being discussed. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

"Schools of thought" does not describe "what anarchism is". "What anarchism is" was already described in the Introduction and in etymology. "Schools of thought" deals with debates inside the particular position (something very different) and it is clearly more specialized knowledge and up to a point something more of interest to those "inside" anarchism than to outsiders and those who just want to have some understading what anarchism is about. On the other hand "History" deals with the evolution of the position and so for the uninformed reader this is more helpful in knowing where this particular idea comes from and what has been the evolution of it in relation to specific issues of the times.--Eduen (talk) 23:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Eduen, please stop edit-warring while this is being discussed. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:08, 11 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Eduen, the "anarchist school of thought" goes over the different types of anarchism, not necessarily debates within the position (that's what the "Internal issues and debates" section is). I think it would be good to include more info on the various strains of anarchism near the beginning, because that deals with what anarchism is, as it consists not only of its definition, but also what is subsumed under its definition (the schools). How about this: we create an "overview", which will include some of the lede and some of the "anarchist schools of thought", while the rest of "anarchist schools of thought" will be combined with "internal issues and debates" (pro-property vs anti-property, pro-intellectual property vs anti-intellectual property, pro-violence vs agorism vs pacifism, etc). Does that sound good? Byelf2007 (talk) 11 February 2012

The introduction to this article is already long enough. As far as "the schools" the section history deals with that presenting their emerging with specific historical events (the protestant peasant revolts, the enlightenment, the revolutions of 1848, the First International, the consolidation of the labour movements, the early 20th century revolutions, fascism, etc). It also does with the important names such as Godwin, Warren, Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Malatesta, the spanish CNT, the Haymarket square anarchists, etc. "Schools of thought" does not make visible this historical vision as well as some discussions within their specific historical context. Internal issues and debates I think is also big enough and to tell you the truth all the major historical works on anarchism (Daniel Guerin, George Woodcock, Max Nettlau) do not really present as such important issues those you present. I have read all of those and there is no discussion over the word "agorism" (what is that?), intelectual property and such. Violence vs. non-violence is already touched upon on the introduction itself and Anarcho pacifism is touched upon in the introduction, the historical section and "post-classical currents". What has been an important discussion from the 20th century until today has been the debate between synthesis anarchism, platformism and insurrectionary anarchism and it is dealt in the section on the Russian revolution and other revolts. This article has to present and overview of the issue and the specific reader is free to click on any link of his interest. The anarchism template is also a good tool for those to investigate deeper in some issues. It seems to me you want to give more importance to doctrinaire discussions but they have a historical and geographical context that should not be ignored and which will get lost if from the beginning we start overemphasizing political theory discussions. What also happens with that method of presentation is possibly undue importance given to minoritarian or too recent viewpoints when we know wikipedia intends to present viewpoints in proportion to the real importance and influence in a given subject.

Now if you ask my opinion on the schools of thought section I think it might be better to split the "social anarchism" section into individual sections for Anarcho-syndicalism, collectivist anarchism and anarcho-communism since they have been the main schools of thought of "classical anarchism" and all of them individually has had much of a bigger influence on society that all of individualist anarchism which is a section that is good as it stands and which is the other school that is usually included in the "classical schools of thought" concept. Post-classical schools is good as it stands since we should not give these new positions the same individual space as the main 4 classical schools of anarchism. This mainly since they are recent developments (more or less from the 1960s onwards) and their existence as real movements is in some cases only in the form of intellectual theorization while on the other hand we have today anarcho-syndicalist trade unions, platformist anarcho-communist national federations and national synthesis anarchist federations and some of these organizations are in some cases more than half a century old (ex: Federation Anarchiste, Italian Anarchist Federation, Iberian Anarchist Federation, Confederacion Nacional del Trabajo, etc) and in the case of the spanish anarcho-syndicalist trade unions (the previously mentioned CNT and also CGT)they have memberships over the 100 thousands.--Eduen (talk) 22:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. Byelf2007 (talk) 13 February 2012

Unschooling
Hey, we need a link to unschooling at the heading for anarchist schools so that people can get a balanced view, nicht war?Leutha (talk) 21:52, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Unshcooling is briefly dealt in the section in Issues in anarchism in the part of education. Nevertheless unschooling is not only of anarchist origin and cannot be said to be an anarchist school of thought as that term is usually used in anarchist historiography and political theory analysis.--Eduen (talk) 22:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Sections order
I'd like to move the "internal debates and issues" and "topics of interest" sections around. My argument is that in getting people to understand subject, we're supposed to go from the broad/important points to the specific/relatively non-important ones, and, in this respect, i think it's much better to cover internal debates before other "topics of interest". What do you think?

Also, you made some big edits with the anarcho-communism, collectivist anarchism, and anarcho-syndicalism, so I'd like you to also not make big edits on this page without consulting me first from now on (not that I think you've done this again since those edits, as your more recent ones have been small). Byelf2007 (talk) 14 February 2012

Byelf2007 said "You didn't get consensus for your recent edits either (which taken together, amount to a big change), so what's the rub? Did you really object to every edit I made, or just some of them? Personally, I don't care about your editing without consensus because I'm a "be bold" editor, so I'm fine with other people doing this, as I can always revert if I have a problem with changes (I usually don't, and didn't with respect to your recent edits)."

Mostly I just reverted back your editions and sometimes with long justification provided in this Talk section as can be seen in my previous arguments provided here. A lot of what you have pretended to edit have been long consensus with other users and done collectively. Nevertheless I have to question in some instances you actual knowledge of anarchist history and thought while in others you seem to want to import things which are not really relevant to anarchism and so I reverted things which really show lack of that knowledge with the corresponding argument for that here in this Talk section as can be seen before this.

As far as your proposal for Overview I remember no so long ago it was reverted by another User. I have to suggest you to first argue your changes here before proceeding. I think that is the best solution to this edit war. Personally I have tried to do that here. I have made some changes before and mostly they have been uncontroversial because I first brought them here for discussion.

And of course as far as your fixation with the title of the section on history called "Fight againts fascism, the spanish revolution..." it is something more or less about not being careful about what the actual content of that section is about. That sentence is the logical form of summarizing the content. If you take off one of those three parts you don´t do justice to the actual contents.--Eduen (talk) 09:03, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

"Also, you made some big edits with the anarcho-communism, collectivist anarchism, and anarcho-syndicalism, so I'd like you to also not make big edits on this page without consulting me first from now on (not that I think you've done this again since those edits, as your more recent ones have been small)."

Tell me specifically what you didn´t agree with and we can discuss it here. They were not big format changes really, only small additions to new sections you just created. As far as the small changes on the anarchocommunism section I just added content from the "anarcho-communism" article which I personally have been improving in recent times without much controversy (as can be seen in the talk section and the editions history of that article) and which I know very well.

This unlike what you have tried to do here in this article which have been big format changes of the whole structure of this article and also important changes on the introduction itself without previous discussion here in this talk section. Once I came before and asked for opinions on changing a specific picture and I wondered If this was exaggeration of diplomacy and democracy. Now after all the changes and especially in the way you have made them I understand that this is an important global article which I think is better that changes proposed be done in that careful way, and this especially as far the introduction. --Eduen (talk) 09:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * "Tell me specifically what you didn´t agree with and we can discuss it here." I didn't say I disagreed with any of the edits.


 * You still haven't commented on my proposal for changing the sections order. Byelf2007 (talk) 15 February 2012

Suggestion: Anarchism Task Force
In an effort to resolve the differences of opinion between Byelf2007 and Eduen concerning the structure of the article, may I suggest asking members of the Anarchism Task Force to review the article and offer their comments? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:59, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd like to note that I have only one outstanding disagreement with him (the sections order). Byelf2007 (talk) 15 February 2012

Well ther is also your strong dislike with the title of the section "fight against fascism, the spanish revolution and World War II" which you have edited many times. Maybe if you can explain why is that since to me it is sucha small detail but it is clear something in it you really don´t seem to like.--Eduen (talk) 01:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I already have. And you haven't changed the title, so I assumed you were cool with it.


 * My problem with the title is that "fight against fascism" (when included with the others) is redundant when we also mention "Spanish revolution" and "WW2" because what we talk about with respect to those things are ALSO fights with fascism, so it implies that they were only fighting fascism when they were fighting the Italians, even though the Spanish and Germans were also fascist. Byelf2007 (talk) 15 February 2012

Those three things might be related but a different thing is to say that they are the same things. The Spanish Revolution the CNT-FAI not only fought with fascists but also expropiated landowners and the bourgoise, so in that case that event was more than "fight againts fascism". It was a social revolution and as the event in which anarchists achieved the biggest impact on society it deserves special treatment.--Eduen (talk) 01:33, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * This is a good point. I think the only good solution is just to split up each issue into its own subsection. Does that sound good? Byelf2007 (talk) 16 February 2012

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 "Graham-2005": From Wage slavery: Robert Graham, Anarchism - A Documentary History of Libertarian Ideas - Volume One: From Anarchy to Anarchism (300CE to 1939), Black Rose Books, 2005 From Social anarchism:  From Libertarian socialism: Murray Bookchin, Ghost of Anarcho-Syndicalism; Robert Graham, The General Idea of Proudhon's Revolution From Anarchist schools of thought: From Wage slavery: Robert Graham, Anarchism - A Documentary History of Libertarian Ideas - Volume One: From Anarchy to Anarchism (300CE to 1939), Black Rose Books, 2005 

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 ⚡ 11:43, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Morality and egoist anarchism and mass movements
I appreciate the fact that User:Byelf2007 openly manifests that he doesn´t understand what is meant by "morally unrestrained" in the context of stirnerist egoist anarchism. In the philosophy of Max Stirner as well as in, the also very influential in individualist anarchism, Friedrich Nietzsche there is a strong critique of moralizing and of morality as forms of social control used by social ideologies such as christianity and the state, for more on this see Post-left_anarchy.--Eduen (talk) 04:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Mass movements are movements which mobilize important amounts of people and not just in streets protests. So there is clearly a difference between a group of intellectuals who gather in small meetings or through blogs and social webs and movements like the CNT-FAI in the 1920s and 1930s had around a million members and armed militias around the country and who could carry out expropiations of big agricultural lands through the movilization of hundreds of peasants. In Ukraine a similar mass strenght could be found in the local anarchist movement and so an anarchist army led by Nestor Makhno was able to defeat both white right wing armies and the Bolshevik red army. In places like France and Italy and Argentina less strenght could be found but nevertheless there was so many anarchist newspapers and the anarchist trade unions could have members around the thousands. At this point I start to really question the actual knowledge that User:Byelf2007 has on the history of anarchism. I suggest him reading some of the historical works mentioned in the bibliography in this article. --Eduen (talk) 04:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Inclusion of "Anarchism! What geography still ought to be" in Further Readings list
Springer's article "Anarchism! What geography still ought to be" (http://uvic.academia.edu/SimonSpringer/Papers/590303/Anarchism_What_geography_still_ought_to_be) should be included in the Further Readings list, and should not be repeatedly deleted. Eduen's original reason for deletion was "the works included here should be about anarchism in general and not about specific issues such as geography". However, the article in question is about anarchism in general... hence the title is simply "Anarchism!", with the subtitle being an nod to Peter Kropotkin's famous article "What geography out to be". Eduen then responded "nice article but it explicitly says in its abstract "A call to geographers" and later it says it is a "manifesto for anarchist geographies"". In fact the abstract and introduction of the article makes clear that it is a call to "geographers and non-geographers alike", and while it is positioned as a "manifesto for anarchist geographies", a fuller understanding of the way geography is used in the article appreciates that this simply means the article attends to the inescapable spatiality of anarchism, which is a concept not only of philosophy, but importantly of (direct) action... where such action must occur in actual, material space. In other words, anarchism without geography is meaningless, it is pure abstraction. Also, as geographer Richard Peet once suggested, "Anarchist theory is a geographical theory" and vice versa. Including an article where anarchism is clearly the overarching and most substantive focus, while geography is simply used to illustrate the importance of anarchism is not a deviation from the intention of the "Further Readings" list. This is no different then the inclusion of Peter Marshall's "history" of anarchism or Harold Barclay's "Anthropology" of anarchism. Why should geography be excluded? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheUnknownGuest (talk • contribs) 20:51, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I may be mistaken, but I don't see a single monograph among the "Further reading" items. The proposed item is qualitatively different from every other book on the list with the possible exception of Anarchy Alive!, which may be a candidate for removal.
 * Another quality all the items share (except Anarchy Alive! and Against the State): Either the book or the author is sufficiently notable to qualify for a Wikipedia article. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:13, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't the whole idea of "sufficiently notable" contradict the very principles of anarchism? Isn't anarchism about the ideas and action of people, not the reputation and prestige of authors? And what exactly do you mean by a "monograph"? Books are a form of monograph as well, and many are listed here. I also don't think Gordon's book should be a candidate for removal either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheUnknownGuest (talk • contribs) 01:26, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

There is the Book by David Graeber on anarchist antropology and I know of a few papers on the relationship between international relations and Anarchism. ¿Should we include them in the general anarchism article?. I think not. The bibliography section should include works which deal with anarchism in general as a political philosophy and its history. The case of the book "Anarchy alive!" is different since it deals with the political philosophy in general and so I support that it stays.--Eduen (talk) 19:48, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Grammar
"there were few who struck the note of social revolt characteristic of later anarchists" is better than "stuck the note", but the sentence should be reworded into better English 24.62.156.219 (talk) 06:10, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Poorly Sourced Lede Statements
There are several statements in the lede paragraphs that are supported only by one citation, and some of these are very questionable...is it true that propaganda of the deed is "coercive" or is that the opinion of one author? Is it accurate to say "not all anarchist tendencies are mutually exclusive" or does that imply that most are when in fact most are not? I recommend deleting all of these poorly sourced statements, but I wanted to run it by the active editors to see what you guys think. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 00:44, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Someone Having a Laugh: Theory is a Link, Practice is Not
Has anyone noticed that the sidebar linking to anarchism articles includes a link to theory next to the blacked-out (non-link) word "practice"? Someone's having a laugh. Either that, or there needs to be a good page for that to link to, with examples of real-world anarchist practice. People like having a laugh about it, saying "That never happened because it's impossible". We should prove them wrong.

70.185.182.69 (talk) 14:00, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I candidate for practice would be History of anarchism Jonpatterns (talk) 14:56, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Jonpatterns, that article (History on Anarchism) is already linked to in this article's index, under 'History'. I think perhaps a better candidate would be List of Anarchist communities. Although admittedly this article is not the best, it provides a better example of Anarchism in practice.

Libertarianism sidebar
As it stands now, the libertarianism sidebar is not reflective of the recent changes and expansions of the main "libertarianism" article. As such I understand why someone could think the "libertarianism" banner doesn't belong in this article since it deals mainly with neoliberalism and pro-capitalist liberalism themes, personalities and concepts. So I propose we could admit that sidebar to be in this, the anarchism article only after making that sidebar be in accurate accordance to the current libertarianism article. In the state that the "libertarianism" sidebar is today, it seems as out of place in this article as if we decided to include the anarchism sidebar in the conservatism, catholicism or fascism articles.--Eduen (talk) 01:40, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Since no answers were given to this, i will procede to take out that sidebar from this article.--Eduen (talk) 19:52, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

On the mention here of "anarcho" capitalism
I think, alongside most people inside the anarchist movement, that "anarcho"-capitalism cannot be considered a part of the anarchist movement due to basic definitional reasons since anarchism is a movement againts hierarchies and capitalist enterprises are some of the most hierarchical things even created by humans. "anarcho" capitalism is clearly a right wing movement which belongs and mainly collaborates with neoliberal and conservative movements and politics and so it can be considered a political enemy by most anarchists as much as fascism is. That is the reason why anarchism has historically and in contemporary times been one of the main actors of anti-capitalist movements alongside marxism. This went as far as motivating the followers of italian-american anarchist Luigi Galleani to put a bomb in the building of the Wall Street Sock Exchange in 1920. I am aware that one can find neoliberal authors (mainly in the US) that self label themselves "anarchists" so i could not stop anyone from placing a mention here of "anarcho" capitalism even if I consider that word ridiculous and gravely ignorant of the history of anarchism, even if all the serious historical works on the history and philosophy of anarchism as well as the Encyclopedia Britannica article on anarchism don´t mention it and even if the mention of it in this article will look misplaced alongside all the communist and expropriatory authors authors mentioned in this article. So according to the policies of wikipedia we can mention here "anarcho" capitalism just as there exists a fascist author in England who is fusing anarchism with fascism who was allowed to have an article of his bizarre idea here in wikipedia and even if in the outside world in anarchist spaces "anarcho" capitalists are not taken seriously as anarchist and if they show up in an anarchist event they are thrown out immediately. I found out that exact thing happened once in the US in an anarchist bookfair where they asked [to leave an "anarcho" capitalist group who tried to exhibit their books there. Also in the US based internet forum anarchy101 they don´t let "anarcho"-capitalists answer questions.

For these reasons I think is necesary to mention here the controversy regarding anarcho-capitalism after the mention of it. Also the reason why i moved anarcho-capitalism to the end of the section "post-classical currents" is since it is a very recent and small phenomenon alongisde other recent developments like anarcho-primitivism or post-left anarchy while a current like anarcha-feminism exists since the XIX century and platformism and synthesis anarchism from the 1920s onward and they have motivated big national federations in countries like Italy, France, Spain, Cuba and Mexico.--Eduen (talk) 04:46, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 * No, it is not a movement against hierarchies at all. It simply means "without rulers". That's the proper definition; anything else is just adding more than is actually there, like some people thinking that atheism is the same as communism. And historically, only catholics can be christians, yet clearly there are more than just catholics in christianity. IOW: the fallacious appeal to "historically" just won't work. Look--we all know you dislike anarchocapitalism; we get it. But please stop trying to push your very narrow POV on to the rest of the people, ok? - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 13:45, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

well, if the CEOs and the bosses in your workplace are not rulers inside the workplace and towards the rest of society certainly then the word "rulers" is meaningless. As far as me "trying to push my point of view" your particular struggle is not really againts me but againts history and the definition of anarchism. i bet someone also invented satanic christianity but that person cannot expect to deserve the same respect and attention in the wikipedia articles on christianity or satanism.--Eduen (talk) 15:16, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Eduen, I understand the arguments that ancap is non-anarchist, and it obviously is not a part of anarchism in a traditional sense. I would like to reiterate that as long as most reliable sources provide a definition which is consistent with an-cap, then an-cap ought to be anarchist according to this site.


 * I approve your changes and your reasoning for them make sense. It's important that we have that in there. Otherwise, the reader might assume that an-cap is very old and almost always considered anarchist. Byelf2007 (talk) 17 November 2012

Anarcho-capitalism and individualist anarchism
The continuity between individualist anarchism and "anarcho"-capitalism seems to me is weak at best. US individualist anarchism more or less dissapeared after Benjamin Tucker went into exile to France in 1909. On the other hand the writings of the creator of the word "anarcho-capitalism" Murray Rothbard in which he uses that word date from the 1960s so we have an important problem of discontinuity and most likely a divergence of lines and traditions of thought. In oppossition to the theories of Benjamin Tucker (who at some point embraced Max Stirner´s egoism) he continues believing in natural rights theories and his problematics owe more to the neoclassical economic theories of the Austrian School and his relationship with the US laissez faire liberal pro-capitalist movements which there at some point decided to call themselves "libertarian". Also Benjamin Tucker economic views could be summarized as follows "There are three forms of usury; interest on money, rent of land and houses, and profit in exchange. Whoever is in receipt of any of these is a usurer. And who is not? Scarcely any one. The banker is a usurer; the manufacturer is a usurer; the merchant is a usurer; the landlord is a usurer; and the workingman who puts his savings, if he has any, out at interest, or takes rent for his house or lot, if he owns one, or exchanges his labor for more than an equivalent, — he too is a usurer. The sin of usury is one under which all are concluded, and for which all are responsible. But all do not benefit by it. The vast majority suffer. Only the chief usurers accumulate: in agricultural and thickly-settled countries, the landlords; in industrial and commercial countries, the bankers. Those are the Somebodies who swallow up the surplus wealth...The usurer is the Somebody, and the State is his protector. Usury is the serpent gnawing at labor’s vitals, and only liberty can detach and kill it. Give laborers their liberty, and they will keep their wealth." Benjamin Tucker. Individual Liberty. This is more or less the same views of Pierre Joseph Proudhon, a name in the pantheon of classical writers of anarchism alongside Bakunin and Kropotkin, also a clear anti-capitalst author just as Benjamin Tucker but unlike Rothbard. Now if i wanted to point out writers from outside anarchism who have been influenced by anarchists i could mention how Proudhon influenced some sectors of the french far right (see Cercle Proudhon) as well as anarchists. As such this issue of continuity between individualist anarchism and anarcho-capitalism seems very vague on top if we decide to point out the fact that the relationship with european individualist anarchism could be even farther away or as related to it as with marxism or fascism. Where I do see a line of continuity (though still a little too distanced in time scope) is that which will connect a contemporary neo-mutualist author like Kevin Carson and his adherence to both Proudhon and Benjamin Tucker. It is not the same case with "anarcho" capitalism and this can be seen by reading the bibliography of Murray Rothbard provided by the wikipedia article on him. His whole problematic is of neoclassical economics and as such more closely related with economists like Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek of which we should consider Rothbard just a more radical version. In one book Rothbard even dedicates himself with a lament, from a clear inside point of view, with what he sees as a bad thing in a betrayal of the contemporary US right wing of what he sees as the Old Right (see The_Betrayal_of_the_American_Right). I could think this is as far as one can get from being in distance from anarchist problems and objectives as one can be unless one can find a self-described anarchist lamenting that Deng Xiaoping betrayed the Chinese Revolution and Mao Tse Tung or another complaining that Hitler betrayed the origins of National-Socialism or another saying that Margaret Thatcher deviated from old true conservatism or another saying complaining that Tony Blair betrayed old Labour Party ideals.--Eduen (talk) 05:53, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I decided check out once again the anarcho-capitalism article. As it stands now the section on US individualist anarchism in that article mostly points out that Murray Rothbard read Benjamin Tucker and ended up disagreeing with him a lot so as to make one wonder why do they mention them at all and not the marxists and the welfare state advocates as well that they also dissagree with. In the crucial aspects of the disagreement is precisely in the anti-capitalist aspects of Tucker. In the same way Emma Goldman read Leon Trotsky and ended up criticizing him a lot (see this article of hers)and no one has argued that because of that Goldman is a marxist. Rudolf Rocker had a work on nationalism (Nationalism and Culture and for it he must have read nationalist and fascist authors and works and no one ended suggesting Rocker was a nationalist and a fascist. In the same way if Benjamin Tucker is an individualist and supports a market of sorts just like Murray Rothbard, Emma Goldman is an anti-capitalist like Leon Trostky and she also ended up opposing the URSS regime just like Trotsky after the rise of Stalin. Oh, both Emma Goldman and Trostky were born in the Russian empire just as both Tucker and Rothbard in the US. So ¿where is the continuity between individualist anarchism and the positions of Rothbard? It seems to me that if we decide in this article to say that anarcho-capitalism follows or is in continuation with US individualist anarchism of the 19th century we also will have to include Leon Trostky here as an anarchist using the same vague logic.

For a deeper and more rigorous analysis on why anarcho-capitalism cannot be considered a form of individualist anarchism and why there is no continuity between these two theories check G.3 Is "anarcho"-capitalism a new form of individualist anarchism? inside An Anarchist FAQ.--Eduen (talk) 19:22, 21 November 2012 (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 "ideology": From Individualist anarchism: "Spectres of Stirner: a Contemporary Critique of Ideology" From Anarchist schools of thought: "Post-Left Anarchy: Leaving the Left Behind Prologue to Post-Left Anarchy" by Jason McQuinn 

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 ⚡ 22:29, 19 November 2012 (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 "graham":<ul> <li>From Yangism: </li> <li>From History of anarchism: </li> <li>From Anarchism in Cuba: </li> <li>From Agriculturalism: </li> </ul>

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 ⚡ 00:55, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Talk on edits I'd like to make in opening paragraphs (greybirch)
"However, anarchism has always included an individualist strain, egoist strain, and free market strain.[19][20][21]"
 * I propose this sentence is removed. To say anarchism has always included an individualist, egoist and free market strains is a dubious claim, especially when considering the unclear origins of an "anarchist" culture and existence. Also, none of the references suggest that these elements have always been included in anarchism.
 * Update: removed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greybirch (talk • contribs) 05:44, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

"Some individualist anarchists are also socialists or communists[22][23] while some anarcho-communists are also individualists.[24][25]"
 * Whether "some individualist anarchists are socialists or communists" seems a strange thing to put in the opening of the article. I propose relocation (suggestions to where?) or removal. Also, one reference for this information is from Renzo Novatore, where the point being conveyed is that some anarchists favour communal use, not a state of communism (quote:"Because revolution is the fire of our will and a need of our solitary minds; it is an obligation of the libertarian aristocracy. To create new ethical values. To create new aesthetic values. To communalize material wealth. To individualize spiritual wealth." Renzo Novatore. Toward the Creative Nothing)

"There are many types and traditions of anarchism, not all of which are mutually exclusive.[14]"
 * Sentence implies that there are types and traditions of anarchism which are mutually exclusive. Whether or not this statement is "true" (I think it isn't), I'm going to check the referenced document at my next library trip. I really doubt that it provides evidence to support such a statement.

"Many anarchists oppose all forms of aggression, supporting self-defense or non-violence (anarcho-pacifism),[30][31] while others have supported the use of some coercive measures, including violent revolution and propaganda of the deed, on the path to an anarchist society.[32]
 * Strange sentence for opening paragraphs because it brings concepts of "aggression" and "violence" into play without a real context (i.e. how do anarchists define these terms, why are they opposed or in support of these things? An exploration of this topic might better be explored in the Internal issues & debates section?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Greybirch (talk • contribs) 18:52, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I support the deletion of the mention of "a free market strain" in the introduction done by user Greybirch. Mutualism is covered in the article and it was an important current in the mid 19th century but it tended to lose support as time passed and it was almost nonexistent by the time of the Spanish Revolution. In contemporary times it is a literary phenomenon of sorts (Kevin Carson) but it is not really that influential in anarchist organizations belonging to International of Anarchist Federations which are the biggest contemporary anarchist organizations besides anarchosyndicalist trade unions. It seems to be also that this particular mention (of "a free market") might have been pleasing to a follower of the bizzarely titled US phenomenon known as "anarcho"-capitalism but certainly mentioning that in the introduction of this article will be againts the wikipedia policy dealing with fringe theories. In this case the claim that there can be an "anarcho" capitalism is certainly a fringe theory which cannot expect too much consideration if it gets some at all in this article.--Eduen (talk) 01:31, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

As i check the paragraph again it seems that there was an implication that being individualist runs counter to being left wing. For those with doubts about left wing individualism can check the article individualism and the essay by Oscar Wilde called The Soul of Man Under Socialism.--Eduen (talk) 01:45, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Individualism, free market anarchism, anarcho capitalism
I've just added links to pre-eminent anarchists in the individualist classical liberal tradition. These people include the greatest economists of the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries as well as the authors of political philosophy behind the libertarian movement. I'm aware libertarian anarchism or free market propertarian anarchism may conflict with the egalitarian contributers of this page but this isn't about editors political philosophy. The fact is these writers thought and wrote about market anarchy and theorised the state as illegitimate. There inclusion isn't a matter of weight at all.

I'm reverting these unexplained edits: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anarchism&diff=531472624&oldid=531457606 People can use the talk page (but I don't want to hear about editors political philosophy. That's obviously irrelevant) Rothbardanswer (talk) 17:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * It's a matter of WP:UNDUE and linkspam, not political philosophy. Please explain why this article—a general introduction to anarchism—needs so many links to one site? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 17:30, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Adding links to these books from this article is spamming. TFD (talk) 17:43, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * How TFD? I don't think this is a matter of weight. Free market anarchism has no representation. Rothbardanswer (talk) 18:28, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * That's not the point, but it does have representation. This page thoroughly discusses Proudhon, the Mutualists, etc. I would also like to remind you, once again, that the individualist anarchists were anti-capitalists (socialists) basically without exception. I've already given you the references on the market anarchism article page. Finx (talk) 18:32, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I've already said I'm not arguing politics with you Finx. I'm also not going to teach you economics. You've vandalised the free market anarchism page and filed the talk section with a political tirade. The only thing I will emphasise is our politics is irrelevant. You should be able to make contributions with citations to pages about things you may love or hate with neutrality. The edit you made to free market anarchism took away all sources and replaced the lead with your own criticism. I've already said the proper course of action would be to publish an analysis that becomes popular and EVEN THEN lots of primary sources that you're criticising in the talk page would have a place in the article for historical significance. We aren't the economist. We aren't the political philosophers. We aren't even the critics. We're neutral. Your job isn't to offer criticism of Gustav De Molinari.

Rothbardanswer (talk) 19:43, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Please keep to topic. Mpov (talk) 19:46, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I have absolutely no idea why this user is repeatedly accusing me of debating politics. If you look through my contribution history you will not find a single sentence where I had criticized someone's political ideas or offered my personal political opinion on anything. To the best of my understanding, it is not 'my political opinion' that the history of individualist and market anarchism has a long, anti-capitalist tradition. Finx (talk) 20:08, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Is there any Consensus here?
Each year this article says something essentially different from the previus year about its own definition. Now, someone can explain me which one is the consensus in this article about a) general definition of anarchism for the introduction section b) relevance or presence of anarcho-capitalism (text or images) in the article. Please, forget about "the correct (branch of) anarchism" or "majority of anarchists" arguments, I don't care if you don't have a census to prove that. I ask for an explanation in Wikipedia paradigms. Thank you very much. --Sageo (talk) 19:22, 31 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I notice there is an error of redaction in the introduction here: "Proponents of anarchism, known as "anarchists", advocate stateless societies based on non-hierarchical[5][11][12] voluntary associations.[13][14]". The references expose different definitions nor a unified one. So, the redaction with these references could be something like: "Proponents of anarchism, known as "anarchists", advocate stateless societies, that (they want to organize through) (many times is defined like) non-hierarchical associations[5][11][12] or (sometimes only through what they call) voluntary associations.[13][14]". Or another sugestion: "Proponents of anarchism, known as "anarchists", advocate stateless societies. What an anarchist order should be is defined in some cases like non-hierarchical voluntary associations[5][11][12], and in other times like voluntary associations enough.[13][14]" References are telling something a little different, less emphatic and less uniform, than the redaction.. --Sageo (talk) 21:37, 31 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Other thing I notice, if anarcho-capitalism or libertarian anarchism is not mention in the introduction because is a very "minority" of anarchism (I'm not sure that if in current times that's so true), why a fringe case like this "Some individualist anarchists are also socialists or communists" is in the introduction? If individualist anachism is mention, in current times the principal stream is any sort of libertarian anarchism, not that communist anarcho-individualists (that I think is an isolated phenomenom). I think this distorssion could affect the external credibility of this article. --Sageo (talk) 22:00, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

1. Anarchism has never been reducible to anti-statism and so anarchists have fought many non state actors such as churches, capitalist businesses, "patriarchy" and fascists. So anarchist association has been thought of as non-hierarchical as coming from the definition of "anarchy" which means "no rulers". Mere "voluntary associations" can include hierarchical voluntary associations which might be voluntary and can even include "voluntary slavery". Clearly that will be voluntary but it will not be an anarchic relationship. States bureaucracies and capitalist corporations are voluntary relationships in the fact that salaried employees working in them are there voluntarely and can leave anytime they want, yet internally they are higly hierarchical organizations and so no one has ever said that those things are "anarchies" just because they are "voluntary". In fact those things are thought of as some of the most non-anarchic things existing and the main enemies of anarchists.

2. Individualism within anarcho-communism is widespread within insurrectionary anarchism which is present in many countries as the international network known as Informal Anarchist Federation shows and the many bombs and other similar propaganda by the deed actions claimed in different countries across continents. This goes as far as insurrectionists claiming actions under names like Individualists Tending towards the Wild. Alfredo Maria Bonanno has written extensively on Max Stirner. Wolfi Landstreicher went as far as recently translating Stirner´s Critics into english in a complete form and also puts out a publication under the name "My Own".

As Far as individualists anarchists being also socialists, that can be seen in mutualist US individualists like Benjamin Tucker who called himself "anarchic Socialist" and Lysander Spooner who was a member of the First International alongside Karl Marx and Bakunin. Also contemporary mutualist theorist (and also self described "individualist anarchist" who follows Tucker and Proudhon) Kevin Carson has many times characterized his position as socialist and here he defends the idea of socialism from criticisms. He and other US mutualists recently wrote in a compilation called Markets Not Capitalism.

As such one can very well think individualist anarchism is a small section of the socialist movement.--Eduen (talk) 19:31, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Eduen, I understand what you want to do for good, and I appreciate your willingness to collaborate. But you're doing something that publishers have not allowed. As publishers we can not use the items to make philosophy, to interpret the events in our own way to support our view.

You are right that in some points about historical anarchism is (was) as you say, and no one can refute and is not my intention to reject that, but that does not follow that it is right to replace large minorities instead placing small minority only because the latter are more Compatible with most historical or what you assume as most pleasant ideas to the concept of anarchism that you have (I understand that you interpret as a society of extreme democracy rather than contracts peaceful society). An example is your trying to pass historical individual anarchism like a) a current phenomenon in the 21º century (information without cronological context) b) a movement absolutly conected with present phenomena (an intepretation, in the way the historical individualist anarchism doesn't exist any more). But is no the only case.

In your edits, the very sources do not match between the scholarly philosophy says with what your redactions tell us. That is not allowed on Wikipedia, and you should consider rethinking how to write because you do not correct, it is a kind of deception whose place content referenced sources say so in theory is referenced. I do not think you do it with intention to damage the reputation of theories adverse to you, I hope.

I will list the error only from the introduction, hoping that there willingness on your part to correct them:

a) introduction speaks about "authority" as if political philosophy will have a very emphatic sense (that is not credible, in the way i like assume that there is a consensus on the definition only of justice, freedom, equality, merit, that don't exist). Also indicated sources contain no single definition as your editing apparent defend. Rather, each author will develop its own definition, some have points in common and points in divergence.

b) likewise Sources disagree on the definition of what or how would a free society without a state, and not all notions coincide. This have been hidden in the article.

c) As specialized source says it is obvious that there is a historical anarchism and contemporary anarchism, as different social phenomena that do not necessarily have a succession "post hoc ergo propter hoc". And instead you replaced this fact with marginal cases of more or less isolated individuals. The result is a relativization of the importance of more notorious phenomena.

b) The introduction speaks of diversity and non-dogmatism, not speaking of the current consensus among anarchists, which is true. Likewise, the reader is told that not all anarchisms are connected, but are more taxonomies. This is a legacy of previous pluralistic editions that have been erased. But that then contradicts the dogmatic handling given to the issue that your version of anarchism is a single block.

I think the problem you have with respect to handle the issue comes down to three things: 1) you suppose that by the word "anarchism" necessarily political philosophy has been to refer to "historical anarchist social movement", when more phenomena encompasses not even have to stay connected - making such amplitude with concepts like socialism or conservatism. 2) are not taking the issue as an outside observer describing all phenomena that occur around, but you are acting as an internal evaluator of value judgments that may be common within historic anarchist social movement. 3) when you do not find consensus on the sources you generate one that connects the sources, you think is necessary "make" a consensus even though in such sources it does not exist.

What is the solution to correct inconsistencies in the introduction? because of the difficulty of this article I recommend using sources from outside observers / academic thinkers who tell us about anarchist philosophy and anarchist currents, to avoid being Wikipedia editors who are dedicated to making such interpretations. In this way I wrote my contribution (deleted), placing what political philosophers tell us in reputable books on political issues to avoid interpretations from Wikipedia editors. Also the presence of certain characters in elevant sources, its presence in the media, or academia, or political activism, chronological differences, geopolitical context, and every context verifiable can give us a clearer notion to which should lead article with the minimun of interpretations.

Please, regret the extension of my speech, but this is because I see the good intention of an insistent user but seems he is damaging the credibility of the article rather than better. I say this with the utmost respect and likewise I would like a reasoned, logical, without hatred, thinking of Wikipedia and not their own political agendas. Thank you very much, and please don't make philosphy or interpretations for me in respond, I appreciate your intelligence but I don't care of that in this place, I prefer to make an article in the same any article should be constructed: less interpretations, more descriptions from relevant sources.Sageo (talk) 17:44, 2 February 2013 (UTC)


 * To a easier consensus I post these examples for an enhance introduction:

A classical version of second paragraph that was very good; "There are many types and traditions of anarchism, not all of which are mutually exclusive. Anarchist schools of thought can differ fundamentally, supporting anything from extreme individualism to complete collectivism. Strains of anarchism have been divided into the categories of social and individualist anarchism or similar dual classifications. Classical anarchism is often considered to be a radical left-wing ideology, and much of anarchist economics and anarchist legal philosophy reflect anti-statist interpretations of socialism. However, the term anarchism has always included an individualist strain supporting any kind of market economy and private property society, or morally unrestrained existential individualism without an uniformity of support for economic and legal systems."

My own last proposal, including sources with the vision of external agents with reliable investigations; Anarchism is generally defined as a political philosophy which holds the state to be undesirable, unnecessary, or harmful,

The following sources cite anarchism as a political philosophy:

or, alternatively, as «opposing authority» in the conduct of human relations -while the definitions of authority used by anarchist theorists may vary. Proponents of anarchism, known as "anarchists", advocate stateless societies with a social order that in some definitions should be based on non-hierarchical organizations, while for another definitions that order should be based on voluntary associations.

As a subtle and anti-dogmatic philosophy, anarchism draws on many currents of thought and strategy. Anarchism does not offer a fixed body of doctrine from a single particular world view, instead fluxing and flowing as a philosophy. There are many types and traditions of anarchism, not all of which are mutually exclusive. Anarchist schools of thought can differ fundamentally, supporting anything from extreme individualism to complete collectivism. Strains of anarchism have been divided into the categories of social and individualist anarchism or similar dual classifications. Historical anarchism is often considered a radical left-wing ideology, as much of anarchist economics and anarchist legal philosophy reflect anti-statist interpretations of socialism. Althought in recent decades many political philosophers use to include radical right libertarian and green politics  ideologies into contemporary anarchism, those inclutions are not always accepted by classical anarchism advocates.

Sageo (talk) 18:46, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

"In your edits, the very sources do not match between the scholarly philosophy says with what your redactions tell us."

I am sorry but I don´t know what you are talking about here when you say "your edits". This article has been edited by many people so if you point out to one edit in particular, otherwise you are almost suggesting I wrote this article.

"(I understand that you interpret as a society of extreme democracy rather than contracts peaceful society)"

I really wonder here how you read my mind or something similar so as to think i have the view that "anarchism is extreme democracy". This is really weird. But on top of being weird it is hard to see how this supposed opinion of mine is relevant to the article at all.

"you should consider rethinking how to write because you do not correct, it is a kind of deception whose place content referenced sources say so in theory is referenced. I do not think you do it with intention to damage the reputation of theories adverse to you, I hope."

By this point it is hard to even understand some of the things that you are saying. But of course all of this comes with bizzare assuptions on what I think. So it is also hard to respond to you. I suggest you try to be more specific and to the point of things and perhaps focus less on me and more on the issues.

On your proposal of including a mention in the introduction of "right libertarianism" i remind you that the introduction of an article has to deal with the most important general ideas. If by "right libertarianism" you are talking about the strange US literature which calls itself "anarcho-capitalism" it is clear that that thing doesn´t deserve a mention in the introduction mainly because it is too much of a recent phenomenon and unlike other recent literature like "postanarchism" or "post-left anarchy" highly controversial as to if it can be thought of as a form of anarchism at all. Also this is the reason why it is not mentioned at all in recent works of anarchism as a philosophy in general since it is clearly hard to include it inside the anarchist movement and maybe it is considered a curious phenomenon not worthy of mention. As far as wikipedia policy I think you should check UNDUE.--Eduen (talk) 01:58, 3 February 2013 (UTC)


 * "Also this is the reason why it is not mentioned at all in recent works of anarchism as a philosophy in general since it is clearly hard to include it inside the anarchist movement and maybe it is considered a curious phenomenon not worthy of mention." This is why I'm taking about your editions, you are making a personal lecture of sources not expousing them, sources don't consider all anarchism like an articulate movement (even not always present it like a movement but a group of philsophies that uses the sintagma "anarchism" to identify theirselves - language sintagmas and meanings are social practices). Instead you consider "anarchism" like an organic unity that is your own philosophycal argument to justify your own criteria of discrimination of sources and relevant information. This last criteria (that you defend) is disscordant with the survivor redactions from previus versions that say just why I'm saying about no coincidence of definitions and taxonomies. This article needs to don't pass the philosophy of the editor as filter instead of editorial conventions of Wikipedia, and also need to search more clear sources than block that posibility to any editor. So, I'm calling for a new introduction, if it includes anarcho-capitalism or not is not my principal worry, but to use external observator sources and to have a text honest with the sources. About due and weight that is something that the sources should tell us. --Sageo (talk) 03:34, 3 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Check the books included in the "further reading" section in this article which deal with anarchism as a whole and you will not find a single mention of anarchocapitalism. You can try to find one though.

"Instead you consider "anarchism" like an organic unity that is your own philosophycal argument to justify your own criteria of discrimination of sources and relevant information."

Again I have to ask you to present a specific instant where i have done this. As far as considering anarchism a "organic unity" i also will have to ask you. how so? It sounds like you have some priviledged access to my mind, and maybe one that even I don´t have. Anyway empty accusations without pointing out to specific things really do not lead us anywhere in this discussion.

As far as your proposal of saying in the introduction that "while for another definitions that order should be based on voluntary associations", leaving aside the bad grammar you never really responded to my arguments on voluntary associations.

Now on this "Althought in recent decades many political philosophers use to include radical right libertarian[30][31][32] and green politics[33][34] ideologies into contemporary anarchism, those inclutions are not always accepted by classical anarchism advocates."

I will have to ask you ¿who are these "classical anarchism advocates"? and what is your criteria of distinguishing a "classical anarchism advocate" from one that is post-classical o "non-classical"? So it is telling the fact that no outside support is provided by you on this theory of somewhere there being non-classical authors not incluiding these things within anarchism. I really have not seen any general treatment of anarchism having a trouble mentioning there has appeared a green anarchism or envorinmentalist anarchism. I will cite here scholar Uri Gordon saying the following "As a final preliminary note, I should mention that I will be making only cursory reference to anarchist critiques of technology associated with what is often referred to as the “anarcho-primitivist” current of contemporary anarchism (Perlman 1983, Zerzan 1994, Moore 1997, Watson 1998; cf. Sahlins 1972, Jensen 2000). Going beyond literature into terms of anarchist political culture, I would venture to say that anarcho- primitivism is, at its base, a certain mentality that enjoys significant currency among anarchists, most noticeably among those parts of the English-speaking movement that focus on environmental direct action." That text includes many other mentions of green anarchism so i really would not know what you are talking about as far as environmentalist anarchism in your proposal. Anyway it will be interesting to know how you would classify Uri Gordon as. "classical" or "nonclassica" or "postclassical" author. In the text "Anarchy Alive!" included in the "further reading" section of this article he mainly deals with contemporary anarchism.--Eduen (talk) 01:20, 4 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry of my grammar, I'm not native english speaker. Well I'll resume my claims in


 * Change the the line about authority, explaning that isn't a unique definition of authority as the sources don't make an unified definition. Even in political philosophy as a whole there ins't a unique definition of wide terms like authority, liberty, equality, o merit, etc. If you consider one unique definition use the source that make that asserment, if they aren't, well, not make your philosophy in the article. In the first line the article is telling us that the content is referenced, but references say something different -it's a kind of fraud.
 * Change the line about what is an anarchist society, using the same references that don't give an unique definition. Expose that sources give us many definitions. Please, don't make a text in which you make an interpretation of what sources should say.
 * Change the lines about kinds o branchs of what is called "anarchism" using the objetive sources for avoid partisan views. I have shared someones here to ilustrate what I mean. Please don't use as sources self-publications, or let them in secondary or auxiliar use, and begin to use sources from external and non-partisan publications as principal sources. Let the sources tell us what is "due weight" and not the subjective experience of the editors. If you now say that there isn't a consensus of clasifications, well, expose in the article that there isn't a consensus, and expose what non-partisan sources explicit says about "due weight". The non-partisan sources about political philosophy give more relevance to those contemporary branches that you minimize, and even don't mention so much the other contemporary branches that you mention -and that is a problem in the credibility of this article.
 * I not proposing that my editions "should be" posted literally, I'm proposing make a review in the 3 last points because of the lack of enciclopedical rigor in the introduction of the article.

--Sageo (talk) 16:09, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

1. A discussion on the many debates around the concept of authority does not belong in this article but on the article "authority". If you point out a specific reference provided that you object to then we might talk about that. As far as the first reference it says "Authority is defined in terms of the right to exercise social control (as explored in the "sociology of power") and the correlative duty to obey (as explored in the "philosophy of practical reason"). Anarchism is distinguished, philosophically, by its scepticism towards such moral relations-by its questioning of the claims made for such normative power- and, practically, by its challenge to those "authoritative" powers which cannot justify their claims and which are therefore deemed illegitimate or without moral foundation." That one comes from a work that deals with anarchism in general as a political philosophy. The second definition comes from the International of Anarchist Federations and as such we have to view it as "authoritative" since that organization contains within it some of the biggest anarchist organizations in the world today. It points out mainly that there are different types of authority and as such that authority is not reducible to the state. The following references more or less develop on these two things. The definition of authority on itself does not concern this article as much as the fact that anarchism opposes authority or as the first reference also points out "it is sceptical about authority". So you could point out to contradictions and inconsistencies present there and not just saying they exist we could advance on that issue.

2. Here we come back to the issue of "voluntary association". You never responded to what i argued about voluntary association on itself not constituing anarchy since i gave you the case of capitalist corporations and state bureaucracies as being highly hierarchical organizations (and as such also authoritarian organizations) and yet one can also say they are "voluntary" associations since they don´t force the salaried employees working there to stay and so they can leave anytime they want. You are accussing me of "a text in which you make an interpretation of what sources should say." The first definition provided is from the important historical work of George Woodcock and the definition is very clear when it says that " a social philosophy that rejects authoritarian government and maintains that voluntary institutions are best suited to express man's natural social tendencies." So both state and capitalism have been rejected by anarchists and from the definition by Woodcock one can see why since most likely anarchists regard these organizations as authoritarian. Another definition provided is from An Anarchist FAQ and it points out to hierarchy. The definitions provided here, just like in any other enciclopedic article, just try to summarize the most important and reliable definitions available.

3. How do you define "non-partisan" definitions and treatments? The introduction just gives us general classifications and the most important divisions such as individualist anarchism, anarcho-communism, anarcho-syndicalism, etc. I really don´t see how there is here a "partisan" bias towards something there. Here we definitely need that you point out on what specifically you feel there is a bias towards so that we can evaluate "partisanship".

4. "The non-partisan sources about political philosophy give more relevance to those contemporary branches that you minimize, and even don't mention so much the other contemporary branches that you mention -and that is a problem in the credibility of this article."

Again we get here an accusation that somehow i wrote everything that is written in the introduction. As far as a mention of "contemporary branches" I will comment on how contemporary developments are dealt with for example in the article called "christianity". There they mention number of adherents to cristianity and its status cosidered alongside other religions. The reason why they don´t mention "contemporary branches" is that they already mentioned the main historical branches which tend to be the main ones today also (in that case catholicism, protestantism, eastern orhtodox churches, etc). So if we decide to deal with contemporary anarchism we will have to decide on how we should summarize not just the sections titled "post-classical schools of thought" but also "contemporary anarchism" since the issue of anarchism has not been something mostly of discussions between philosophers but clearly discussions within the contexts of activism and social movements in many places and eras. So a balance between history and philosophy will have to be achieved but of course no more than two sentences but clearly the weight of history will have to stand out in that over mentioning recent lines of thought. But as far as "Contemporary branches" we have in the section "post-classical schools" 3 things that have only appeared in the last 30 years o so (post left anarchy, post anarchism, anarcho-capitalism) and so certainly cannot expect to be mentioned in the introduction over things that exist from the 1920s and even earlier such as anarcho-pacifism, platformism, synthesis anarchism, and anarcho-feminism.--Eduen (talk) 06:51, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, what we need now are references about how to clasify and not to make interpretations. I put some non-partisan references that support my point, but If what you want is to copy the contect here, let me some days to prove point by point what this introduction is dishonest with its own references beginning with making authority equal to hierarchy. Also we have to talk about an extreme minority like "comunist individualist" without any references about what they should be in the introduction and why not contemporary anarchism that atract more interest to political philosophy as recent sources prove. I need to know if I count with your will to make the fixes in introduction because you are the one that oppose to them. --Sageo (talk) 14:02, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Present edition: Anarchism is generally defined as a political philosophy which holds the state to be undesirable, unnecessary, or harmful,[1][2][3] or, alternatively, as opposing authority or hierarchical organization in the conduct of human relations.[4][5][6][7][8][9][10] Proponents of anarchism, known as "anarchists", advocate stateless societies based on non-hierarchical[5][11][12] voluntary associations.[13][14]

What i propose: Anarchism is generally defined as a political philosophy which holds the state to be undesirable, unnecessary, or harmful,[14][2][15] or, alternatively, as «opposing authority» in the conduct of human relations -while the definitions of authority used by anarchist theorists may vary.[16][17][18][19][20][21][22] Proponents of anarchism, known as "anarchists", advocate stateless societies with a social order that in some definitions should be based on non-hierarchical organizations,[17][23][24] while for another definitions that order should be based on voluntary associations.[25][26]


 * Let's check the content of references for an evaluation of which edition make less interpretations of sources:

^ "Authority is defined in terms of the right to exercise social control (as explored in the "sociology of power") and the correlative duty to obey (as explred in the "philosophy of practical reason"). Anarchism is distinguished, philosophically, by its scepticism towards such moral relations-by its questioning of the claims made for such normative power- and, practically, by its challenge to those "authoritative" powers which cannot justify their claims and which are therefore deemed illegitimate or without moral foundation."Anarchism and Authority: A Philosophical Introduction to Classical Anarchism by Paul McLaughlin. AshGate. 2007. pg. 1

^ a b "IAF principles". International of Anarchist Federations. Archived from the original on 5 January 2012. "The IAF - IFA fights for : the abolition of all forms of authority whether economical, political, social, religious, cultural or sexual."

^ "Anarchism, then, really stands for the liberation of the human mind from the dominion of religion; the liberation of the human body from the dominion of property; liberation from the shackles and restraint of government. Anarchism stands for a social order based on the free grouping of individuals for the purpose of producing real social wealth; an order that will guarantee to every human being free access to the earth and full enjoyment of the necessities of life, according to individual desires, tastes, and inclinations." Emma Goldman. "What it Really Stands for Anarchy" in Anarchism and Other Essays.

^ Individualist anarchist Benjamin Tucker defined anarchism as opposition to authority as follows "They found that they must turn either to the right or to the left, — follow either the path of Authority or the path of Liberty. Marx went one way; Warren and Proudhon the other. Thus were born State Socialism and Anarchism ... Authority, takes many shapes, but, broadly speaking, her enemies divide themselves into three classes: first, those who abhor her both as a means and as an end of progress, opposing her openly, avowedly, sincerely, consistently, universally; second, those who profess to believe in her as a means of progress, but who accept her only so far as they think she will subserve their own selfish interests, denying her and her blessings to the rest of the world; third, those who distrust her as a means of progress, believing in her only as an end to be obtained by first trampling upon, violating, and outraging her. These three phases of opposition to Liberty are met in almost every sphere of thought and human activity. Good representatives of the first are seen in the Catholic Church and the Russian autocracy; of the second, in the Protestant Church and the Manchester school of politics and political economy; of the third, in the atheism of Gambetta and the socialism of Karl Marx." Benjamin Tucker. Individual Liberty.

^ Ward, Colin (1966). "Anarchism as a Theory of Organization". Archived from the original on 25 March 2010. Retrieved 1 March 2010.

^ Anarchist historian George Woodcock report of Mikhail Bakunin's anti-authoritarianism and shows opposition to both state and non-state forms of authority as follows: "All anarchists deny authority; many of them fight against it." (pg. 9) ... Bakunin did not convert the League's central committee to his full program, but he did persuade them to accept a remarkably radical recommendation to the Berne Congress of September 1868, demanding economic equality and implicitly attacking authority in both Church and State."

^ Brown, L. Susan (2002). "Anarchism as a Political Philosophy of Existential Individualism: Implications for Feminism". The Politics of Individualism: Liberalism, Liberal Feminism and Anarchism. Black Rose Books Ltd. Publishing. p. 106.

^ "That is why Anarchy, when it works to destroy authority in all its aspects, when it demands the abrogation of laws and the abolition of the mechanism that serves to impose them, when it refuses all hierarchical organization and preaches free agreement — at the same time strives to maintain and enlarge the precious kernel of social customs without which no human or animal society can exist." Peter Kropotkin. Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal

^ "anarchists are opposed to irrational (e.g., illegitimate) authority, in other words, hierarchy — hierarchy being the institutionalisation of authority within a society." "B.1 Why are anarchists against authority and hierarchy?" in An Anarchist FAQ

^ "ANARCHISM, a social philosophy that rejects authoritarian government and maintains that voluntary institutions are best suited to express man's natural social tendencies." George Woodcock. "Anarchism" at The Encyclopedia of Philosophy

^ "In a society developed on these lines, the voluntary associations which already now begin to cover all the fields of human activity would take a still greater extension so as to substitute themselves for the state in all its functions." Peter Kropotkin. "Anarchism" from the Encyclopædia Britannica

Sageo (talk) 14:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

FRom your proposition: "Proponents of anarchism, known as "anarchists", advocate stateless societies with a social order that in some definitions should be based on non-hierarchical organizations,[17][23][24] while for another definitions that order should be based on voluntary associations."

If one summarizes what you have tried to put up here one will certainly have to conclude that anarchy and anarchism is about more than just "voluntary relationships". It seems you want to defend the idea that anything voluntary is anarchy. Then I will definitely say, what will be the point of the whole anarchist movement then if slavery was already abolished? Well, if this movement continues is because it is about more than just "voluntary relations".--Eduen (talk) 15:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)