Talk:Anarchism/Archive 65

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

The wikipedia article on "libertarianism" has acknoledged the fact that using "libertarianism" to denote pro-capitalist views is mostly a US tendency while in the rest of the world "libertarian" has been used since the 19th century as a synonym for "anarchist". A long discussion there has come to this agreement as so this is something that informs the current state of that article. As such saying that there is only one type of "libertarian anarchism"-namely anarchocapitalism-will be highly problematic since in the rest of the world and even in the US anarchists have used "libertarian" to refer to themselves. I say even in the US since currently there exists a

A reference was provided. If you do not like the fact that a reference was provided--well I suppose that's your problem. But a reference was provided, and on Wikipedia we use verifiability. The reference can be verified, as it is real, tangible, published book. Not some blog. Not some self-published screed. But a real, verifiable book. Your dislike of capitalism aside: what is wrong with the provided reference? - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 22:50, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

The problem here is of logic and of actual use of the word "libertarian". This is why there is a book in the english language written by the canadian George Woodcock called Anarchism: A History of Libertarian Ideas and Movements and a more recent one by Robert Graham called [http://www.amazon.com/Anarchism-Volume-Three-Documentary-Libertarian/dp/1551643367/ref=pd_sim_b_3?ie=UTF8&refRID=07CDDECQYVCSKW01S9SC Anarchism Volume Three: The New Anarchism (1974-2008) (Anarchism: A Documentary History of Libertarian Ideas)]. Neither of these books include pro-capitalist ideas as part of anarchism and so they don´t include "anarchocapitalism" yet they identify all of anarchism as "libertarian". So that is how we can say ALL anarchism is libertarian. Saying "libertarian anarchism" is like saying "christian catholicism", "islamic suunism", "budhist theravada" or even "Metal Black metal". As far as the strange discussion on how anarchocapitalism has been called "libertarian anarchism" i think that will be the subject of the "anarchocapitalism" article and not of this one.--Eduen (talk) 23:54, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

You didn't explain what's wrong with the provided reference. And you keep using scarce-quotes with anarchocapitalism. So: could you explain what precisely is wrong with the provided reference? - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 01:25, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Quoting

Wikipedia:Sources#Verifiability_does_not_guarantee_inclusion: "While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article."--Eduen (talk

) 02:28, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

So what's wrong with the reference? - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 17:28, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Read again this wikipedia policy i just presented. But in fact identifying the highly controversial and many times not taken seriously as an anarchist position-anarcho-capitalism-is also a case of

Wikipedia:Undue_weight#Due_and_undue_weight. Being also a very recent position and one which only seems to appear in the United States is giving too much importance to a highly minoritarian view. The wider and majoritarian view will be one which identifies all anarchism with libertarianism, as i showed before, and not only a single position within it. But also the wikipedia libertarianism article also recognizes anarchism as a whole as a form of libertarianism so in fact saying only one form of anarchism is "libertarian anarchism" will also go againts the consensus reached in the main libertarianism article.--Eduen (talk

) 03:10, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for actually providing a real argument, rather than your bias. It's a refreshing change, Eduen. Now if only you could see your way to stop using scarce-quotes. Or perhaps I'll just use them in response. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 01:06, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

As i check the reference provided to support "anarchocapitalism" as the ONLY "libertarian anarchism" i see that it is from a single author so its being a neutral third party source can be also questioned. It is also a very recent text from 2012. As i see it, at most the fact that a single author calls "anarcho-capitalism" "libertarian anarchy" should guarantee a debate only in the "anarchocapitalism" article itself. It clearly does not deserve mention in the main anarchism article. This also since "anarchocapitalism" on itself has been very controversial whether it should be mentioned at all in this article.--Eduen (talk) 03:18, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

The provided source says "The form of anarchism that accepts this radical notion of freedom, our freedom to bind ourselves, I call libertarian anarchism." That is, the author is referring to his own use of the phrase "libertarian anarchism", not making any claim that that phrase is commonly used. Indeed, the fact that the author writes "I call" rather than "is called" suggests that he is introducing a novel or unusual phrase, and that "libertarian anarchism" is not commonly used to refer to this position. We should only include the phrase "libertarian anarchism" in this article if it is widely used, and the provided source does not say that the phrase is widely used. So, on the basis of that source, I don't think we should include the phrase "libertarian anarchism" as a synonym for "anarchocapitalism" in the article.VoluntarySlave (talk) 13:03, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

In regards the OP, the violent strand wouldn't be libertarian in terms of its disregard for classicial liberalism (non-aggression principle holding primacy). Also minarchists are on the fenec here.

All Nazism likewise is not inherently fascist as the latter has centralizing corporatist tendencies in its foundation (that is the antithesis of anarchism) the neo-Nazi variety/strain does not follow that (although im hard pressed to find an intellectual neo-Nazi, at least by self proclamation). Logically it follows then that all fascism is not Nazism, but I don't think you intended to touch that.Lihaas (talk) 14:45, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

the article is rated as "good" (but I don't know who reviewed). Its more than a little POV to gloss over the various aspects of anarchism such as the more right-leaning anarcho capitalism. I don't even see it as a section, yet the more FRINGE "free love" geta mentioned. Im not tagging or questing review yet, but we need to sort this out(Lihaas (talk) 14:39, 26 April 2014 (UTC)).

On all of that check archives on the discussion on the issue of anarchocapitalism. Anarchocapitalism is mentioned nevertheless in "postclassical" schools of thought alongside other recent lines of thought such as

right wing in politics is associated with authoritarianism or beliefs in defense of authority.--Eduen (talk

) 23:03, 26 April 2014 (UTC).

Well that's a POV issue because it dilutes one for the other. Right wing need this differentiations because it is NOT only as you say authoritarian...that's a Eurocentric view. fi the otherstrands get its own section this means that the other should to in order to balanace it out it is clearly significant and notableLihaas (talk) 01:03, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

From what you wrote here i only understood "eurocentrism". Hardly something that only happens in Europe. Since Europe colonized most of the world at some point in the XIX century, it also exported much of its form of viewing politics everywhere. And in the case of latin america, there is a tendency to count them as more or less part of the Western World since they share a catholic and iberian culture.--Eduen (talk) 01:13, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello, people. Important pages of the history of Spain are very little known, even in Spain herself. And some of them include that since very ancient times we have traditional institutions that well could be calified of "Anarchist". These institutions were created after the Moors invasions of 711, between the centuries 8 and 9, but some experts say that before the Roman conquest of Spain there could have been some similar institutions among the Celt and Iberian tribes in Spain. These institutions may be called "Anarchist" because in them people had community of properties, decisions were taken in popular meetings, and the laws or Constitutions (Fueros in Spanish) were very popular. In these lands the kings had very few rights, only 3 or 4 rights. These institutions lasted many centuries and were originated in the kingdom of Castile. Soon, they were carried to Bascony (or Basque Country), and the kingdoms of Navarre and Aragon. For more information, you can go to the Wikipedia in Spanish and read articles like "Comunidad de Villa y Tierra", "Behetria" and "Anselmo Carretero". For the version in Aragon, you can read "Comunidad de Aldeas". thankyou !!--83.61.78.86 (talk) 16:27, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

You would need a source that links these societies to anarchism. It is unlikely any would actually call them anarchist, because they existed before the ideology was developed. TFD (talk) 20:46, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

if you would not call them "Anarchist", then, what would you say they were ? - Socialist ? democratic ? communist ? communers ? or what ? - some scholars have called them democratic, others scholars Socialist... i think the word Anarchist may be appropiate, although it is of course not a dogma. - thanks --81.44.231.242 (talk) 15:58, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

IP, I think TFD's point is not what we would call them, but that reliable sources specifically connect these communities with anarchism. If you have these sources, please add the information. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:29, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Why in the world is the Occupy Movement listed under the "History" dropdown menu of the Anarchism pages? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.219.170.95 (talk) 19:56, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Is there a better place for it? -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 20:37, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

FYI, the scope and purpose of the anarchy article is under discussion, see talk:anarchy where it is proposed to be merged to stateless society -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 06:23, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

In my view, the satirical article is a good addition to the 'external links' section. It provides an interesting, fresh perspective and a relevant, important view. I believe this WP article is well-written, interesting, informative and useful, but it is also somewhat dry, humorless and could benefit from an external link to a small dose of humor. I don't see anything wrong with adding the satire to the article.

Humanity Surprised It Still Hasn’t Figured Out A Better Alternative To Letting Power-Hungry Assholes Decide Everything (2014-06-25), The Onion.

Thanks and regards, IjonTichy (talk) 23:21, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

This is not an entertainment site, it's an encyclopaedia. Humor isn't really appropriate. — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 14:06, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

There are 3 markup errors (no last bracket):

[[Murray Bookchin]. replace with [[Murray Bookchin]].
[[Murray Bookchin]. replace with [[Murray Bookchin]].
[[Sébastien Faure]. replace with [[Sébastien Faure]].

I have fixed these. Thanks for the notification! — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 14:49, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

This edit request to Anarchism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The central tendency of anarchism as a social movement has been represented by

You need o propose a specific change to the article and provide sources. TFD (talk) 07:18, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

This edit request to Anarchism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

PLEASE CHANGE: Many anarchists oppose all forms of aggression, supporting

BECAUSE OF SEMI-DUPLICATE SENTENCE 99.130.166.85 (talk) 07:19, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Done Stickee (talk) 08:31, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

This edit request to Anarchism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

the link [[Category:Anarchism| ]] should be changed to [[Category:Anarchism]] Sleepyteddybear (talk) 13:35, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Done. Thanks! — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:28, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I undid the edit. The use of a blank space as a sort key makes this article appear first in Category:Anarchism, which is where it should be. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:59, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I will have to ask user Leosylvester mainly this question. ¿Why does he think green anarchism deserves more, and even preferential space, over other non classical currents? As a secondary question i will have to ask him ¿why would he think green anarchism has been more influential or important than the other currents mentioned in "post classical currents"? Frankly i don´t see how green anarchism is more influential or important than, say

- Leosylvester / 14:59 15 January 2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.139.174 (talk) 14:59, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

The fact is that this article is

Wikipedia:WEIGHT tells us to give aspects of a subject their weight on the article according to their importance to the whole history of the subject. That is why the classical currents (anarcho-communism, mutualism, anarcho syndicalism, collectivist anarchism and individualist anarchism) will have to get more space than post classical currents since these classical currents have existed continously since the mid 19th century while post classical ones only from the mid to late 20th century and only recently they have gained some importance within anarchism as a whole. Any major general work on anarchism will tell you that and will give them that bigger weight while dealing with post classical currents with less space as more recent phenomena, if they are dealt at all. I advise you to bring general sources on anarchism which point to the contrary that i have argued here so as to support your proposal.--Eduen (talk

) 07:58, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

To user Zosz i can say that i can very well respond to any of his doubts and i invite him to express his criticisms to these contents in this space where they should be dealt with and not just in edit summaries of editions. This is the second time that same user deletes these contents from the introduction and so i think we can ask him to support and to debate his views here, and this especially since his edits are in the introduction. I also advise that user to check the wikipedia article on individualist anarchism in order to assess the place and influence of individualist anarchism within the wider anarchist movement.--Eduen (talk) 08:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

(1) The reference used to cite "which nevertheless did have an impact on the bigger currents" is obviously

original research, which in any case is invalid. There needs to be a reliable, non-primary source which specifically says exactly that "anarchist individualism had an impact on the bigger currents". Even in the case that this source existed, the rules on undue weight must be applied, and the "impact", a word which could mean anything, must be quantified. (2) The fact that individualist anarchists have participated in anarchist organizations is self-evident, redundant and does not belong in the lead. (3) Saying that revolution is 'coercive', 'a form of aggression', or not a form of 'self-defense', is POV. (4) Pacifist anarchism has been historically irrelevant, and only exists as a lifestylist tendency disassociated from actual anarchism. The rules on undue weight must be applied. (5) In my opinion, any mention of non-left anarchism simply does not belong in the lead, because despite existing, it does not have enough weight by any reasonable measure. Zozs (talk

) 17:28, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

The affirmation "which nevertheless did have an impact on the bigger currents" is just a logical inference from the data provided. So if individualist anarchism was able to motivate a large scale debate within anarchism and even some anarchists of coming up with a term such as "social anarchism", it is obviously having an impact. It also motivated the proposals of "

Iberian Anarchist Federation, Italian Anarchist Federation, and Nabat were created and so synthesism grew to constitute itself as the largest current within anarchism from an organizational point, after perhaps only anarchosyndicalism while platformism and insurrectionist currents have not been as large or as influential socially and historically. I will even argue that insurrectionism has been more influential than platformism for example since after all the likes of Luigi Galleani assasinated many heads of state and even bombed the building of Wall St which are clearly events with nationwide impact in the countries in which they happened and so they are mentioned in historical books not dedicated to anarchism. As far as the affirmations on revolution i really have not touched or edited them so i could be open to a change on that affirmation if user Zosz proposes something different. As far as the affirmation on anarcho-pacifism, it clearly has to come up in a discussion over tactics. Anarcho-pacifism became an important tendecy within anarchism after World War I but i will have to ask user Zozs to tell us what is he comparing anarcho-pacifism to so as to say it has had "no historical relevancy". Anyway, anarcho-pacifism is not that much mentioned and occupies less space in the whole article than the main classical currents so it clearly is given its due place within anarchism. Nevertheless anarcho-pacifism will tend to be mentioned in all the general works on anarchism listed in the bibliography. Now as far as "non-left anarchism" i seriously do not know what user Zozs is talking about here and i will be grateful if he could tell us which "right wing tendency" of anarchism is being mentioned in the introduction.--Eduen (talk

) 22:04, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

is just a logical inference from the data provided - that's THE definition of a violation of

WP:OR, so yeah, that sentence quite obviously violates the policy on original research. You need to cite a source which has made that inference for you. We're not here to discuss our views, we're here to discuss which reliable sources to use to give which information. individualists have also participated in large anarchist organisations - why should this be mentioned at all in the lead? Tendencies of a certain ideology always have some representation in parties of that ideology, and this is nothing special. Note the word 'primarily' in the sentence "individualist anarchism being primarily a literary phenomenon", which eliminates the necessity of these two latter sentences. Pacifist anarchism should not be mentioned in the lead (no weight at all), and lifestylist anarchism (though it is not being called by this term) should not be talked about in an article about anarchism. Zozs (talk

) 22:43, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I don´t think you can deny the reliability of the works which show individualist anarchism has influenced the bigger currents of it. You can discuss with us that if you want anyway. A more crucial point in all of this is that both affirmations that "The central tendency within anarchism has been ...." and "individualist anarchism has been primarely a literary phenomenon" are supported by the same single source. I happen to have a copy of the book by Skirda which supports both this affirmations. I have come to the fact that this particular affirmation is not something written by Skirda himself but that relies from what is said in a manifesto by "The Group of Russian Anarchists Abroad...(from) March 1926)." If there are any doubts check a version of this book which is freely avalilable at [[2]]. The page which the reference provides for both affirmations appear in the same page 191. This manifesto, by a "Group of Russian Anarchists Abroad" is just being reprinted in this text by Skirda as a sort of addendum titled "Text and documents". As such this does not count as a reliable source since it is not something coming from the body of an academic general work on anarchism but from a manifesto by a particular group of anarchists at a particular time. I will then proceed to delete both affirmations which says that "the central tendency of anarchism..." and "individualist anarchism is primarely a literary phenomenon" since both come from this single bad source.--Eduen (talk) 07:31, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Now as to the issue which you point to about "

Lifestyle anarchism article and not in the english wikipedia "anarchism" article.--Eduen (talk

) 08:16, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Eduen, I'm fairly certain I have comprehensive secondary sources on anarchism that will support the claim that "the central tendency within anarchism" is communism and syndicalism. I will research this and reinstate the material if I am correct about the reliable sources. I will agree with you about lifestyle anarchism though: it is a recent critique that doesn't appear except through the writings of Murray Bookchin and therefore should not receive much, if any, attention, due to Wikipedia's policy on

WP:DUE WEIGHT. (And I'm a social ecologist!) — MisterDub (talk | contribs

) 16:37, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, I can't seem to recall which source it was that stated almost exactly what was recently removed, i.e., that the dominant currents were communism and syndicalism, despite a strong individualism in America (and other places, though to a lesser degree). I did find these quotes though:

I'm not sure if these would support a restoration of the deleted material as is, or if some modification is appropriate. I will think on this and return. — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 22:10, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

What has to replace that is a good paragraph summarizing anarchist history. Not discussions on what currents of thought have been bigger or smaller. I suggest checking the other articles on major political ideologies in wikipedia such as socialism, conservatism, fascism or liberalism. They all tend to have a historical summary at the last paragraph of the intro.--Eduen (talk) 08:15, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

There is a difference between the generally-accepted, standard dictionary definitions and the apparently largely personal definitions by some academics given here, so I made this change:

1st edit: addition of the dictionary definition of “anarchism” with a reference listing six dictionary definitions to that effect:

Anarchism is a doctrine advocating the abolition of government.^[8] Some use the term to mean...[resumes from previous material].

2nd edit: addition of connecting material to an already-given individual academic definition:

In that definition, ...[resumes from previous material].

This was a straightforward addition of one

By putting all those qualifiers in, you are making it sound like the dictionary definition is the "accepted" definition and the wider definition is simply what "some" people think. It is disingenuous and it takes more than a sentence from a dictionary definition to describe a political philosophy. Helpsome (talk) 21:59, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Hopefully we will rely also on encyclopedic and general work definitions and not just in dictionary definitions. Anarchism has never reduced itself to "anti-statism". In that form even the word "government" has been used. Dictionary.com defines "government" as "6.; control; management; rule: the government of one's conduct." [3] Merriam Webster says that "2. obsolete : moral conduct or behavior : discretion". In that way an individual can "govern" himself or can excercise "self-government". This is clearly linked with the idea of autonomy while heteronomy will allude to being "governed". So George Woodcock points to anarchism saying that "All anarchists deny authority; many of them fight against it."^[9] In that way anarchism opposes "authority" and authority is not only present in the state system but in other spheres of life as pointed out by the encyclopedic and general works on anarchism provided in this introduction. An encyclopedia intends to provide more profound and extensive analysis of the objects dealt within it and so we cannot rely here on dictionary definitions only who tend to provide only one sentence definitions anyway. But we also must consider that "anarchy" itself is not defined only as "absence of state". As such Dictionary.com says "4. lack of obedience to an authority; insubordination: the anarchy of his rebellious teenage years."[4]. The Free dictionary says "3. Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose" which is something which can occur in any type of grouping besides the existence or not of the state form.[5] Merriam Webster says that " a : absence or denial of any authority or established order b : absence of order : disorder <not manicured plots but a wild anarchy of nature — Israel Shenker>"[6]. As such also in dictionary definitions the rejection of authority appear linked to "anarchy" just as Woodcock links anarchism to rejection of authority.--Eduen (talk) 03:25, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

After a few days, it seems most are largely indifferent to my change. Leaving aside

Neutral point of view

policy stipulations:

• Due and undue weight
• Due and undue weight: Balancing aspects
• Due and undue weight: Giving ”equal validity” can create a false balance
• Balance
• Impartial tone
• Bias in sources.

As for what constitutes the majority definition, it’s probably the one that’s found in the world’s dictionaries. FivePillarPurist (talk) 15:31, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

The current version incorporates both rejection of the state and of social hierarchies in general in a balanced form. Anyway the word "government" cannot be seen as synonymous with the state form. My previous intervention here shows how even dictionary definitions, which usually present a list of short sentences, go beyond a definition of "anarchism" and "anarchy" as mere anti-statism. This version presents a definition which not only includes what one sentence dictionary definitions state but also what encyclopedias and general works on anarchism say.--Eduen (talk) 04:05, 3 February 2015 (UTC)