Talk:Anarchist schools of thought/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Proposed expansion of article

At present, the article only covers a subsection of its subject matter. Philosophical anarchism, pacifist anarchim, anarcha-feminism, platformism, crypto-anarchism, infoanarchism, Buddhist anarchism, Christian anarchism, Jewish anarchism, black anarchism could all be mentioned. The article could go also into detail about the interrelationships of the schools, and interlink with the Issues in anarchism sub-articles. Skomorokh incite 19:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Cant Buddhist anarchism, Christian anarchism and Jewish anarchism be grouped together under the same section Religious Anarchism.--Fang 23 (talk) 23:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
ps:I (might) help the situation by (possibly) adding a section on Religious Anarchism some other day just as i did with Anarcha-feminism and national-anarchism.
That would be ideal, this article badly needs more subsectioning, though perhaps with a different heading similar to the Contemporary free market anarchism subsection. Thanks for all your hard work so far! Skomorokh incite 18:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Celtic anarchism ought also be included. Skomorokh incite 17:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

National-Anarchism removed

User:Chuck0 has removed National-Anarchism from this article. I don't entirely disagree as it has a whiff of Astroturf about it and I have not come across any mainstream non-partisan sources (e.g. Oxford Dictionary of <whatever>) that consider it a notable form of anarchism. However, I thought people should be given a heads-up here in case anyone wanted to dispute it. Skomorokh incite 05:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia shouldn't include every nutjob theory that comes along and says that it is part of something bigger. Wikipedia is not the kitchen sink. I've run across all kinds of whackos who say that their pet theory is part of anarchy. I try to humor them and get them out of my life as soon as possible. In the instance, "national anarchism" goes against everything that anarchists stand for. Anarchists are fundamentally anti-racist, anti-nationalist and anti-authoritarian. I can find armfuls of citations to support my argument here. Hey, I'm not arguing with you, Skomorokh, just explaining why this section was removed. Chuck0 (talk) 18:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Its true that many modern anarchists are antagonistic to nationalism but that does not mean anarchism as an ideology is hostile to nationalism a number of early anarchists such as Mikhail Bakunin and Pierre-Joseph Proudhon supported nationalism and in addition Chinese anarchists (before the Communist party of china took control) were also deeply involved in the nationalist movement it would be somewhat of an exaggeration to say that all of anarchism is totally anti-nationalist.--Fang 23 (talk) 14:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
No worries, I agree with much of what you say, I just like to make the decision not to include N-A transparent. Regarding kitchen-sinkism, I think there is also a danger of going in the opposite direction of excising everything one band of editors feels is not true anarchism. I'm sure you could find respectable citations to support conflicting arguments that anarchism is say, only anti-hierarchical, anti-government or anti-collectivist. I have read black anarchist essays claiming that mainstream anarchism is inherently racist and thus unanarchistic etc. And I think when we do have such citations from reliable sources, we should include the different viewpoints, as we do here with the anarcho-communists and the individualist anarchists both claiming the others are not anarchists. I am very skeptical that such citations could be found for national anarchism. But in general I think its best to include viewpoints that have been given some credibility, explain the objections, and let the reader make her own mind up. Thanks for taking the time to discuss this btw. Skomorokh incite 20:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Pictures of Max Stirner

Does anyone else think it's repetitive to have the same picture of Max Stirner twice within the same article? Gadev (talk) 09:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Good point; I've replaced him with Godwin in the philosophical anarchism section. Thanks for catching that,  Skomorokh, barbarian  09:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Anarchist schools of thought

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 Anarchist schools of thought's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "carlson":

  • From Egoist anarchism: Carlson, Andrew (1972). "Philosophical Egoism: German Antecedents". Anarchism in Germany. Metuchen: Scarecrow Press. ISBN 0810804840. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)
  • From Freeganism: Carlson, Tucker (February 3, 2006). "'Freegans' choose to eat garbage". MSNBC. Retrieved 2007-06-21. These people don't eat out of dumpsters because they're poor and desperate. They do it to prove a political point. You wouldnt expect someone to choose a lifestyle that involved eating out of dumpsters. Kind of seems like something you do as a desperate last resort. But there's an entire society of people who willingly get their meals out of the garbage. They're called freegans, and they say they have a reason for doing it. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

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⚡ 21:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Name of the article

This article is a summary style split from this "Schools of thought" section of the Anarchism article. User:Bacchiad tentatively named it "Anarchist political theory", but this does not seem to cover the topic entirely (as User:Operation Spooner has pointed out, it omits economic issues that are given broad coverage). I had initially thought to call it simply "Anarchist schools of thought". Is there a better title to describe the content of the article? Skomorokh incite 18:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Anarchist political economy? But I have a personal prejudice against list-y articles. If I didn't I'd probably agree with your initial suggestion. Biasedly, Bacchiad 19:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Good point on avoiding listy articles — perhaps we should avoid plurals in the name. I think political economy is too narrow and too obscure for the intelligent, ignorant reader. I think what we want to say is "the different types of anarchism" in a concise, familiar way. "Types of anarchism" does not make clear the theoretical nature of this. "Anarchist philosophy"? "Anarchist theory"? Skomorokh incite 19:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Anarchist political economy, Anarchist schools of thought, or just Anarchist theory. -- Vision Thing -- 19:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Any objections to "Anarchist theory"? Skomorokh incite 19:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I think that gives the impression that anarchist theory is monolothic. There is no "anarchist theory." Rather there are multiple anarchist theories, so maybe Anarchist theories? Operation Spooner 19:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I've been looking for naming precedent in other political ideologies. Only one I found was Types of socialism, and that's disputed into the ground. I think Schools of anarchist thought or Anarchist schools or thought would be most reasonable, based on section naming conventions in articles like Marxism and Conservatism. Bacchiad 19:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I was bold and moved the article to Anarchist schools of thought. Skomorokh incite 21:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Awesome. I like a bold wikipedian. Bacchiad 22:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Today, one of the listed schools of thought is boston anarchists, and anarcho-capitalism is listed as a sub-category.. I find this ridiculous. As an anarcho-capitalist, the only usage I've ever heard of the term 'boston anarchist' is in reference to the book by Applegate.. At the most, Boston anarchist should be a category of An-cap, not vice versa. I'll be changing that now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.130.30.66 (talk) 00:02, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Anarchist schools of thought

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 Anarchist schools of thought'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 " Alain Pengam":

Reference named "ideology":

Reference named "sasha":

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⚡ 04:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Small "a" anarchism removed

The two sources given for Small "a" anarchism are an essay published in the unreliable source Spunk Library by the non-notable author Dave Neal, and an article published in the unreliable source ZNet by the notable David Graeber. Thus material from the Neal essay must be removed per WP:V, while the Graeber material qualifies for inclusion. However, Graeber's piece refers to small "a" anarchism only fleetingly and not as a specific school of thought but as a description of most anarchists today. I could not find any reliable sources for the notability of this supposed school of thought in Neal's sense and so I am moving the section here until verifiable material is forthcoming:

Small 'a' anarchism (sometimes known as "little a") is a term used in two different, but not unconnected contexts. Dave Neal posited the term in opposition to big 'A' Anarchism in the article [http://www.spunk.org/library/intro/practice/sp001689.html Anarchism: Ideology or Methodology?]. While big 'A' Anarchism referred to ideological Anarchists, small 'a' anarchism was applied to their methodological counterparts; those who viewed anarchism as "a way of acting, or a historical tendency against illegitimate authority." As an anti-ideological position, small 'a' anarchism shares some similarities with [[post-left anarchy]]. [[David Graeber]] and [[Andrej Grubacic]] offer an alternative use of the term, applying it to groups and movements organising according to or acting in a manner consistent with anarchist principles of decentralisation, voluntary association, mutual aid, the network model, and crucially, "the rejection of any idea that the end justifies the means, let alone that the business of a revolutionary is to seize state power and then begin imposing one's vision at the point of a gun."<ref>[http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=41&ItemID=4796 Anarchism, Or The Revolutionary Movement Of The Twenty-first Century] by [[David Graeber]] and Andrej Grubacic</ref>

Skomorokh incite 19:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I would say that Neal's article is very notable, although he isn't as famous as Graeber. If priority is being given to academics over non-academic writers, then perhaps most of Wikipedia's editors ought to establish their credentials in editing pages. Chuck0 (talk) 04:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Reliable to you or me, perhaps; reliable in the Wikipedia sense, probably not. The above terminology should be read from a technical viewpoint. I don't have any opinion on the quality or importance of Neal/Graeber/Spunk Library/ZNet, I just haven't been able to find non-trivial coverage of small "a" anarchism in a peer-reviewed/editorially overseen respected publication. Skomorokh incite 05:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the section needs more citations in order to be included. I'm just responding to the comments about Dave Neal being non-notable, which he is not. He's been very influential on my own thinking and his essays have gotten some attention within anarchist circles. Chuck0 (talk) 18:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, sorry, I should have made it clear in what sense I meant that. Skomorokh incite 20:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes well I am David Graeber and I think Neal is just as notable as I am. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.84.163 (talk) 06:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

File:N-A Flag.png Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:N-A Flag.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Anarchist schools of thought

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 Anarchist schools of thought'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":

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⚡ 15:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Brief explanation

Thanks to Eduen for his recent edit in which he removed my edits, and especially for clarifying that a movement/ project/ organization must provide proof of self labeling as holding an anarchist position before being considered for possible inclusion on this article. I was not aware of this (perfectly reasonable and common-sense) requirement (I wrote a qualifier along the lines of 'they seem to be' anarchists). I fully agree with Eduen's removal of my additions to this article and thank him for the valuable feedback he provided. Warm regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 16:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 August 2014

Thoreau was not a pacifist, far from it. Although 'Civil Disobedience' influenced pacifist leaders, it never condemns violent resistance or states that nonviolent resistance is the only path. In another essay of his, 'A Plea for Captain John Brown', he praises Brown as a hero despite his violent acts. In fact, he was not even an anarchist, if you read his essays. 69.249.104.48 (talk) 18:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Done. I've replaced "proponent of anarcho-pacifism" with "influence on anarcho-pacifism". —Mr. Granger (talk · contribs) 15:07, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Darwinist Anarchism?

Just thought it should be added. Combines competition and racial purity and capitalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.136.6 (talk) 07:30, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Anarchism symbol is wrong

The circle-A symbol used for this school of thought is wrong. The circle represents order, and the 'A' rebellion against that order. So in a true anarchist symbol the 'A' should break through the circle. It's funny how contemporary anarchists have such a poor grasp of their own traditions. http://anarchism.net/symbol_ca.htm User:AecwriterAECwriter 21:21, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd support having a symbol where the breaking occurs, but the way it's drawn is straight/professional. The 'graffiti' style looks silly, and another problem with it is how many different ways it could be drawn graffiti style. Byelf2007 (talk) 5 March 2012
The symbol is correct. The "broken" circle A is anarcho-punk, not anarchist as a whole. See here --WhyBeNormal? c · t · m 16:02, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Anarchist schools of thought. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:17, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Anarchist schools of thought. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:12, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Neutrality Discussion

Chumley84 feels that this article is biased. He is new to Wikipedia, so I have added the template for him. I have asked him to come here and state his suggestions for changes here. If he or nobody else has any suggestions, please close this by consensus. FigfiresSend me a message! 20:33, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Closing czar 04:24, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Notability of "anarcho-transfeminism"/"anarcotransfeminismo"

Both of the graphics at the top of the article, themselves prominently featured, feature this school of thought with accompanying symbols/flag. This prominence would imply that it is a notable school of thought. However, despite the length and inclusiveness of the article, neither term appears even a single time. Either it should have a section within the article or it should be removed from both graphics. Considering it not only does not have its own article, but the text appears in exactly 0 places in *any* article (including this one), it seems clear that it does not meet notability guidelines. For that reason, it should be removed from the two graphics in which it is featured until its notability can be justified. I would be bold, but redoing the graphics is a little more effort than I'm willing to put in. However, if no one fixes it in a timely manner, the graphics should just be removed until someone feels motivated enough to properly replace them. Dfsghjkgfhdg (talk) 18:23, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

It's been a week with no activity/comment, so I'm going to remove it until someone cares enough to either provide appropriate graphics or contribute notable information to the article. Dfsghjkgfhdg (talk) 23:05, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Just the transfeminism? I´ll remove later and repost the graphics! Thanks! Ogat (talk) 16:50, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Schools of thought

Moved from User talk:Oeqtte

Hi, welcome from me too! Regarding this revert, I'm not sure there was a consensus to put them in the first place. As I said here, I think we should base it off on what reliable sources say in regard to anarchist schools of thought, but I hope someone more knowledgable than me with that can help us because I don't feel good enough to do that properly. As far as I know about it and understand it, while both are and have been influenced by anarchism, especially individualist anarchist, that doesn't necessarely mean that they're part of it or make them part of it. They seem to be mainly American-centric as they both came out from libertarianism in the United States, itself influenced by individualist anarchism, but that's it. Collectivism, communism, mutualism and syndicalism are the anarchist schools of thought that have always been recognised by reliable sources when talking about anarchist schools of thought. Besides, there's already a long, anti-capitalist and/or socialist free-market tradition within anarchism in certain strands of anarcho-syndicalism, individualist anarchism and mutualism; and left-wing market anarchism is often and more correctly called free-market left-libertarianism or market-oriented left-libertarianism. Anarcho-transhumanism doesn't even have its own page and doesn't seem to be notable enough for that. That's why I think they should be left out. Anarcho-capitalism and free-market left-libertarianism should be principally addressed in Libertarianism in the United States. Anarcho-capitalism already have much coverage in Anarchism and capitalism and in Issues in anarchism (that's where all of this should be addressed and discussed; Anarchist schools of thought should be about notable, recognised anarchist schools of thought by multiple reliable sources). Anarcho-transhumanism seems mainly related to libertarianism in the United States as well.--Davide King (talk) 04:46, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Okay I have looked into it a bit more and the unsourced text from the anarcho-transhumanist section (which had also previously been removed) is in large part directly copied from here. Having known about the philosophy I unfortunately just assumed that no one had gotten around to sourcing it yet. As for anarcho-capitalism its section is well sources, it is listed as a school of thought in both articles Anarchism and Outline of anarchism, and certain people will always want to include it so I figured a disputed section is a better solution. I think an article on the different varieties of anarchism wouldn't go awry in addressing movements that claim to be anarchist but otherwise aren't approved of, especially if reliable sources admit there is dispute. Overall the article should probably aim to be broad rather than in-depth since most all its sections have main articles anyway. It might be more suitable to discuss this on Talk:Anarchist schools of thought to get the opinions of others. Anyway sorry if I'm causing trouble. Oeqtte (talk) 05:50, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your reply and edits! It's precisely because certain people will always want to include it that they shouldn't be included. Why then not add also national-anarchism? We should put what reliable sources put. I disagree that should be listed in Anarchism and Outline of anarchism, especially when they're listed only to say they're not part of it such as However, the overall consensus among anarchists believes that anarcho-capitalism cannot be considered a part of the anarchist movement due to the fact that anarchism has historically been an anti-capitalist movement which opposes private property over the means of production and for definitional reasons which see anarchism as incompatible with capitalist forms.[124][125][126][127] If that's the overall consensus, then I don't understand why we should put anarcho-capitalism or other anarcho- or anarchist things not actually recognised in every anarchist-related article; they simply shouldn't be there and this should be discussed only and mainly in related anarchist article such as Anarchism and capitalism, Anarchism and nationalism, Issues in anarchism, etc. It's my understanding that the consensus is that they aren't part of it and Wikipedia is about reliable sources and consensus, so putting them just because certain people will always want to include it isn't very Wikipedian.
While not as extreme as putting Nazism and fascism as forms of socialism, it's still unnecessary. There's already a long free-market tradition that is recognised within anarchism (anarcho-syndicalism, individualist anarchism, mutualism, etc.); there's no need for anarcho-capitalism, especially when as told by Rothbard himself, it only took superfical things from individualist anarchism and disregarded all the things that made it part of anarchism, like its opposition to usury and its preferance for usufruct rather than capitalist property norms; or how it came out from within the anarchist movement itself rather than just being inspired or influenced by it. So it's not just because it has capitalism in the name. Rothbard himself stated that anarcho-capitalism isn't individualist anarchism and I agree per the reasons stated above. While anarcho-capitalism may be recognised by some as part of anarchism or even individualist anarchism, it's such a minority that it's undue. Anarcho-capitalism and free-market left-libertarianism are more seen as part of libertarianism in the United States, although having some overlaps with anarchism, so I see anarcho-capitalism, what could be more proprely called stateless liberalism, as more of a radical liberal school of thought rather than anarchist (many anarchists also believe that it isn't really anti-state as it merely want to privatise it, etc.) and both anarcho-capitalism and free-market left-libertarianism as American libertarian schools of thought.
It's also a mistake to see social anarchism as anarchist socialism and individualist anarchism as capitalist anarchism; individualist anarchists were just as fervent anti-capitalist as they were anti-state socialists. Many individualist anarchists are also communists and many social anarchists support a free-market socialist system, hence why Proudhon's mutualism is seen as both social anarchism and as individualist anarchism, or a synthesis of both. The real difference is in organisation as social anarchists tend to be revolutionary and support anarchist and mass-based organisation whereas individualist anarchists tend to be more evolutionary and prefer individual rebellion and revolution. Contemporary anarchism has been described as supporting horizontalism, direct action, anti-authoritarianism, decentralization, anti-capitalism and mutual aid.

[C]ontemporary anarchism can be seen as a powerful critique of the pseudo-libertarianism of contemporary neo-liberalism [exactly anarcho-capitalism/right-libertarianism] One might say that contemporary anarchism is about responsibility, whether sexual, ecological, or socio-economic; it flows from an experience of conscience about the manifold ways in which the West ravages the rest; it is an ethical outrage at the yawning inequality, impoverishment, and disenfranchisement that is so palpable locally and globally.[252]

Anyway, I agree with you it should be discussed there and you aren't causing any trouble. Keep it up!--Davide King (talk) 22:15, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Гармонический Мир I agree with that, so could you please show us these sources? As far as I'm aware, left-wing market anarchism is part of left-libertarianism, they usually call themselves left-libertarians (or market anarchists, so they're part of free-market anarchism; it doesn't make it a new school) and it seems to be mainly a thing in the United States (the fact that it even needs to have left-wing in the title seems to confirm that); perhaps it should be moved to Free-market left-libertarianism or Market-oriented left-libertarianism; or in other words, simply a part/subset of free-market anarchism rather than a full new school of thought. Anarcho-capitalism isn't either but free-market anarchism is, although it's more of a branch (akin to social anarchism), including certain strands of anarcho-syndicalism, individualist anarchism and mutualism, rather than a school of thought. We should only include notable schools that have been accepted as part of anarchism, so I would remove anarcho-capitalism (right-libertarianism) and left-wing market anarchism (left-libertarianism); and I would move Queer anarchism either to Anarcha-feminism or incorporate it as part of Individualist anarchism since it's a tradition that goes back to that in the 19th century.--Davide King (talk) 10:08, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Davide King, see Markets Not Capitalism: Individualist anarchism against bosses, inequality, corporate power, and structural poverty / Ed. by G. Chartier & C.W. Johnson. — Minor Compositions, 2011. — 428 p. Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 10:40, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I have some questions about this source but I'll start by saying that p. 428 of my 2011 edition is a list of author bios and probably not what you have in mind. Do you have a quote? czar 20:46, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Czar, "This book is intended as an extended introduction to the economic and social theory of left-wing market anarchism. Market anarchism is a radically individualist and anti-capitalist social movement. Like other anarchists, market anarchists are radical advocates of individual liberty and mutual consent in every aspect of social life — thus rejecting all forms of domination and government as invasions against liberty and violations of human dignity." (P. 1-2, the bold is mine). Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 02:00, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
  • First question: What makes Gary Chartier reliable for this claim? This seems akin to using Kropotkin, Bookchin, or Rothbard to define the scopes of their respective ideologies. I'd personally look to third-parties to answer questions of "what counts as anarchism" because partisan sources are first-party/primary/biased. czar 02:46, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Гармонический Мир As I thought, I think you're confusing free-market anarchism as anarcho-capitalism and left-wing market anarchim as mutualism et all. Although free-market anarchism has been recently used to refer to anarcho-capitalism, among other names, free-market anarchism actually refers to the branch of anarchism that has advocated a market system, i.e. mutualism and certain strands of anarcho-syndicalism and individualist anarchism. Proudhon was no left-wing market anarchist; it's simply that so-called left-wing market anarchism refers to their tradition back to Proudhon, but that's because in the United States anarcho-capitalism is seen as synonymous of free-market anarchism, hence why they even use left-wing when referring to them (elsewhere, this wouldn't be necessary and would be just confusing). As far as I'm aware, not all of them are anarhists either and they generally are within the American left-libertarian tradition rather than anarchism, just like anarcho-capitalism is within the American right-libertarian one. That's why it should be removed either for that, or for not being notable enough, i.e. cited as anarchist schools of thought when reliable sources talk about them. Either way, it seems to fit already within mutualism and individualist anarchism as part of the free-market anarchism branch rather than a full new anarchist school, hence why it shouldn't be included as a school of thought, or only mentioned within mutualism and individualist anarchism, just like queer anarchism should be mentioned either in anarcha-feminism or individualist anarchism.--Davide King (talk) 21:41, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Гармонический Мир The problem is that we need more sources and that I haven't seen it as one new notable anarchist school of thought; it simply seem to be a revival of certain strands of 19th century individualist anarchism and mutualism, perhaps adapted to the 21st century but not forming a full new school of thought.--Davide King (talk) 14:52, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Just want to note that if these sections are re-added, their citations need serious work. We should not be self-citing authors as evidence that they are prominent within an anarchist school. If we don't have reliable, secondary sourcing for such claims, we have no business writing about it. czar 04:07, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Anarcho- Capitalism

The very sources that are used in this article mention Anarcho-Capitalism as a school of Anarchistic thought, Capitalism is inherently right wing, therefore Anarchism can be either left or right wing, it can't just be whitewashed off because you are a socialist and therefore hate any mention of capitalism. Information can not just be doctored to push one idea over another. Leave that to the individual to decide.

Otherwise you are no better than Stalinist Russia scrubbing photos. DiggerWalters (talk) 04:52, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

@DiggerWalters: No, anarcho-capitalism isn't a school of Anarchist thought as plenty of the sources in the article explain, and claiming that anarchism can be right-wing is literally the whitewashing you speak off, because it ignores hundreds of years of Anarchist history, and only focuses on Rothbard's co-optation of the term last century as a radical chic. You can't just force your own version or interpretations of things, you need to back it up with sources, otherwise it's original research and forcing the view of one person over others. Provide some serious sources claiming anarchism can be right-wing, and then you can freely add the content. Otherwise, you are just posting your own thoughts and beliefs. BeŻet (talk) 13:43, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Diagram of Schools of Anarchism

Sock, now indeffed. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 01:18, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Here's the pertinent diagram.

Anarchism Tree

If no one has any reasonable objection, I will add it again. PhilLiberty (talk) 22:28, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

My objection is that it is a load of hogwash - could you present any reliable sources supporting this diagram that you created? Neither Georgism nor Ancapism is considered to be anarchism, the former doesn't even have anarchism mentioned once in the body of the article. BeŻet (talk) 22:58, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Also it associates Bakunin with "socialist anarchism" as opposed to social anarchism, describes anarcho-communism as "collectivist" despite its opposition to collectivist anarchism, suggests that Marx influenced Bakunin even though they were in opposition to each other, implies that Molinari was an anarchist despite him being a classical liberal, suggests that Stirner influenced Nietsche despite Nietsche never mentioning him and the topic being controversial (see relationship between Friedrich Nietzsche and Max Stirner), implies that Lysander Spooner was a capitalist despite his clear opposition to wage labour and other features of capitalism, amongst other factually incorrect or highly questionable things. Honestly, it's just complete nonsense. BeŻet (talk) 23:15, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
I can give reliabe sources for any of those influence links. Geo-anarchism is definitely a thing. Anarcho-capitalism clearly satisfies the definition of anarchism. I think BeŻet's complaints are frivolous, and the usual sectarian nonsense. Bakunin was a sociaist anarchist - an anarcho-socialist. If ansocs want to "sandbag" their title to underemphasize their socialism in their article, that does not mean other articles must do likewise. Anarcho-communism is a form of collectivism, despite some ancoms having proprietary definitions and claiming otherwise. Molinari was definitely the seminal anarcho-capitalist. Cf: The Production of Security. Stirner clearly influenced Nietzsche, as anyone who has studied those two know. Lysander Spooner was a capitalist since he supported private property (even IP!). Socialists often play fast and loose with the definition of socialism, but it has to do with collective ownership of the means of production, not with whether someone holds the LTV. Benjamin Tucker was also pro-private property (of the possession type) and held a soft form of the LTV. Honestly, BeŻet seems to know very little about the history of anarchism, and seems to be an ansoc sectarian that rejects other schools of anarchism. PhilLiberty (talk) 22:52, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
As BeZet requested, is it possible to provide sources for this? Original research should be avoided, Wikipedia is not to publish editor opinions but to summarize sources and cite them... —PaleoNeonate – 14:37, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
All of your statements can be easily disputed by reading the articles and sources. Bakunin was a social anarchist and a socialist, because anarchism is simply considered a type of socialism.[1] Socialist anarchism isn't really a thing, you might be thinking of libertarian socialism, which historically was synonymous with anarchism.[2] Kropotkin who supported anarcho-communism opposed collectivist anarchism, as he explained in The Conquest of Bread. There is a whole article explaining the relationship between Friedrich Nietzsche and Max Stirner. Lysander Spooner was a member of the socialist First International[3], supported the labour theory of value and was against wage labour. He clearly wasn't a capitalist, even if he did "inspire" Rothbard, and even if he did have slightly different views on property rights. Finally, there are hundreds upon hundreds of sources questioning whether ancapism is anarchism at all (Anarchism and capitalism). BeŻet (talk) 16:45, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ McLaughlin, Paul (2002), Mikhail Bakunin - The Philosophical basis of his anarchism, Algora Publishing, p. 74
  2. ^ Cohn, Jesse (2009). "Anarchism". In Ness, Immanuel (ed.). The International Encyclopedia of Revolution and Protest. Oxford, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. p. 4. ISBN 978-1-4051-9807-3. from the 1890s on, the term 'libertarian socialism' has entered common use as a synonym for anarchism
  3. ^ Woodcock, George (1962). Anarchism: A History of Libertarian Ideas and Movements. Melbourne: Penguin. p. 460.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anarchist_schools_of_thought/Archive_1&oldid=1149264937"