Talk:Anarchism/Archive 58

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.

Archive 55

Archive 56

Archive 57

→

Social movement...

Is mentioned nowhere above it's mention on how individualist anarchism is not. The reason I was confused was that I thought that 'social movement' was being used as a qualifier for what was anarchist and what wasn't. Perhaps that should be re-worded. Zazaban (talk) 03:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

It certainly wasn't my intent nor the source's intent to claim that for something to be anarchism it has to be a social movement. Jadabocho (talk) 04:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I can now see that, but it's just the way it's set up. "philosophical/literary anarchist phenomenon rather than a social movement." sounds odd when nothing when 'social movement' is not priorly mentioned. Zazaban (talk) 18:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Manual of Style

Seeing as we're dealing with a matter of international variations in terminology in the above discussion, the following extract from the Manual of Style may also have some bearing on this discussion. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 18:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

From WP:MOS:

Opportunities for commonality

Wikipedia tries to find words that are common to all varieties of English.

In choosing words or expressions, especially for article titles, there may be value in making choices that avoid varying spellings, where possible. In extreme cases of conflicting names, a common substitute (such as fixed-wing aircraft) is preferred to national varieties (fixed-wing aeroplanes [British English], and fixed-wing airplanes [American English]).
If a variable spelling appears in an article name, redirect pages are made to accommodate the other variants, as with Artefact and Artifact, so that they can always be found in searches and linked to from either spelling.
Sensitivity to terms that may be used differently between different varieties of English allows for wider readability; this may include glossing terms and providing alternative terms where confusion may arise. Insisting on a single term or a single usage as the only correct option does not serve well the purposes of an international encyclopedia.
Use an unambiguous word or phrase in preference to one that is ambiguous because of national differences. For example, use alternative route (or even other route) rather than alternate route, since alternate may mean only "alternating" to a British English speaker.

Facing the Enemy quote

I would say that the work is citeable, but that the claim is obviously partisan and the distinction it makes is not sufficiently clear or self-evident for inclusion here. The issue is really undue weight. Libertatia (talk) 21:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I also find it a bit odd in that there is no mention of social movements beforehand, although the quote talks of social movements in a way that implies that anarchism being a social movement has been mentioned before. It is very odd. Zazaban (talk) 22:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Straw poll

In light of the now fully-quoted references, I'd like to conduct a straw poll to gauge consensus on the insertion of "libertarianism" as a synonym for anarchism in the lede. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 16:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Strong support as long as this usage is also placed in the lede in the article on Libertarianism. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 16:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Abstain I don't vote, and I recognize that there are others that don't take the time to vote so a poll is neither evidence of consensus or lack thereof. Jadabocho (talk) 16:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Think I should just be WP:Bold and stick it in there without consulting the masses? Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 17:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

It's already in the lede isn't it? The whole top portion is not the lede? Jadabocho (talk) 17:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

No, the lede is the first sentence. According to our article on News style, "The most important structural element of a story is the lede or lead or "intro" (in the UK) —the story's first, or leading, sentence." The relevant section is here. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 17:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't have any problem with it being listed as a synonym in the first sentence, but I think the explanatory sentences that I just added at the end of the introduction should be there too in order to explain to Americans who are confused by this. Jadabocho (talk) 17:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Why not just redirect Libertarianism here, and place the American colloquial use of the word in a For other uses, see... section? Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 18:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be better to direct "libertarianism" to the disambiguation article. Jadabocho (talk) 18:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that would be giving undue influence to the American colloquial usage. According to our sources, "libertarian" means "anarchist". Other uses of the term "libertarian" should of course be linked to on the anarchism article in a line that says For other uses, see... Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 18:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

A disambiguation article is for those looking to find information on what they're referring to as "libertarianism." As long as their is more than one use of the term it's giving undue weight to anarchism by ONLY directing it to anarchism. Jadabocho (talk) 19:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Not if "anarchism" is the internationally-accepted primary meaning of the term--besides, the colloquial use would still be accessible via a link from this page. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 19:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

We don't have sources that says that anarchism is the primary internationally-accepted meaning of the term. Jadabocho (talk) 19:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Below is at least one source that describes the American use of "libertarian" as "special" and "off the spectrum". Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 19:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Here is a reference that contextualizes the American versus the international use of the word "libertarian"...

Interviewer: "What's the difference between "libertarian" and "anarchist," exactly?"

Chomsky: "There's no difference, really. I think they're the same thing. But you see, "libertarian" has a special meaning in the United States. The United States is off the spectrum of the main tradition in this respect: what's called "libertarianism" here is unbridled capitalism. Now, that's always been opposed in the European libertarian tradition, where every anarchist has been a socialist—because the point is, if you have unbridled capitalism, you have all kinds of authority: you have extreme authority."

This is very close to my stance on the matter. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 19:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

But you have to note that the U.S. is not a tiny country and produces a lot of literature that circulates. Just because the U.S. usage might be different that doesn't make it not significant. Go to Google books and you can see that while "libertarianism" often refers to anarchism, it's not usually referring to anarchism in the total of those books. Jadabocho (talk) 19:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

That just means that the United States is unduly represented in literature, not that the United States has a monopoly on the meaning of the word. The rest of the world disagrees. An almost exact parallel exists with the word "liberalism", so let's take a look at how Wikipedia handles that colloquialism.... The Liberalism article discusses the common international meaning of the word. In order to find the peculiar American use, a reader follows the link at the top of the page in this line: "This article discusses the ideology of liberalism. Local differences in its meaning are listed in Liberalism worldwide. For other uses, see Liberal." From Liberalism worldwide, you scroll down to the entry on the United States (which says "In the United States, the primary use of the term liberal is at some variance with European usage"), then you click on Liberalism in the United States. Based on this model, I think we should do exactly the same thing with "libertarianism". Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 19:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Below are some examples of effective ledes incorporating synonyms elsewhere on Wikipedia. I believe we should model these. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 18:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

From News style: News style (also journalistic style or news writing) is the particular prose style used for news reporting (ie. in newspapers) as well as in news items that air on radio and television.
From Killer Whale: The Killer Whale or Orca (Orcinus orca), less commonly, Blackfish or Seawolf, is the largest species of the dolphin family.
From Areopagus: The Areopagus or Areios Pagos (Greek Άρειος Πάγος) is the 'Hill of Ares', north-west of the Acropolis, which in classical times functioned as the high Court of Appeal for criminal and civil cases.
From Ignosticism: Ignosticism, or igtheism is the theological position that every other theological position (including agnosticism) assumes too much about the concept of God and many other theological concepts.
From Jail: Jail, or gaol (especially in Australia and New Zealand), or remand prison, is a correctional institution used to detain persons who are in the lawful custody of the state.
Comment Please clarify what you mean by lede. Are we talking about the first sentence or the introduction? I STRONGLY OPPOSE putting a word that some scholars say is synonymous in the lead sentence. That would be extraordinarily misleading. As it was before it was put here for discussion further down in the introduction and contexted, I can live with. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok but what is your justification for opposition? Jadabocho (talk) 18:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not synonymous. Some people consider it synonymous and many don't. So it's not synonymous. Libertarianism and anarchism are absolutely not the same thing, but if there are reliable sources where some people argue they are then it should be included in that context. Not stated as a widely accepted fact. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

It's widely accepted internationally that "libertarian" means left anti-authoritarianism, or anarchism. The other use is an American colloquialism. This is an international encyclopedia. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 18:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes it's a synonym and sometimes it's not. Therefore sometimes people looking for information on libertarianism are looking for information on what you call anarchism. Saying it's used as a synonym is not saying it's used as a synonym in every context. Jadabocho (talk) 19:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

If you want to say it's sometimes used as a synonym, but not in the United states where the words have two very different meanings that's fine. But I don't see why it's so important to make such a big deal about the supposed synonymity anyway. This article is about anarchism, not libertarianism. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

This is an article about libertarianism (I'm using the word libertarianism synonymously with anarchism). Jadabocho (talk) 02:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Strong support 'Abolishment of the state' is mentioned under Libertarianism. As long as that's there, libertarianism should be mentioned here. Zazaban (talk) 18:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The point is that Wikipedia ought to get on board with international scholarship, which says "libertarianism means left anti-authoritarianism". If some people in the United States want to use the term "libertarianism" to mean "chocolate chip cookies", more power to them, but why should Wikipedia treat that as a widespread position? Keep in mind that it's not all Americans use the term "libertarian" in this way. Many of us, especially anarchists, have continually used the word properly. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 23:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The lede is the first sentence, although for stylistic reasons, it may be better to break the synonyms out into a couple of sentences. Either way, the synonyms should be handled right up front before we get into any other topic. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 18:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

- - The problem is that the proposal doesn't seem to be to mention the overlapping meanings, but to say the words are synonymous, like Chips and fries, but they are not. So it's very important that this be made clear. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

They are synonyms, not simply overlapping terms. The confusion comes because a small political party chose to use the word "Libertarian" to mean something different from what the libertarian community meant all along. That misuse of the term is insignificant on the international stage. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 23:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

They are emphatically not synonymous. Not in etymology, not in meaning, and not in practice. Someone arguing that they are is find to include, but let's make clear this is not universally accepted by anyone who understands political systems and theory. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes they are synonyms and sometimes they aren't. I don't see why you can't get this. Here is an example: "Crash" is sometimes synonymous with "sleep" and other times it is synonymous with "collision." Nobody is saying that they are ALWAYS used synonymously. It's simply useful and notable information. Jadabocho (talk) 02:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

We're talking about different meanings in the same context here. Bark means the noise a dog makes and the outer layer of a tree, and whine means to whinge and to make a high pitched noise. But even when we're talking about the meanings in terms of an animal, they don't mean the same thing. But dogs do make both noises. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

In most of the world, the two words mean the same thing, in theory and in practice. That is its only widely-accepted meaning (in all non-american countries, and in American scholarly writing, as well as American anarchist and other socialist communities). A few peolple use the word differently. It's just like "liberalism", except virtually all Americans use the word "liberalism" wrong (including anarchists and other socialists), so it has a much better claim of having multiple widely-accepted meanings, and yet Wikipedia's main article for liberalism discusses mainly it's international meaning--same should be true of "libertarianism". Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 17:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

<outdent> If the meaning of the word is totally different in the U.S, this needs to be made very clear in the article. This is the English language Wikipedia and there are many people in the United States. So there understanding of the terms and how they're used shouldn't be ignored. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Many Americans use the term just like Europeans do, however some Americans use it in a totally different way. I agree that this should be clearly noted in both the articles for anarchism and for libertarianism (actually, they should probably be merged). Those looking for information specifically on that meaning of the word should be directed to Libertarian Party (United States). Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 21:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose The vast majority of USAmericans (who know what it means at all) define "libertarianism" as free market ("capitalist") anti-statism. Only the 1/1000th of one percent of USAmericans who are anarcho-socialists would define it as "anarchism." Also, someone seemed to equate US libertarianism with the Libertarian Party. As a matter of fact, many/most US libertarians are critical of the LP - probably a vast majority after the Republicans took over the party last year. Another misapprehension: Someone implied that only in the US is the free market anti-statist view held. In fact, there is the Movemento Libertariano party and a think tank Instituto Libertario in Costa Rica, various groups in Scandinavia, Italy, Britain, Australia, New Zealand, and various other places that use the pro-capitalist meaning.

There's another important difference between "anarchism" and "libertarianism" - the former always refers to the ideal of a stateless society, while the latter is often used as a relative term. I.e. Anyone for a less intrusive state than the statist quo is a libertarian in this usage. IOW One can be libertarian if one supports e.g. a "night-watchman" state, since that is so much freer than current welfare-warfare states. PhilLiberty (talk) 23:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

That's only one meaning of the term "libertarianism." The other meaning of the term refers ONLY to anarchism. The intro to this article points that out. Jadabocho (talk) 23:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I too, oppose this idea -- I think due to the common usage of words related "Libertarian" in the United States, it would be misleading and confusing ... Jrtayloriv (talk) 14:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Collectivist anarchism and violence

I removed the following sentence from the article:

"This was to be initiated by small cohesive group through acts of violence, or "propaganda by the deed," which would inspire the workers as a whole to revolt and forcibly collectivize the means of production.[reference] "

For the following reasons:

Collectivism is an economic question, while "this was to be initiated.." deals with questions of strategy / tactics.
The sentence doesn't read logically
If true, We need to show that this was espoused as an essential part of the theory of anarchist Collectivism.
I don't have the source to hand but am unsure of its relevance / appropriateness:
* iUniverse is a vanity publisher, no?
* the book is titled "Marx in Context" - given Marx's antipathy to the collectivist Bakunin I think we need some more "horses mouth" stuff

For sure, the Collectivists were prevalent at the time of the most notorious Propaganda by the Deed stuff, but that's not the same as saying that "collectivism was to be brought about by violence initiated by small groups" - that sounds more like a definition of Insurrectionism. It might be shown (with sources) to be part of either Bakunin's thought, or (more likely) Nechaev, or the Russian Anarchists, or the Nihilists.

Given that this period was a time of open class warfare, it's not accurate to say what the removed sentence says without strong sources, i.e. that it was an defining part of the ideology, not a tactic / response engaged in by Collectivists.

Chaikney (talk) 19:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

It is not just an economic philosophy. It's a revolutionary philosophy. You can't separate only the economics out and say the rest is not anarchism. The tactics of any type of anarchism are part of the overall anarchism. Anarchism is not just economics. Bakunin himself called it revolutionary socialism and sources refer to it as such. The revolutionary aspect is inseparable from the economic philosophy. Jadabocho (talk) 20:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, of course it's revolutionary but what do we have saying that "collectivists said that do this to get that". Why affinity groups and not mass working class action like a general strike? Chaikney (talk) 23:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC) (this was me)

Are you confusing collectivist anarchism, the generic term for all anarchism that is collectivist, with "collectivist anarchism," the name for Bakunin's philosophy? There's two different meanings for the term. Jadabocho (talk) 05:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

No of course not. The question of violence requires a much stronger and better-sourced approach than the current one. Currently we have one tactic (POTD) singled out as a defining part of Collectivist practice above other methods of direct action that anarchists at the time would be using, such as the strike. So we have a section that's massively simplistic (and doesn't reflect the main article it links to, IIRC). This may all be trus and accurate but it is very weakly supported at the moment. What I said above still applies. If Bakunin said it, where and what did he say? What did Most's paper advocate?Chaikney (talk) 14:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, well if other strategies are advocated too, feel free to add them in with sources. The article doesn't say that's the only strategy. Jadabocho (talk) 19:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

No, but that wasn't the nub my original point - what does this iUniverse source say and why is it Reliable? Chaikney (talk) 22:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

It says "Alongside Proudhonian mutualism in anarchism was the revolutionary collectivism propounded by Bakunin, a Russian nobleman who endured prison and much hardshop for the cause of social revolution. He was an elitist, for the spearhead of change would come from a small cohesive group through propaganda by the deed, acts of individual an collective terrorism against the power structure to inspire the workers to revolt. Indeed, he founded the International Social Democratic Alliance in 1868 expressly for this purpose." It is a reliable source because it is by Professor of History at Kent State University, Louis Patsouras, who has also published elsewhere. Jadabocho (talk) 04:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Chicken and egg, Agorism and Mutualism

"however, anarchism has always included an individualist strain,[7][8] including those who support capitalism (for example anarcho-capitalists, agorists, and other free-market anarchists) or similar market-oriented economic structures; for example, mutualists.[9][10][11]"

This sentence cannot be true. As written it says that anarchism has always included anarcho-capitalism and agorism. One dates from the 1960s, the other the 1980s. The article dates anarchism from the start of the 19th-C (taoism aside). This brings up an issue of undue weight (why mention these more than mutualism?) as well as priority / which came first.

There's also an issue with the definition of capitalism - anarcho-capitalists have a different definition of capitalism from most anarchists (including individualists). Saying "anarchism has always included those who support capitalism" is at best confusing and more lkely to actively mislead readers. 19th-C individualists did not identify as capitalist. Issues of whether what they meant was the same as what anarcho-capitalists call capitalism are way too much for the intro.

So I'm changing this to:

however anarchism has always included an individualist strain including those who support market-oriented economic structures; for example, mutualists. Current day Anarcho-capitalists, agorists and other free-market anarchists claim their lineage from elements of this tradition.

Excuse my not explaining this more fully before. Chaikney (talk) 23:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I see the problem, thanks for raising this. One minor suggestion would be to de-attribute the lineage claim as it is not in dispute (per WP:ASF). Regards, Skomorokh 23:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the source it says "Usually considered to be extreme left-wing ideology, anarchism has always included a significant strain of radical individualism, from the hyperrationalism of Godwin, to the egoism of Stirner, to the libertarians anarcho-capitalists of today." It's saying anarcho-capitalists are included in that strain, which has always existed. It's not saying anarcho-capitalism has always existed. I don't think yhe text you changed in the article was saying that either. Jadabocho (talk) 06:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I actually prefer the way the source puts it. Can we use that? Zazaban (talk) 20:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The source is making some extraordinarily suspect claims which are contested by many anarchists and non-anarchists alike. Namely, that "hyperrationalism" (whatever that is) is a form of individualism and that Stirner and Godwin were anarchists. Rationalism is just as much the foundation of marxism, liberalism, and science, for example as it is of individualism, and neither Godwin nor Stirner considered themselves anarchists, though Godwin at least was influential in early anarchism. Why not just say "anarchism has always included a strain of radical individualism"? We shouldn't make such controversial statements in the intro as if they're facts. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 05:18, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

As you know, wikipedia is based on sources, and that is in the source. Although Godwin predated anarchism as a movement, he has been retrospectively been named by many as the father of modern anarchism. Stirner is heavily associated with anarchism, and is one of the most influential philosophers in anarchism. Their philosophies have both been mainly picked up by anarchists, and they are responsible for the strains mentioned; even if they weren't anarchisys themselves, it is their philosophies that are the base of strains within anarchism. Zazaban (talk) 05:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based WP:RSs, and when those sources disagree, Wikipedia prefers non-controversial sources. You accurately state that Godwin and Stirner were retrospectively ascribed an anarchist philosophy. If we mention Godwin and Stirner, then the fact that they didn't consider themselves anarchists should be mentioned. Flatly calling them "anarchists" is misleading and contentious. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 16:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

You're going to be hard pressed to find sources that say Godwin and Stirner aren't anarchists. You may be able to find some, but they're going to be outnumbered by 100-1. Nearly all sources, including other anarchists, regard them to be anarchists. You don't have to call yourself an anarchist to be an anarchist. What you call yourself is not what defines you as an anarchist. Mention that they didn't call themselves anarchists if you want, but they still should be state to be an anarchists because that they're not would be a very fringe view. I can think of others that didn't call themselves anarchists, such as Lysander Spooner, Tolstoy, Josiah Warren, and Thoreau. Jadabocho (talk) 23:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The test cannot be "sources that say Godwin and Stirner aren't anarchists," although there certainly are those. I think the issue is really that there has been a rough consensus to treat some of the precursor figures and outliers in a way that respects the largely retrospective sense in which they might now be defined as anarchists. Godwin really differs from the tradition in some significant ways. Stirner was an important influence, but so were a number of other figures that we do not consider anarchists. La Boetie, Spencer and Burke are, quite logically, treated only as influences. As long as the entries remain consistent, I don't see a problem, but the line between anarchists and figures who were simply anarchistic in some of their thought, or who influenced anarchists, is necessarily going to be somewhat arbitrary and needs to be based in consensus. Libertatia (talk) 20:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Consensus among sources have to be the determinant of what is in Wikipedia, not consensus among Wikipedia editors. The consensus among sources is that Stirner and Godwin are anarchists, no precursors. They're founders of anarchism. To say that "Godwin really differs from the tradition" is erroneous, due to the fact that notion that there is a "tradition" is a myth. There is no anarchist tradition. What there is rather a hodge-podge mixture of ideas related only by a tenuous anti-statist thread. Jadabocho (talk) 20:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

It might be true that there is more than one "anarchist tradition," but to deny that such a tradition or traditions exists is a revisionism of your own, and one rather inconsistent with your talk about "founders of anarchism." One founds movements, not ideas, and it is precisely the various practical affiliations and theoretical connections made by anarchist movements which have given us a tradition. The scholarly "consensus" about Stirner and Godwin is also your creation. There is not even a consensus about figures like Proudhon, among the sort of sources that Wikipedia editors can draw on. The answer is consistency, and that has to include some sort of consensus among editors. Neglecting that component only leads to disruptive editing. Libertatia (talk) 02:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

That's what I meant when I said there is no anarchist tradition. I am saying there are multiple traditions within anarchism. There is no such thing as THE anarchist tradition. Also there an anarchists that may not be in any tradition but are unique, and that doesn't make them not anarchists. Tradition is not necessary to be an anarchist. And there certainly is a scholarly consensus that Stirner, Godwin, as well as Proudhon were anarchists. I'm not saying that you won't find one or two fringe sources saying they weren't. That's not what I mean by consensus. I mean 95% plus of the sources grant that they're anarchists. Jadabocho (talk) 03:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, all your claims are simply assertions of your own personal interpretation of things, and nothing that you can impose on other editors. There have to be some standards for inclusion, and no particular set of standards is self-evident. Depending on the criteria chosen by Wikipedia's editors,--something which does have to respect something like consensus, where Wikipedia's other editorial policies are not decisive,--we could make a variety of specific cases for inclusion, based on the existing scholarship and the available primary sources. Presently, we seem to have no basis to choose whether Stirner or Eliphalet Kimball more clearly belongs in the article. But simply insisting that the answer is self-evident is unhelpful. And anyone who has edited here for very long, or has seriously studied the literature, knows that it's not just "fringe" accounts that raise questions. Libertatia (talk) 06:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm going by Wikipedia policy. There is a policy called "undue weight." If an extreme minority of sources make a claim contrary to the consensus of sources it can't be represented as anything more than a fringe view. I've studied anarchism for years and I know that sources that say Stirner or Godwin or Proudhon aren't anarchists are few and far between. Jadabocho (talk) 06:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Justice

What is the anarchist approach? What, for example, should happen to murderers and rapists? 75.118.170.35 (talk) 18:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum, unfortunately. May I suggest posting your question at [1]. Zazaban (talk) 00:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

No, my point was this is a rather important point not covered by the article. 75.118.170.35 (talk) 00:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The anarchist approach to justice is not to have a government monopoly in judicial matters. Beyond that, it depends on which school of anarchism. Individual anarchists like Benjamin Tucker and modern anarcho-capitalists would have justice/arbitration services provided by a free market, i.e. private courts. Whether they be firms, mutuals, or coops is up to the voluntary arrangement people choose for themselves. Cf: Defense Services on the Free Market by Murray Rothbard. At the other extreme are the utopians, who believe that crime will essentially disappear once the State is gone. Classical anarcho-socialist thought tends toward the latter, and thus has little to say about justice. PhilLiberty (talk) 01:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Intro

The intro says "Anarchism is usually considered to be a radical left-wing ideology, and much of anarchist economics and anarchist legal philosophy reflect anti-authoritarian interpretations of communism, collectivism, syndicalism or participatory economics; however, anarchism has always included an economic and legal individualist strain, with that strain supporting an anarchist free-market economy and private property (like classical mutualism or today's anarcho-capitalism and agorism)."

This dilineates mutualism as being not of the left wing. Is this really what you want to say? Introman (talk) 02:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that's not bad, as mutualism was/is considered a middle way between socialism and capitalism by many. The lack of clarity is largely due to the simplistic left-right model. PhilLiberty (talk) 02:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Phil and Nihilo here; if you're curious about the alignment, I'd suggest reading Kevin Carson or Roderick Long on "free market anti-capitalism". Regards, Skomorokh 02:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Carson and Long both consider mutualism to be left wing. So what are you saying? I'm saying that the intro classified it as NOT being left wing. Reading the sentence, it says that anarchism is usually considered left wing, but those who hold that view are wrong, because anarchism has always included an non-left wing, individualist strain. Introman (talk) 03:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

"Non-left wing" is your inference, and is not in the article. What it says is that mutualism is an example of an "economic and legal individualist strain ... supporting an anarchist free-market economy and private property". One could quibble on the semantics of "private property", but the thrust of the claim is sound. Skomorokh 03:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

No, read closer. The word "however" is key. It's saying that everything after the however is not left wing. If you look at the source where this came from, that's what it's saying to. It's saying that the common view that anarchism is left wing is misguided because there has always been an individualist strain. Individualism is not usually considered to be on the left. Collectivism is what is political philosophy usually considers to be on the left. Look at what the source says. It says ""Usually considered to be an extreme left-wing ideology, anarchism has always included a significant strain of radical individualism, from the hyperrationalism of Godwin, to the egoism of Stirner, to the libertarians and anarcho-capitalists of today." Surely he's not saying the "libertarians and anarcho-capitalists of today" are left wing. He's saying that these are NOT left wing (with left wing being understood as collectivist). Introman (talk) 03:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

This is another of those cases where an author throws around terms like "extreme left-wing" in an introductory passage, without any argument, citation or even clear definition, and we try to shoe-horn it into an article as if it was a scholarly statement. Is anarchism "usually considered to be an extreme left-wing ideology"? Is is this all sufficiently dubious to leave out? I'm inclined to think the material merely adds confusion. Libertatia (talk) 05:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I've isolated that source into one statement. Introman (talk) 00:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Another problem is that the article says, in the Mutualism section, that Mutualism is in between individualism and collectivism, yet the intro is saying that mutualism is individualist. Not to mention, it's also saying that it's not left wing. Introman (talk) 04:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Mutualism is market and property, and the semmatics of that line of the intro is explaining about market anarchisms, anyway market and property usually is considered economic invidividualism. And left o socialist -in sense of socialization of property- usually is considered economic collectivism. I mean, is an intro, and an intro should be general, not so specific (we have many lines below the intro to be more speciffic and make nuances). --Nihilo 01 (talk) 14:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, I didn't know there was a discussion about this item... I believed that issue was so many discussed in the past :P. And excuse my english, I'm hurry.--Nihilo 01 (talk) 14:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

This article has sources saying that mutualism is in between individualist and collectivist anarchism. The Mutualism article also says that mutualism is not individualist anarchism. Introman (talk) 18:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)