Talk:Anarchism/Archive 50

Archive 45

←

Archive 48

Archive 49

Archive 50

Archive 51

Archive 52

→

Archive 55

Split the topic!

I seriously think that this page is far too long. I think it should be split into smaller pages. (I did try and start this once, but a nasty edit war meant my work was undone and I couldn't finish it.)

For example, the different schools could be cut down to a few sentences.

And the "issues" that have their own pages could be cut back as well.

This page should be providing a general overview. Not all the information.

Thoughts? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AFA (talk • contribs) 16:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

Oh, didn't I sign it last time? Anyway, also the section on "Cultural phenomena" should be dropped into a new article and most of the content here deleted. 16:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)16:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)~~

I stumbled onto this article at random and my first thought was pruning it down some. I know it is tricky as this is one of those topics that you can easily write books on, but do we need an entire page on Mutualism when it has its own article? The "Schools of anarchist thought" section could easily be made into just a list... Nitwit005 05:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Intro cleanup

Right now the intro reads [minus links and references]:

Anarchism is a political philosophy or group of doctrines and attitudes centered on rejection of any form of compulsory government (cf. "state"[1]), and supporting its elimination.[2][3]. The term "anarchism" derives from the Greek αναρχία ("without archons" or "without rulers"[4]). Thus "anarchism", in its most general meaning, is the belief that authoritarian relationships are undesirable and should be abolished.

There are a variety of types and traditions of anarchism with various points of difference.[5][6] However, the varieties are not particularly well characterized and not all of them are mutually exclusive.[7] Other than the description above, "there is no single defining position that all anarchists hold, and those considered anarchists at best share a certain family resemblance."[8] Different anarchists prefer several different economic systems.[9] Starting with the early theorists, the issue of property and its use and control has been a major concern.

I've made various changes already, tightening some prose and removing the now-rendundant reference to "involuntary servitude." I suggest more radical changes. Sentences 1 and 3 provide two different definitions, and "without archons" is pretty much redundant. I suggest rearranging and trimming this, so that: Jacob Haller 09:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Anarchism, in its most general sense, is the belief that authoritarian relationships are undesirable and should be abolished, and the corresponding political philosophy which rejects any form of compulsory government (cf. "state"[1]), and supports its elimination.[2][3]. The term "anarchism" derives from the Greek αναρχία ("without rulers"[4]).

There are a variety of types and traditions of anarchism[5][6]; however, the types are not all mutually exclusive.[7] Other than the description above, "there is no single defining position that all anarchists hold, and those considered anarchists at best share a certain family resemblance."[8] Different anarchists prefer several different economic systems.[9] Starting with the early theorists, the issue of property and its use and control has been a major concern.

"authoriarian relationships" is too vague, besides this notion is unsourced and thus original research. Intangible2.0 01:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I still think there is work to be done on it. As of now, it doesn't really say much. All it says is that anarchists are against compulsory government. So does that mean we would possibly be in favor of voluntary government? It also doesn't say what else we are opposed to, the majority of anarchists are opposed to much more than that. I think a few of the earlier versions were more explanative, this one seems too broad and can be interpreted to mean just about anything. Full Shunyata 04:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

As a matter of fact anarchists do support voluntary government. And as the Oxford Companion to Philosophy source says "there is no single defining position that all anarchists hold." I bet for every position you can find an anarchist against I can find an anarchist who is not against it. Even when it comes to the state, which is involuntary government, Max Stirner does not necessarily want the state eliminated. He just feels he isn't morally obliged to obey it but says he will use it to coerce others if self-interest calls for it. Operation Spooner 15:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why the line about hierarchical relationships keeps getting removed, in the intro. "Operation Spooner", I think it would more accurately be called "voluntary organisation" as opposed to "volun govt" - "govt" implies involuntary, to an extent. There's a quote by Proudhon starting off "To be governed is to... " etc which i think demonstrates this nicely. -- infinity0 20:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Infinity0. This is anarchism, not Objectivism or Nozickian minarchism which you seem to be describing, OpSpooner. Full Shunyata 23:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Article restructuring

We need to shorten the article. Plain and Simple. Let's brainstorm ways to do this. Vert et Noir^talk 03:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• There are many, many schools, or sects, or what have you, of Anarchism. They all warrant a paragraph, two at most, on this page. That's why we have multiple articles. Vert et Noir^talk 03:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• The social movement should have it's own article. It should have several paragraphs on this page, at most, not subsections of it's own. There can be vast, lengthy subsections on it's own article, but there's little need for such content on this page. Not to mention the whole section reads like a history. Perhaps it would even do better as part of the History of anarchism article? Vert et Noir^talk 03:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I second merging it into History of anarchism, but if we do so, we should (1) keep syndicalism in the schools section and (2) copy much of the labor movement section into anarcho-syndicalism in the schools section here. Jacob Haller 00:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• The issues section could be shortened immensely. Each issue should have at the very most one short paragraph devoted to it. We might consider shortening each section to a single sentence. We need an article like Issues in Anarchism. Vert et Noir^talk 03:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• The "Cultural phenomena" section is a bit sloppy. It might even be removed from the page entirely. It could make an interesting article of it's own, however. We've no need to list prominent Anarchists in the article. That's simply a poor cry for attention. Vert et Noir^talk 03:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

These are all very good ideas. :) I'm not sure about completely splitting the article though, because everything is related. It's hard to talk about a school of anarchism without explaining its origins. But everything could be much shortened, with detailed content moved into subarticles (most of which already exist). We could have the following:

• Anarchism - summary of history, schools, and issues
• History of anarchism - is a bit bloated at the moment, actually. I think a lot of the history in the Anarchism article could be merged and condensed with the stuff in the History article.

I'd help more, but I'm not an expert in these matters; I wouldn't know where to start. Also, I've got other stuff on my plate atm. Anyone else? -- infinity0 09:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Since the article is already too long, I think [the issues] section is a prime candidate to be plunked. Issues can be discussed in the various types of anarchism. Anything can be an issue, from feminism, to free love or atheism. But this has little to do with anarchism in general, which is what is discussed in this article; certain issues are important for certain types of anarchism, so why not discuss them in these separate articles? Intangible2.0 01:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the issues section was intended for issues which involve several traditions. If an issue is closely linked to one school, I suggest the issue section and the specific school should be merged, preferably in the issues section. Except for green anarchism, however, this has already been done. Jacob Haller 00:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The claim that the article is too long has been brought up before. I fully support splitting the article up, leaving only a paragraph for each part. So, take the origins section, it could be ripped into a new article, leaving only a stub behind with brief comments on pre-19thC and Godwin (Proudhon shouldn't even be in that section...). Each of the schools could be reduced to just a few paragraphs (and that bit about Peter Kropotkin could be pulled altogether...). I think the Individualist Anarchist section is about the correct size, sorry not it isn't... The introduction is good, but then there is far too much on "Nineteenth century United States", and far far far too much on that not anarchism "anarcho"-capitalism. It already has it's own article, you don't need to pollute other articles with that crap... Green anarchism can also be shortened. The anarchism without adjectives section is almost as long as the main article! Each of the social movement sections could be shortened by a paragraph or two as well. Issues in anarchism should be split into a new article, again leaving only a stub behind (example: There are a number of different issues in anarchist thought. These range from discussions on "means and ends", to capitalism, environmentalism [etc.].), though the section on "Race" should be eliminated altogether. It simply isn't relevant historically or now. (Off topic, if there is an article on Black_anarchism, why isn't it on the side bar?) Recent developments within Anarchism also deserves its own article, again leaving only a stub behind. Criticisms of anarchism is perhaps a sufficient length, and I'd happily leave it like that. So, while I'm not doing it today, I might come back and cut out the sections that I mentioned that deserve a new article above, and make new articles for them. I'm going to be bold... I ate jelly 08:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I suggest merging anarcho-syndicalism into anarchism and organized labor, because they both discuss most of the same issues. Jacob Haller 11:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Do we need this paragraph (from pre-19th century)? 11:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

James Harrington in The Commonwealth of Oceana (1656) uses the term anarchy to describe a situation where the people use force to impose a government on an economic base composed of land monopoly by one person (absolute monarchy), or by a few (mixed monarchy). He distinguishes it from a commonwealth, the situation in which both land ownership and government are shared by the population at large, seeing anarchy as a temporary situation arising from an imbalance between the form of government and the form of property relations.

No, that is a pointless inclusion and should be excised immediately. if the pre-19th section needs anything it would be a short discussion on the Free Spirit movement, the diggers, the ranters. Blockader 15:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

This article whitewashes socialist anarchism. There are several who advocated violence and terrorism as an essential part of their philosophy. Operation Spooner 06:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

AFAIK the laissez-faire capitalists advocated plenty of violence against "non-civilised" peoples, no? You have a point; however please don't go overboard and try to paint anarchists as terrorist psychopaths. I know Peter Kropotkin never ruled out that violence sometimes may be necessary, but he never found it to be necessary during his life. -- infinity0 21:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Exactly why does it need to be shortened? Unless there are clear reasons, this articles length is irrelevant. It's well written and referenced, and of comparable length to socialism, communism and capitalism. The suggestions here are reasonable, but the length of the entry really doesn't seem to be a problem. I say the tag at the top should go - the entire article is of reasonably good quality, well referenced and succinct. A topic of this complexity needs an in-depth analysis.Nazlfrag 12:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

After the Russian revolution

I'm not that familiar with CGT history, but I know that the IWW did not align itself with the Comintern. Indeed, the IWW's refusal to do so prompted many of the pro-Bolshevik members to leave. Jacob Haller 06:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

You are correct. --Tothebarricades 08:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

disputed tag

I've added a disputed tag to the article. Self-published sources are not WP:RS. WP:NOR also stipulates that analytical claims have to come from secondary sources, which Malatesta, Bakunin, and Kropotkin are not, these are primary sources. There is also an issue of POV, as all these sources talk about communist anarchism, not anarchism in general. Intangible2.0 16:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:OR discusses primary, secondary, and tertiary sources, and says that:

Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it's easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source.

WP:OR also says (emphasis in original):

any facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, and arguments published by Wikipedia must already have been published by a reliable publication in relation to the topic of the article.

It encourages the use of secondary sources, and also encourages the use of the best sources available. It discourages readers from over-interpreting primary sources, but does not forbid the citation of what is plainly stated in the primary sources.

The sources reflect many tendencies in anarchist thought: Bakunin, collectivist (a), Tucker, individualist (a), Kropotkin and Malatesta, communist (a)s, and so on. Bakunin clearly distinguishes between different forms of authority, and the other authors present similar views without such extended discussion. Jacob Haller 17:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

From WP:PSTS: "Although most articles should rely predominantly on secondary sources, there are rare occasions when they may rely on primary sources. An article or section of an article that relies on a primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Contributors drawing on primary sources should be careful to comply with both conditions." (emphasis mine) Intangible2.0 17:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The claims are right there in the sources. Jacob Haller 17:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

"The claims are right there in the sources." The claims made in the lede are not descriptive, and thus require secondary sources. Intangible2.0 18:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

That rules makes sense. An anarchist is going to tailor definitions around his own philosophy. I wouldn't expect much objectivity. But if an anarchist writes about anarchism and it's included in a secondary source about anarchism, for example socialist anarchist Ostergaard wrote the "anarchism" entry in Blackwell Dictionary of Modern Social Thought, then it has been reviewed for objectivity. Operation Spooner 17:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

OS, this discussion [about social/socialist] is going on other articles. Please stop adding it to multiple articles before people have a chance to talk about it. -- infinity0 18:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Int2, sources are fine, you're just nitpicking. Sources given are ranged over a wide range of types of anarchism. Disputed tag over whole article is not representative of general content. -- infinity0 18:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Intangible, I'm not sure what you are looking for. I know that most present-day anarchists oppose hierarchical authority, and identify anarchism as this opposition, and, intermittently reading older works, I have noticed that many older anarchists also opposed hierarchical authority, and identified anarchism with this opposition, so I restored the passage, I restored the original reference after examining it, and I cited additional works (1) by influential thinkers in several anarchist traditions (2) which express this opposition and (3) which identify this opposition as a defining feature of anarchism. I can't see why non-anarchist writers (like most secondary sources) should have priority over anarchist ones (like these primary sources) when describing what anarchists believe. I can understand using anarchist secondary/tertiary sources but not prioritizing them over anarchist primary sources.

Are there any sources you would accept? Jacob Haller 18:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

First of all, what does "hierarchical authority" mean? Can you define it so we have some idea of what you're talking about? Operation Spooner 18:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

All this talk about definitions and so is fun and well, but as long as no reliable secondary sources are presented, the lede remains original research. Intangible2.0 15:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

So long as (1) you don't define your objections to the statement and (2) you don't define what sources you would accept, I can't address your supposed concerns. Jacob Haller 15:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

You are making positive claims without the backing of reliable secondary sources. Intangible2.0 16:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Are there any sources you would accept? Jacob Haller 16:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I only know that the current sources are not acceptable. Wikipedia policies like WP:NOR, WP:V and WP:NPOV, are not negotiable. Intangible2.0 17:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, those ones are. Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. "The spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule. The common purpose of building an encyclopedia trumps both." Unless you can explain why these sources are not usable, and what kind of other sources would be usable, I can't respond to your challenge, and come up with something better.

1. Are you challenging these citations because you challenge the claims? Then please describe your objections.
2. Are you challenging these citations because you want better citations? Then please explain what you are looking for.
3. Do you have another good reason? Then please explain it.
4. Or are you challenging these claims to spite the other editors? Jacob Haller 17:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Your text is second guessing the claims made by Encyclopædia Britannica, Routledge, OUP, etc., which do not see anything but a rejection of political authority, i.e. government. Intangible2.0 19:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Yours would second-guess Proudhon, Bakunin, et al. I'd much rather second-guess tertiary sources than primary ones. Jacob Haller 19:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

If the justification to "ignore all rules" is to create a better encyclopedia, then the rules establishing a standard for legitimate sources should not to ignored, since they contribute to a better encyclopedia. If you ignore the referencing rules you will have a bad and unreliable encyclopedia. Operation Spooner 19:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

In this case, Intangible's standard would mean ignoring the most reliable sources. If he cannot explain what on earth he is looking for, I cannot respond. Jacob Haller 19:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not second guessing the primary source material, I'm second guessing your analysis of it. That's why you have to look for reliable secondary sources which do the analysis for you. Intangible2.0 22:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Alternatives

The present intro starts:

Anarchism is a political philosophy or group of philosophies and attitudes centered on rejection of any form of compulsory authority and government (cf. "state"), and supporting its elimination. The term "anarchism" derives from the Greek αναρχία ("without archons" or "without rulers"). Thus "anarchism", in its most general meaning, is the belief that all forms of rulership (and thus also involuntary servitude) are undesirable and should be abolished.

Now many anarchists (including myself) "center" their political philosophy on the rejection of hierarchical/compulsory authority, and oppose the state because they (we) oppose hierarchical/compulsory authority in general. How about starting with:

Anarchism is a political philosophy or group of philosophies and attitudes which reject any form of compulsory government (cf. "state"), and support its elimination, most often because of a wider rejection of any form of hierarchical authority. The term "anarchism" derives from the Greek αναρχία ("without archons" or "without rulers").

I also removed the last sentence in this draft. I can see why people might not want the ref. to hierarchical authority in the definition, it might exclude S.P. Andrews, among others, and it could amount to the same sort of narrowing some Marxists do in the Socialism article, but it is at the center of many if not most anarchist philosophies, and many if not most anarchists' personal-philosophical reasons for being anarchists. Jacob Haller 20:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Please, we spent so much time arguing over this; does this address everyone's concerns? Jacob Haller 16:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with using "hierarchical authority" or "compulsory hierarchy" or some such. My only concern was with unspecified unmodified "hierarchy" by itself, since for many readers hierarchy doesn't automatically imply coersion. (mentor/student; driver/passenger; cook/helper) PhilLiberty 18:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I support this version. And I agree with the point about "I can see why people might not want... etc", and think this is a good solution to it. -- infinity0 10:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

This version is even more a original research synthesis of material, as it now includes an implication instead of a conjunction. Intangible2.0 18:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

An implication which the primary sources clearly state. Jacob Haller 18:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Defining "(hierarchical) authority"

The actual phrase appears in Highleyman's essay, without definition. I reinserted "hierarchical" before "authority" due to Bakunin's distinction between different kinds of authority (all quotes from Bakunin, God and the State): Jacob Haller 19:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• the authority of natural laws: "One must, for instance, be at bottom either a fool or a theologian or at least a metaphysician, jurist, or bourgeois economist to rebel against the law by which twice two make four."
• the authority of an expert: "In the matter of boots, I refer to the authority of the bootmaker; concerning houses, canals, or railroads, I consult that of the architect or engineer."
• And its limits: "But I recognize no infallible authority, even in special questions; consequently, whatever respect I may have for the honesty and the sincerity of such or such an individual, I have no absolute faith in any person."
• "I bow before the authority of special men because it is imposed upon me by my own reason. I am conscious of my inability to grasp, in all its details and positive developments, any very large portion of human knowledge. The greatest intelligence would not be equal to a comprehension of the whole. Thence results, for science as well as for industry, the necessity of the division and association of labor. I receive and I give-such is human life. Each directs and is directed in his turn. Therefore there is no fixed and constant authority, but a continual exchange of mutual, temporary, and, above all, voluntary authority and subordination... This same reason forbids me, then, to recognize a fixed, constant, and universal authority..."
• "To sum up. We recognize, then, the absolute authority of science, because the sole object of science is the mental reproduction, as well-considered and systematic as possible, of the natural laws inherent in the material, intellectual, and moral life of both the physical and the social worlds, these two worlds constituting, in fact, but one and the same natural world. Outside of this only legitimate authority, legitimate because rational and in harmony with human liberty, we declare all other authorities false, arbitrary and fatal."

I'd be happy if we can find some better description. Jacob Haller 19:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not seeing much of a definition there. Your Bakunin quote there seems to have no opposition to hierarchy if hierarchy is a body of people with some having more authority than others. If someone allows someone else to have authority over them as Bakunin does then that's consistent with Bakunin's idea of anarchism. Don't you mean something like "coercive hierarchy?" And wouldn't coercive authority cover it? Operation Spooner 20:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there is a better description - compulsory authority. That avoids the innocuous forms of authority per Bakunin, and avoids the controversial term "hierarchy," which is not opposed by all forms of anarchism. PhilLiberty 05:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

But natural law and expertise are compulsory: we have no choice but to recognize them. Jacob Haller 11:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

?? Compulsory means required by rule[1]. One cannot avoid natural law, but some ignore it (at their peril.) Many people refuse to recognize expertise, e.g. holocaust deniers, flat earthers, tobacco smokers, junk food eaters, ... Bakunin's point was that one has the choice to reject expert advise. PhilLiberty 22:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Would it help to create two new pages, on anarchism and authority and anarchism and government respectively, to discuss the objections in depth? Jacob Haller 12:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Or, more broadly, on critique of authority and critique of government?

Compulsory is vague and uninformative. There a different degrees of "compulsory" - to what extent of "compulsiveness" is anarchism opposed? Hierarchical is more universal - which types of "anarchism" do *not* oppose hierarchical authority? If anarcho-capitalism is the only one, I believe we have revealed the real reason as to why these editors do not want "hierarchical" in the intro. -- infinity0 09:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I find "compulsory" to be a lot less vague than "hierarchy." BTW "compulsory" has little or nothing to do with "compulsiveness."

• compulsory - required by rule
• compulsive - caused by or suggestive of psychological compulsion

The word "compulsory" makes clear the aggressive, non-voluntary aspect - the thing anarchists object to. "Hierarchy" on the other hand can be voluntary or not, thus begging the question. Regarding your speculation of bad faith - here is an individualist anarchist but not anarcho-capitalist who, in effect, defines anarchism as support for (voluntary) hierarchy:

"The philosophy of Anarchism has nothing whatever to do with violence, and its central idea is the direct antipodes of levelling. It is the very levelling purpose itself projected by republican institutions against which it protests. It is opposed, root and branch, to universal suffrage, that most mischievous levelling element of republics. Its chief objection to the existing State is that it is largely communistic, and all communism rests upon an artificial attempt to level things, as against a social development resting upon untrammelled individual sovereignty. Sifted to its elements, the government of the United States is after all nothing but a mold form of State Socialism. The true Anarchist indicts it largely on this very ground. He is opposed to all manner of artificial levelling machines. How pitiful the ignorance which accuses him of wanting to level everything, when the very integral thought of Anarchism is opposed to levelling!" - Henry Appleton, Anarchism, True and False (1884)

Defining anarchism in terms of hierarchy is a relatively recent quirk of some socialist sects. No classical anarchist used the term. I challenge you to find anyone defining anarchism in terms of hierarchy more than 50 years ago. It appears to be a New Left neologism (coined by Highleyman?) - a crude attempt to redefine anarchism from "against rulership" to "against natural order." PhilLiberty 18:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with the whole quote, but Proudhon, in the Philosophy of Misery, chapter 1 does so:

Thus society finds itself, at its origin, divided into two great parties: the one traditional and essentially hierarchical, which, according to the object it is considering, calls itself by turns royalty or democracy, philosophy or religion, in short, property; the other socialism, which, coming to life at every crisis of civilization, proclaims itself preeminently ANARCHICAL and ATHEISTIC; that is, rebellious against all authority, human and divine.

chapter 7: Jacob Haller 18:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

And when the self-styled theorists of the sovereignty of the people pretend that the remedy for the tyranny of power consists in causing it to emanate from popular suffrage, they simply turn, like the squirrel, in their cage. For, from the moment that the essential conditions of power--that is, authority, property, hierarchy--are preserved, the suffrage of the people is nothing but the consent of the people to their oppression,--which is the silliest charlatanism.

Kropotkin, in Anarchism: its Philosophy and Idea: Jacob Haller 19:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

That is why Anarchy, when it works to destroy authority in all its aspects, when it demands the abrogation of laws and the abolition of the mechanism that serves to impose them, when it refuses all hierarchical organization and preaches free agreement-at the same time strives to maintain and enlarge the precious kernel of social customs without which no human or animal society can exist. Only, instead of demanding that those social customs should be maintained through the authority of a few, it demands it from the continued action of all.

I was clearly wrong about classical anarchists not talking in terms of hierarchy. Thank you very much for digging up those quotes, Jacob. That answers one of my two recent questions. The other is: When did the term "social anarchism" originate? (Is that a late 20th century coining (Social Anarchism Giovanni Baldelli 1971)? PhilLiberty 15:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Jacob, you can't synthesize your own definition. Do you understand this? You may find one anarchist that says he's against "hierarchical authority," but you can't put that in the definition of anarchism unless he's writing in the capacity of a secondary or tertiary source defining anarchism. You could go around taking bits and pieces of the ideas of everything that various anarchists define their own idea of anarchism as being and you would eventually end up with a definition full of contradictions. For every anarchist's ideal of anarchy, there's another whose ideal of anarchism is contradictory to that one. You're trying to synthesize a definition. You really need to leave that to secondary and tertiary sources. It looks to me like they've concluded that anarchists don't agree on anything, and I think that's true. Operation Spooner 18:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

You may even be able to find a definition in a secondary or tertiary source that defines anarchism as opposition to "hierarchy." Why don't you just do that? Operation Spooner 18:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The only secondary sources I have easy access to are An Anarchist FAQ, similar FAQs, various pamphlets, etc. Proudhon criticizes hierarchy and other authors criticize the "system of authority" (Tucker, State Socialism and Anarchism, and some others), "force-propped authority" (Lingg) or certain forms of authority (Bakunin, God and the State).

Since so many anarchists have expressed opposition to some forms of authority, and drawn opposition to the state from this opposition to some forms of authority, it is as important to anarchism as a whole as, say, the NAP is to anarcho-capitalism. I think it belongs "at the center" though not necessarily in the definition.

We need some way to distinguish between the authority which these authors condemn and that which they don't. I'm not sure where the phrase "hierarchical authority" came from but it is common in present-day anarchist writing and it seems to work. I have some concerns with "compulsory authority," and I'm not sure where the phrase came from, but it emphasizes the anarchist solution.

If the article weren't so long, I'd suggest adding one or two paragraphs, right below the intro, discussing anarchist theories on authority, starting with Bakunin's and working backwards and forwards from there. Jacob Haller 19:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Tertiary source, Grolier Encyclopedia, 1995: Jacob Haller 00:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Anarchism is an ideology that regards abolition of government as the necessary precondition for a free and just society. The term itself comes from the Greek words meaning "without a ruler." Anarchism rejects all forms of hierarchical authority, social and economic as well as political. What distinguishes it from other ideologies, however, is the central importance it attaches to the state. To anarchists, the state is a wholly artificial and illegitimate institution, the bastion of privilege and exploitation in the modern world.

misrepresentation of sources

Sources are being misrepresented. The sentence implies non-individualist anarchism is looked at in the same way by all the authors; this is not true. -- infinity0 21:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

OS, in order to make clear the meanings of the source you must make clear the following points:

• Most anarchists (and scholars) use the classification "social/individualist" anarchism and see all anarchism as being socialist, because they all oppose wage-labour as being a hierarchical and authoritarian relationship.
• Some (eg. the sources you cite) use the classification "socialist/individualist" anarchism and see individualist anarchism as being non-socialist, because it advocates free markets.
• Others (eg. Kevin Carson) use the classification "mutualist/communal" anarchism.

I hope this clears up any misunderstanding. -- infinity0 21:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, I hope the above is sufficient to see why such explanation should not be in the *INTRO*, because it would take up too much space. -- infinity0 21:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

ind-anarchism

I have put a cleanup section tag on that section because it is crap, to put it bluntly. Specifics:

• Too bloated.
• Goes into unnecessary detail which will only confuse readers.

-- infinity0 09:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I suggest:

1. Raise Egoism to its own section.
2. Move 19th century United States into Mutualism and remove redundancies.
3. Possibly retitle the current Mutualism section as Mutualism and Individualism or Mutualist and Individualist anarchism.
4. Either retitle the current Individualist anarchism section Market anarchism or something similar.
5. Cover Anarcho-capitalism and modern Left-libertarianism in this last section. Jacob Haller 14:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

My suggestions to trim down the Schools of thought section:

1. Change the title Mutualism to Proudhonian Mutualism. Otherwise, leave it pretty much as is.
2. The Anarchist communism section can be trimmed considerably. E.g. The very first sentence is an unencyclopedic random factoid which does nothing to explain anarcho-communism.
3. The subsection Peter Kropotkin should be folded into its parent section. Handle K like Bakunin was handled in the collectivist section - mention him, his ideas briefly, and give a link to his main article. Most of this subsection can be eliminated.
4. The Platformism one paragraph section can also be folded into its parent Anarchist communism section.
5. The Egoist subsection of the Individualist anarchism section should be elimated. The first couple of sentences might be put into the Individualist anarchism intro, i.e. noting Stirner's influence. Egoism is an influence, not a school.
6. Nineteenth century United States should be renamed American Individualist Anarchism. It can be trimmed - detail should be left to linked articles.
7. Similarly, the Anarcho-capitalism section has detail that is more appropriate for linked articles.

PhilLiberty 18:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalism is American individualist anarchism too though. Maybe there can be a 19th century section and a 20th century section. Operation Spooner 18:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, how about my above proposal with 19th century mut. & ind. (a) (to at least 1908) and 20th century ind. (a) instead of the earlier titles? Jacob Haller 19:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it, modern left-libertarianism may or may not be individualist - doesn't libertarian socialism fall into this category? Under Ind A, I think we should have four subheads: Proudhonian Mutualism (historical), American Ind A (classic), Modern Mutualism, and Anarcho-capitalism. PhilLiberty 21:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to find the best term for the 20th/21st century tendency including most Agorists, mutualists like Carson and Wilbur, geoanarchists and anarcho-Georgists, some market-oriented syndicalists, etc. Jacob Haller 21:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand. That's going to be hard to do without inventing a neologism. Hmmm. How about a section called MLL? (Movement of the Libertarian Left)[2]. Or is that just agorist? Another try: Left Market Anarchism, or Market Left-Libertarianism. PhilLiberty 22:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The MLL was explicitly agorist. It's successor organisation - the Alliance of the Libertarian Left embraces mutualists, geoists, panarchists, voluntarists etc. Skomorokh ^incite 06:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

These MLL and ALF are just websites though that maybe one guy set up. They're just wishful thinking aren't they? Anyone can set up a website and say that it's an alliance of the left. How can these "alliances" be taken seriously? Operation Spooner 06:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

They're maybe alliance of a handful of anarchists who spend a lot of time on the internet who happen to have come across the website and linked their website to it or something. No one in the larger scheme of things has any knowledge of these "alliances." Operation Spooner 06:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Same objection has been made to anarcho-capitalism.

Maybe it comes down to sample bias, but I'm not aware of any agorists, mutualists, or geoanarchists who believe the differences over land theory outweigh the similarities among the three groups. Jacob Haller 13:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I like the egoism section like it is. It's under individualist anarchism. Pure egoism is a type of individualist anarchism. According to Micheal Freeden, which is referenced in the individualist anarchism article, egoism is one of 4 types of individualist anarchism. Operation Spooner 20:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know where it belongs. Although some individualists were/are egoists, some non-individualists were/are also egoists. I don't think it fits in the ind. section(s). Perhaps move it from schools into issues? Pairing it off with other moral philosophies. Jacob Haller 20:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it should be called Stirnerism. Operation Spooner 20:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I like Jacob's idea of moving it from schools to issues. It is not a school, and it intersects with various non-anarchist philosophies. (The only egoists I know are Randians, not Stirnerites, and most of them are minarchist, not anarchist.) Stirner himself has been embraced by people ranging from nazi fascists to socialists to capitalists. Face it - he was an ink blot writer; people interpret him any which way strikes them. PhilLiberty 20:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I've moved stuff about. There is a lot still to do. There is quite a bit of redundancy between the old mutualism material and the 19th century United States material, the main reason I proposed the move, and we can trim the sections to remove or redistribute this. There is surprisingly little market left-libertarianism material. I suspect we can move some passages from other sections, but not as much as I had hoped. I guess we may have towrite something new; I added one unreferenced sentence.

Why are 19th century and 20th century individualist anarchism split up? Also I think it should be discussed in the individualist anarchism section that Tucker changes his views on right and on land. Who is to say which view is more representative of him, his natural rights anarchism or his egoist anarchism? Operation Spooner 01:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

1. When does mutualism stop and individualism start? There is direct continuity between Greene and Tucker, and iirc Warren and some others, with gradually-shifting emphasis. This created a lot of redundancy.
2. There are too many traditions involved to cover them in one chunk, and combining them would throw the whole schools section out of order.
3. Although there's no convenient gap between mutualism and individualism, there is one between the older individualism and the newer. From about 1908 to the 1950s, individualism hardly exists as a movement, but definitely exists as an influence on some other anarchists (e.g. Malatesta).
4. Moved Tucker's views on rights into Egoism section. Can't see why it matters to views on economics. Jacob Haller 13:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Tucker changed his mind and said there was no such thing as moral rights. Like Stirner he said there was the "right of might" and that if a person is able to take and hold of property by force then he is the owner. This Stirnerism was pretty popular among the individualist anarchists. So the section kind of misrepresents Tucker as if that was his settled form of anarchism. Operation Spooner 16:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Do whatever seems best here. I'm not sure how the article implies non-Egoist instead of Egoist interpretations with the 19th century section. I just regard the egoism debate as one which cuts across several schools and thus fits in the issues section. I tossed it in "Ends and means" because that's the best fit so far for disputes involving moral philosophy. Jacob Haller 16:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Just a few words of encouragement here to show my support for the work being done on the article, by everyone. I'm gonna be less active from now on, just to let you guys know. I think the splitting of the individualist section is a good idea, as well as adding in the market left-liberatarianism section. [3] has some sources on this if they are lacking in the article currently. -- infinity0 09:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Ind-anarchism cleanup

I think most of the material inside "Property is theft" and "property is freedom" can go.

• I think that Proudhon's partial condemnation, and the individualists' partial defense, or private property needs more explanation.
• However, Proudhon's and Warren's statements about prices are not that informative and may be misleading without context. Greene's quote already covers the most important claims.
• I'm not sure what to do with Warren's Owenite background or Dana's and Greene's roles. Is it just too much for the section?
• I think that the intro to the American tradition can go. We only name a few people for each of the other traditions, and readers can check the other article for more information.
• I'm not sure what to do with Thoreau either.
• We may want a better heading for "market law," or we may just cut the internal headings.
• Can we trim the Four monopolies?

I agree. The Ind-anarchism section has good stuff, but much of it belongs in the Individualist Anarchism article rather than in the main anarchism article. I think we should pare it down to a "teaser" for the Ind Anarchist article, and get rid of all subheadings as suggested. PhilLiberty 22:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

They helped me arrange stuff during the edit and point to stuff above. But once we're done with the cleanup, we can remove them like any other scaffolding. Jacob Haller 22:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I removed a bunch of stuff, mainly:

• Lists of various anarchists' opinions on the various issues - goes into too much detail for one section.
• A whole paragraph detailing Tucker's views. TOO MUCH DETAIL! and AFAIK Tucker is not a "typical" individualist anyway.

-- infinity0 12:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

"scientific socialism"

According to the article the phrase comes from Marx, but according to Robert Graham, in the General Idea of Proudhon's Revolution, it appears in What is Property? and first appears in "Saint Simon" (Saint-Simeon?). Jacob Haller 23:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, here it is:

Thus, in a given society, the authority of man over man is inversely proportional to the stage of intellectual development which that society has reached; and the probable duration of that authority can be calculated from the more or less general desire for a true government, -- that is, for a scientific government. And just as the right of force and the right of artifice retreat before the steady advance of justice, and must finally be extinguished in equality, so the sovereignty of the will yields to the sovereignty of the reason, and must at last be lost in scientific socialism. Property and royalty have been crumbling to pieces ever since the world began. As man seeks justice in equality, so society seeks order in anarchy.

— Proudhon, What is Property? pg. 277

PhilLiberty 02:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The phrase "socialisme scientifique" appears in a number of French works in the 1840s and 50s, referring to Proudhon and the Luxembourg group. Saint-Simon was known as the "father of scientific socialism" though, ironically, he was one of the primary targets of Engels' attack on "utopian socialism." Libertatia 23:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I doubt that Tucker's use of the term "scientific socialism" is particularly notable. Tucker did describe his philosophy in those terms in Liberty (Oct 14, 1882), ten years before the translation of Engels' pamphlet made the "utopian vs. scientific" divide of real importance among English-speaking socialists. But most later references to "scientific socialism" in Liberty are derisive, aimed at Eleanor Marx and Richard Aveling. This is an entirely separate issue, of course, from Tucker's use of the word "socialism." Libertatia 23:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Individualist anarchism section

The individualist anarchism is a mess now. It's not coherent. There wasn't much wrong with it in the first place. I think it should be restored to its previous state. Individualist anarchism of the egoist form was deleted. I just put a section on it in there but it's not clear where it makes sense to fit it. Operation Spooner 05:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

It was full of redundancies before. Any reorganization creates a mess for a while.

• See above regarding cleanup proposals. Will these help?
• See above for where and why Egoism got moved. It's connections with ind. anarchism are not much stronger than its connections with other schools, so, imo, it belongs in the issues section. The description of Egoism as "a pure form of ind. anarchism" is exceedingly bold. Jacob Haller 14:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I like the text of the egoism section a lot. But I, too, think it belongs in issues rather than as a school. Even Tucker, probably the most famous exponent of Stirnerite egoism, called himself an Individualist Anarchist, not an Egoist Anarchist. Egoism (and natural rights theory) should be thought of as a justification for anarchism, or an approach to anarchism - not a school.[4] PhilLiberty 20:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Update: I found nearly identical egoism section in both IndA and Issues. I removed the one in IndA, and added a note and local link at the beginning of the 19th century mutualist and individualist anarchism section. PhilLiberty 20:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we're communicating here. The individualist anarchism of Stirner is a distinct type of individualist anarchism. That's what the references indicate. It's no less a type of individualist anarchism than the early American form is a type of individualist anarchism. Stirner's individualist anarchism influenced some of the Americans and they apparently didn't adopt it wholly, but pure Stirnerite egoism is a distinct type of individualist anarchism. The individualist anarchism section ignores it as if it didn't exist. Read this for example: [5] Operation Spooner 22:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

But it's influence on what is generally called individualist anarchism are no stronger than its influence on, for example, communist anarchism. Jacob Haller 01:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

You're still not following. Stirner's philosophy is called individualist anarchism too. Even if it had zero influence on American individualist anarchism it would still be one of the several traditions of individualist anarchism. And it's an important individualist anarchism because so many sources discuss it. Operation Spooner 04:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

That would be an accident of naming. I suggest giving it its own section, either in schools or in issues, but not combining it with another school in the same section. Jacob Haller 04:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

It's your opinion that it is a "accident in naming." But the fact is, there eare are several philosophies that are called "individualist anarchism." Stirner's individualist anarchism is important. That's why the previous set up was good. It had a main section called "individualist anarchism." Then had a section for different types. Somehow the American individualist anarchism information needs to be consolidated into one section. There needs to be an overall section called "individualist anarchism" to allow a section for the Stirnerite version. Operation Spooner 04:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Mutualism should have its own section too. It's ok that if mutualism overlaps in some ways with early American individualist anarchism. Anarchist categories are not perfect. It says at the top of the article that the categories are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Operation Spooner 04:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Market "individualist anarchism" and egoist "individualist anarchism" are separate schools, and are individualist in two different senses. Two sections would be appropriate. however, mutualism and market individualist anarchism shared the same practical proposals, class analysis, etc. and involved many of the same people. Two sections would be redundant.

How do others suggest we handle Egoism? Jacob Haller 04:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I suggest one section called "Individualist anarchism (Nineteenth century American)." Then another section called either "Individualist anarchism (Egoism)" or Individualist anarchism (Stirnerite). Or, a main section called Individualist anarchism, then two subsections with one being called "Nineteenth century American" and another called "Stirnerism." Something like that. Operation Spooner 04:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

OS, your reference does not support your contention that egoism is a school. Your reference supports that it was an influence on existing schools. E.g. "The Ego and its Own (1845), was rediscovered by individualist anarchists in the late 19th century after decades of obscurity." "In the late 19th century Stirner's ideas were combined with an appreciation of Friedrich Nietzsche by a small group of anarchist activists and intellectuals." "inspired an anarcho-feminist, the Russian-American Emma Goldman..." Likewise, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article sees it as an influence, not a school. Did Tucker change schools when he went from Spoonerism to Stirnerism? I think not; he simply changed justifications for his individualist anarchism. Maybe it would help if you named some people who self-label as "egoist anarchists." Stirner didn't even consider himself an anarchist. PhilLiberty 17:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with PhilLiberty - there is nothing I have read that suggests Egoism was a movement in any sense. Stirner's attempt at selling milk to the proles can hardly be conflated with his grandiose proposed Verein von Egoisten, but was rather short-lived unsuccessful experiment in mutualism. The Young Hegelians considered him a somewhat extremist provocateur. It was only with Mackay's championing and Byingtons translation of the book that he gained traction in the English-speaking world. Stirner aside, I do not know of a single figure whose anarchist tendency would not be better described by one of the existing labels. Take a look at the Enrico Arrigoni article for an example of what I'm talking about here. Given that the article is too long already and, to be honest, gives undue weight to IA, I propose "Egoism" be treated as a motivation/justification for anarchism rather than an anarchist tendency, so that it can be discussed as an influence on ind anarchists, post-leftists/postanarchists/lifestylists and insurrectionary anarchists - Bob Black, Wolfi Landstreicher, Saul Newman etc. So to recap, No on Egosit individualist anarchism, Yes on Egoism as a motivation for anarchism.Skomorokh ^incite 20:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you read further on in that source? It says "This type of anarchist individualism," referring to Stirner's. Then it discusses the American version as a different type of individualist anarchism. Here are more sources: Barker, Jeffrey H. 1999. Individualism and Community: The State in Marx and Early Anarchism: "Stirner has been called the father of individualist anarchism." Encyclopedia Britannica: "individualist anarchism found, also in Germany, its fullest expression in Max Stirner" Blackwell Encylcopedia of Social Thought in the "anarchism" article: "Individualists take the sovereign individual as their starting point. Each person has an inviolable sphere of action upon which no one else must intrude, and social relationships are formed primarily through exchange and contract. The German nihilist Max Stirner is often regarded as the originator of this school, but Stirner's incompromising egoism - the individual, he believed, should always act exactly has he pleases, taking no notice of God, state, or moral rules - left little room for any constructive proposals. More typical of individualism were the nineteenth century American anarchists Josiah Warren, Lysander Spooner, and Benjamin Tucker." Anthony, Peter D. The Ideology of Work: "[Woodcock] distinguishes five main anarchist 'schools': Individualist anarchism - represented by Max Stirner who envisaged a union of egoists drawn together by respect for each other's ruthfulessness." Contemporary Political Ideologies, Lyman Sargent: "Individualist anarchism is traditionally associated with Max Stirner." Modern and Contemporary European History: "Individualist anarchism was advocated by a German, Max Stirner, whos book..." Key Ideas in Politics by Moyra Grant: "The also generated individualist varities of anarchism most notable for their strong hostility to the state, such as anarcho-capitalism and egoism." Michael Freeden in Micheal. Ideologies and Political Theory identifies four kinds of individualist anarchism, naming Stirner's form of egoism as one of the four." I've got the references for it and there's many more. Operation Spooner 23:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

So Encarta talks about Stirner egoism as an influence hitting 50 years after Stirner's essay, which some anarchists "appreciated" and were "inspired" by. In passing, Encarta calls it a "type." This is not convincing as far as calling it a school rather than an influence. Barker, Jeffrey H. 1999: "Stirner has been called the father of individualist anarchism." Again, this does not make it a school, but an influence. Stirner did not consider himself an anarchist, and the fact that some individuals called him a "father" 40 years after his death does not a school make. Encyclopedia Britannica: "individualist anarchism found, also in Germany, its fullest expression in Max Stirner." But as we know, Stirner was never considered himself an anarchist; this "fullest expression" was decided in retropect by who? Encyclopedia Britanica? Somehow I suspect that this quote is out of context. Maybe Stirner was the fullest expression in 19th century Germany. Blackwell Encylcopedia: "The German nihilist Max Stirner is often regarded as the originator of this school..." This does not say egoism is a school - it says that Stirner is ofter regarded as originator of the individualist anarchist school. Anthony, Peter D. The Ideology of Work: "[Woodcock] distinguishes five main anarchist 'schools': Individualist anarchism - represented by Max Stirner..." Again, it is saying that individualist anarchism is a school, not egoism. The next two references are the same; they note Stirner is "associated with," and "advocated" individualist anarchism. Only Key Ideas in Politics by Moyra Grant and Ideologies and Political Theory by Freedan possibly support egoism as a school. Freedan's typology of individualist anarchism is quite unusual. His types are: 1) Wm. Godwin liberal utilitarianism, 2) Max Stirner egoism 3) Herbert Spencer social evolutionary, and 4) market anarchism. I guess if we do a Stirner egoist school, we should do the Godwin and Spencer schools, too? The Voluntaryist Spencer-Donisthorpe-Auberon Herbert school is probably more noteworthy than Stirner's egoism. But actually I think these are not significant enough for the main anarchism article. I think Grant and Freedan are giving a typology of thought rather than actual schools that any significant number of people adhere to. I ask again: Can you name any well-known anarchists who identify themselves "egoist anarchists"? PhilLiberty 03:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

First of all I'm hesitant to discuss anything with you as I've seen from experience that you don't appreciate or care to follow referencing norms and don't appear to have any respect for the fact that things are referenced. With that said, I've never used the words "school." Call it whatever you want to call it. I'm saying it's a type of individualist anarchism. Each individualist anarchist has his own type of individualist anarchism. No one's anarchism is identical. Stirner's individualist anarchism is very much discussed and very much referenced. Concerning that fact that he didn't call himself an anarchist, that's not important. The references call him an anarchist. There are other anarchists who didn't call themselves anarchists. For example, Tolstoy didn't call himself an anarchist either but the references call him an anarchist. Therefore, we note that he's considered to be an anarchist. Anarchists have had their own reasons to not refer to themselves as anarchists. Meanings of words change; connotations change, and so on. Operation Spooner 04:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Josiah Warren is another individualist anarchist that never called himself an anarchist. Operation Spooner 17:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Auberon Herbert is another that didn't call himself an anarchist. He preferred the term "voluntaryist." I think we're on the same page now, OS. You seem to acknowledge that egoism is not a school, so no doubt you agree it shouldn't be in the Schools of thought section. The Issues section seems the logical place. PhilLiberty 22:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

"Individualist anarchism" is the "school." Stirnerism is one type of individualism which is very important. Stirner is one of the most, if not the most famous individualist anarchist of the 19th century. Therefore there be a Stirnerite Egoism section within the individualist anarchism section. I'm saying there should be at least a paragraph devoted to Stirner's individualist anarchism. Stirner's philosophy is indeed one of the several types of individualist anarchism and was highly influential on the American form of individualist anarchism. As it a stand now it gives the impression that only the American form of individualist anarchism is important. Operation Spooner 22:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Stirner wasn't an individualist anarchist, and was virtually unknown until the final years of the 19th century. Tucker was probably the most famous IA of the 19th century. Stirner, toward the end of the 19th century, was perhaps the second most cited influence (after Proudhon). PhilLiberty 23:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand that you don't consider him an individualist anarchist. But loads of sources do. That's what's important. The policy on Wikipedia says: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." [6] There are an abundance of sources that say was an individualist anarchists. That's a sufficient reason for inclusion. If there's any sources that disagree just note that, just like that's been done for anarcho-capitalists. Operation Spooner 23:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Logical consistency trumps sources. Our (sourced) definition of anarchism is "a political philosophy or group of philosophies and attitudes which reject any form of compulsory government[1] (cf. "state"), and support its elimination." Stirner does not reject using a state to dominate others. Ergo, he is not an anarchist. QED PhilLiberty 00:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

As I pointed out, it's pointless to discuss anything with you. Since you reject Wikipedia policy, you don't count. Operation Spooner 02:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

"Centered on"

According to the intro, anarchism is "a cluster of doctrines and attitudes centered on the belief that government is both harmful and unnecessary."

I can see two problems here:

• Although anarchists agree that the state is harmful and unnecessary, some center their beliefs on theories about authority, others on theories about rights, others on theories about state-driven wastage, etc. In what sense are the individual theories "centered on" this belief?
• "Government" is ambiguous. "State" is clear.

I suggest dropping the quote. Jacob Haller 20:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a good quote. If you think of visually in a chart of political theorists on a political compass or graph there's going to be an X and Y axis and dots scattered everywhere depending on various criteria. The ones that are clustered most tightly around the the belief that government is harmful and unnecessary are considered to be the anarchist writers. Operation Spooner 21:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

1) Anarchism is "centered on the belief that government is both harmful and unnecessary" in the sense that that is the commonality of all schools. IOW the intersection of all anarchist beliefs, regardless of how this commonality is justified (rights, authority, wastage, whatever). So I think its a good quote. 2) I agree that "government" is ambiguous, and "state" is more exact. However, that's why we qualified "government" with "compulsory." Compulsory government = state. PhilLiberty 02:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, if we go mucking about in the quote, it becomes a paraphrase. Since it basically reproduces the first definition (minus the reasons), I'm not sure what the paraphrase would add.

Should we have a section on reasons?

I know this is going to add even more to an already-very-long page, but perhaps we should have a section on different philosophical reasons people have for supporting anarchism. I think that this would explain the sections fairly well. I know that many authors explain their own reasons for supporting anarchism, so primary sources are readily available with minimal interpretation.

If anyone wants to do this, I suggest starting another page, linking to it from here, and drafting the section over there. Once it gets past the stub stage we can merge it in here.

Is there anything we can cut?

Okay, people have raised the issue of length before. Besides eliminating whole sections, we can eliminate extra words. I suggest that people go through the sections they are most familiar with, to avoid accusations of POV deletion, and try to trim them. Jacob Haller 21:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Great work so far. I think individualist anarchism and left-libertarianism have been devoted undue weight in this article as a result of the recent concerted effort on related articles. These section should be trimmed back significantly, with anything valuable being moved to the sub-articles. I suggest splitting as the best means to shorten this article dramatically. Skomorokh ^incite 18:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Makhnovism

The Makhnovism article is a mess. I have suggested merging some content into two other pages; see Talk:Makhnovism. I would include nice merge tags, but there aren't suitable tags, so here's your heads-up. Jacob Haller 21:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

"Anarcho-syndicalism" and "anarchism and the labor movement" sections

Should we merge these? If so, into which section? Jacob Haller 02:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Can we dismantle "recent developments"?

Should we move common ground anarchism into anarchism without adjectives, etc., etc.? Jacob Haller 02:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm strongly against this. Post-left, insurrectionary, post-an, small a etc. are distinctly contemporary developments and should be situated in the context of 20th-century developments e.g. postmodernism and situationism rather than perennial differences in anarchist thought e.g. individualism vs collectivism, pro-vs.anti-market. The section is a paradigm of summary style with brief descriptions linking to main articles. Skomorokh ^incite 18:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Pamphlet 'The Place of Anarchism in the Evolution of Socialist Thought'

This is referenced without an author. I did a websearch and only saw the pamplet by what looks like Kropotkin - The Place of Anarchism in the Evolution of Socialist Evolution' , 1890, (HX617) [7] . Can someone clarify where and who authored the pamphlet. Is it online? --maxrspct ping me 10:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

This is by Kropotkin. See, for example, The Place of Anarchism in Socialistic Evolution: An Address Delivered in Paris (1890). The title has obviously be translated in a number of ways. Libertatia 17:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The first lines

I think that it shold include a general description of anarchism, not the concept that only a sect that pretends be anarchist wants to put or not. Describe mainstream not a sect. Horizontalism and direct democracy, per example, are concept often accepted and used from anarchists around the world. Only wikipedia in english has this problem. --190.154.17.234 19:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem is is there is no general description of anarchism. For every anarchist belief there is another anarchist to disagree with him. Anarchism is not a single philosophy, by any means. It's a plethora of diverse doctrines, philosophies, and attitudes. Operation Spooner 19:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I also think that the article uses too much space in describe market and not market differences, when teher are another issues more debated and practiced by anarchists around the world (and more current).--190.154.17.234 19:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

But there are general descriptions in a political ideology, that of "no bosses" or "free organization", "equalitarian association" are universal in the same way of "individual liberty", "direct democracy" is very accepted per example -in almost all lenguages and countries where anarchism is explained-, i don´t think per example that sects (i mean, a very little faction that have a different interpretation than the basic consensus and the great majority of a X tendency) should have represention in the first lines, i think these very minorities should be expoused like exceptions to the political mainstream in the development of the article. --190.154.17.234 18:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I mean, there are anarchists that could say no to direct democracy, not to equalitarian association not to organization, or no many other things (not to internationalism if we consider national-anarchist like anarchists). So these could be mentioned later, in the development of the article in a proportional size according to it's relevance, but not could be part of the consensus definition, the first lines -doesn´t matter if the wikipedia editors are from any of that non-consensus definition. --190.154.17.234 18:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Mutualism, 19th-century Individualism, and 20th-century Individualism

Earlier we had mutualist and individualist sections in the schools section. I had, thinking we had consensus, reorganized this into (1) mutualism and 19th-century individualism and (2) 20th-century individualism. Now we have three sections.

I want people's opinions on what to do here. I also think that 19th-century individualism is seriously bloated compared to the coverage of the other schools. Jacob Haller 23:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Much of this could be left to the sub-articles. The 19th/20th-century division is pretty awful, however. Retrospectively defined, mutualism goes back to the late 1820s and forward, as a minor current, to the present. Tuckerite individualism extends as an important school from the early 1870s until at least the 1940s, so it's hardly "19th century." Libertatia 16:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

19th century individualist anarchism may be a little bloated but I don't think by much. Maybe Stirner can do consolidated a bit. The left-libertarian section seems bloated to me. Agorism is extremely obscure, but it should probably have a sentence or two. And I think Kevin Carson is given too much space. I think the quote should be removed. Carson's only claim to fame is having his book (published by a vanity press) criticized in the Journal of Libertarian studies. Operation Spooner 00:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Carson just appeared in The Freeman as well, and is one of the most-cited contemporary anarchists around. He should obviously be mentioned; I'm indifferent on the question of including the quote. Libertatia 16:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't find Warren describing himself as a mutualist, and pulled back on that claim (though Shawn might have something...), but cited the anonymous Mutualist of 1826. Jacob Haller 00:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Warren didn't describe himself as a mutualist. He never called himself an anarchist either, though he was one as sources indicate. Operation Spooner 03:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Warren had a real horror of all labels, except the ones he made up himself. But his position in the tradition that others were calling "mutualism" was firmly established by the 1870s, as his position and that of folks like Greene and Heywood converged in The Word and in the various "labor reform leagues." And it is a present historical commonplace that mutualism emerged from Proudhon, Greene and Warren. Libertatia 16:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Warren was an individualist, not a mutualist. Operation Spooner 21:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey, you are more than welcome to your opinion, but published sources (starting with Swartz and Rexroth) say otherwise, and there simply isn't any question that the mutualism of the Tucker era was derived in roughly equal parts from Warren, Proudhon and Greene. There are much more precise taxonomies that we could use here, but they would, alas, be OR. Libertatia 19:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

You may be able to find one source that says Warren was a mutualist. You can pretty much find a source for anything. But I'm sure that nearly all sources say he was an individualist. Operation Spooner 22:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I've re-amalgamated the ind anarchist sections and trimmed away pieces here and there. This piece on Yarros is too long and gives the section undue weight: "Victor Yarros explained the understanding of the word "anarchism" of the market anarchists such as Tucker, himself, and others:

Anarchism means no government but it does not mean no laws and no coercion. This may seem paradoxical, but the paradox vanishes when the Anarchist definition of government is kept in view. Anarchists oppose government, not because they disbelieve in punishment of crime and resistance to aggression, but because they disbelieve in compulsory protection. Protection and taxation without consent is itself invasion; hence Anarchism favors a system of voluntary taxation and protection.

Also cut:

In 1886, Benjamin Tucker and several of other American individualist anarchists rejected the natural rights philosophy and adopted Stirner's egoism. This split the American individualists into fierce debate, "with the natural rights proponents accusing the egoists of destroying libertarianism itself." After abandoning natural rights individualism, Tucker said that there were only two rights, "the right of might" and "the right of contract." In regard to land he said, "In times past…it was my habit to talk glibly of the right of man to land. It was a bad habit, and I long ago sloughed it off....Man's only right to land is his might over it."

Ideally, I'd like to see each school of thought limited to three paragraphs and 20 lines in total. Skomorokh ^incite 17:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Anarcho-syndicalism

I suggest moving this into anarchism and organized labor in the social movement section. Jacob Haller 23:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

If we move social movement into its own article, or into history of anarchism, and delete it here, then we should keep the anarcho-syndicalism section here and move part of the anarchism and organized labor section into it. Jacob Haller 00:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Anarcho-syndicalism is probably one of the dominant schools of thought in anarchist history. As such, I'm in favour of summarizing the entire anarchism as a social movement section, or at the very least the anarchism and organized labour section, and keeping anarcho-syndicalism as a school of thought. I'd like consensus from a few more editors before going ahead with this sort of thing as this article is historically one of the most disputed on Wikipedia. Skomorokh ^incite 18:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but the common involvement in the labor movement, rather than any fixed platform, has distinguished anarchosyndicalism from other schools. Jacob Haller 23:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Reading over the section here again anarcho-syndicalism does seem more of a tactic/means to an end rather than an ideology/value system. I support assimilating it into anarchism and organized labour. Any objections? Skomorokh ^incite 22:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it belongs on the front page, one way or another. I think there is some ambiguity about how it is used: "anarchosyndicalism" as one system or "anarchosyndicalism" as "anarchist forms of syndicalism/revolutionary unionism" (where, for example, Joe Labadie's and Dyer Lum's positions fit the latter description). Jacob Haller 00:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Is there a source for Joseph Labadie being an anarcho-syndicalist? Operation Spooner 00:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware of, but anarchist, yes, and (nonviolent) revolutionary unionist (he was in the IWW), yes. See the ambiguity inherent in the term? I don't think it makes much sense to treat "anarchosyndicalism" in the narrow sense in one place, and other anarchist involvement in revolutionary unionism in another place. Jacob Haller 01:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Haymarket

How can we discuss the history of anarchism and organized labor without discussing Haymarket, or the anarchist role in labor unionism in the United States in general? Jacob Haller 20:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)