Talk:Anarchism/Archive 59

Archive 55

←

Archive 57

Archive 58

Archive 59

Archive 60

Archive 61

→

Archive 65

Anti-socialist anarchy

Isn't that what "small town america" is lately? Are there any sources supporting it? To potentially include it in. --AaThinker (talk) 10:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Uh, what? Zazaban (talk) 10:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

it's probably close to individualist anarchism. --AaThinker (talk) 11:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

arguments and debate

"Yes, you are vandalizing the page and pushing your narrow POV.It doesn't matter if you don't like anarchocapitalism--stop vandalizing the page."

Well, i explained the reasons for the changes i made. How about you defend your reasons on why this page has to give so undue importance to the USA centric neoliberal position of "anarcho" capitalism? Otherwise your words here cant´support anything here. It is possible that in fact you didnt read the reasons for the changes. Maybe you should start from there.--Eduen (talk) 07:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Nihilo 01:"Zarzaban I believe you overdimenssion the current importance of socialist anarchism (a very little movement, a decline force -residual of historical one-, without updated theorical figures)and minimize the current importance of market anarchism (also a very little movement, but a rising force, with presence in institutes and with present theorical figures).

Well, Benjamin Tucker was an anticapitalist as well as an individualist anarchist and at times he associated hismelf with socialism. "Indeed, Tucker explicitly stated that "all property rests on a labour title, and no other property do I favour." [Instead of a Book, p. 400] Because of their critique of capitalist property rights and their explicit opposition to usury (profits, rent and interest) individualist anarchists like Tucker could and did consider themselves as part of the wider socialist movement, the libertarian wing as opposed to the statist/Marxist wing.""In 1888 Tucker had speculated that "the question whether large concentrations of capital for production on the large scale confronts us with the disagreeable alternative of either abolishing private property or continuing to hold labour under the capitalistic yoke." [Liberty, no. 122, p. 4] By 1911, he had come to the conclusion that the latter had come to pass and considered revolutionary or political action as the only means of breaking up such concentrations of wealth (although he was against individualists anarchists participating in either strategy). [Martin, Op. Cit., pp. 273-4] In other words, Tucker recognised that economic power existed and, as a consequence, free markets were not enough to secure free people in conditions of economic inequality."[1]. Tucker of course as a mutualist in the tradition of Proudhon wanted non-capitalist markets. And if you don´t know theres a line of thought called Market socialism which wants to elimiante work hierarchy and salaried work, the main distinction between non capitalist commerce and capitalist commerce. So "market anarchism" is given due importance in the mutualism and in the individualist anarchism sections in this article. A different thing is to give undue importance to this "anarcho" capitalism. Even if we recognize it as an anarchist current (which for me clearly is not since it doesnt see a problem with work hierarchy while all other anarchisms do recognize as hierarchy and as such capitalism has always been an enemy of anarchism even for mutualism) anyway there is no good reason why it should be given more importance than other "non classical" recent currents such as postleft anarchy, insurrectionary anarchism, anarcha feminism, green anarchism, postanarchism, and others like it.

Nihilo seems is trying to make appear that individualist anarchism somehow is reducible to "anarcho" capitalism. This can´t be accepted since theres still anticapitalist mutualists [[2]].

"but a rising force, with presence in institutes and with present theorical figures)."

Well if Nihilo wants to prove this he is welcome to do this. The facts are:

-"anarcho" capitalism is an invention from the sixties by an american liberal who mostly acted in neoclassical economics circles in the USA and as such is totally disconnected with the history of anarchism. As such, this "anarcho" capitalism is a recent current and if it is to be accepted as an anarchism, it is a recent "non classical" line of thought and so it only deserves a mention in "non clasical recent developments"--Eduen (talk) 08:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

-i dont understand why someone erased the european individualist anarchism part that i added which is well referenced. please support this decision with arguments, otherwise this cant be accepted.--Eduen (talk) 08:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Look, we all know you have a problem with anarchocapitalism. That much is quite clear. Fine. Go rant about it on Chuck0's site. But don't vandalize the page just because you have a problem with it--and no, your "cover" of it being "USA-centric" doesn't fly. However, some of your other edits I found to be good, such as with the labor issues. I think those should be looked at. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 13:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

well. to tell you the truth, i dont think "anarcho" capitalism is an anarchism at all as most anarchists will also think so since at the present time and historically anarchism has been the other main anticapialist political ideology alon with marxism and thats why it might be considered a paort of the socialist tradition. but anyway, thats beside the points i made in support of my changes which never erased totally references to "anarcho" capitalism from the article. again, the reason is that "anarcho" capitalism, if it is to be considered a part of anarchism it will be as a non classical recent school of thought along with insurrectionalism, postanarchism, post left anarchy, green anarchism etc (by the way, all anticapitalist currents). so theres no reason why "aanrcho" capitalism should be given more importance than these other things and so i gave it a similar space within this article.--Eduen (talk) 06:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that nonsense has been debated on this page for years. You're not the first anarchocapitalism-hater to try to disrupt to make a point about your hatred, and you won't be the last. If you want post-left "anarchism", green "anarchism", etc. to have more space--EDIT THEM TO MAKE THEM LONGER. Don't go deleting content because you dislike capitalism and then couch it in terms of "the section here gives too much importance". No, that just won't do. We anarchocapitalists are not to blame for no one wanting to expand a bit on the other sections. If you feel so strongly--add more content. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 12:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

well. it seems you are on an argument of justice in the non classical schools and thats a good sign. but a different thing is for "anarcho" capitalism to ge a mention in the introduction. that can´t go as it is the only position in anarchism (of course if we decide to accpet it within anarchism and not where it belongs. in liberalism/neoliberalism) it cant have a mention in the introduction as Wikipedia:Neutral point of view says:

"Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, a view of a distinct minority."

and so as pro-capitalist anarchism is a historical and current minority it cant appear in the introduction as it is also too controversial as a part of anarchism. agian this doesnt mean it should be taken out of the article (some wikipedias do that though.

but there is a problem if i decide to expand the sections on insurrectionary anarchism, post left anarchy, primitivism, etc (which i can do esaily). the page is already too long as so it wont allow that.--Eduen (talk) 23:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Did you not notice that this argument has been done before? Many many many times. The next time you try to push your POV will be reported for disruption to make a point. Click that link and you will see that I just referenced a wikipolicy. Enough, Eduen, please. -Knight of BAAWA (talk) 01:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

FYI

If people who watch this page are also interested in how Wikipedia is governed, be sure to check out this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Advisory_Council_on_Project_Development . Slrubenstein | Talk 13:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The American Tradition

Should one country's anarchist tradition be given special status on this article? We don't have "The Russian Tradition" or "The Greek Tradition", although those countries' traditions are arguably more influential than that of the United States. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 15:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Philosophy that underlines the American tradition is different enough from others currents of individualist anarchism to merit its own subsection. -- Vision Thing -- 18:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

So, it's not the American tradition you want to give special priority, but in particular the American individualist tradition? What about the American collectivist tradition? Certainly that is at least as illustrious...and both draw heavily on European writers such as Stirner and Kropotkin. In what way is American anarchism so unique, and so much more important than other traditions, and on what do you base this claim? Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 12:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Beacuse american one is an anarchism that becomes from other figures, other values, and it is originally american -non a 19th european migration or ideas product- and probably is older than the european tradition (more associated with the historial-classical perception of a "collectivist" anarchism). That the reason becuase it need to be especified. Even in Europe, the old anarcho-individualist movement (very years latter) also comes from the american tradition influence. That part refers to the procedence (origins), I believe is very clear. The article is very good in the estruture now and I believe was a hard work to think and to accord it ;) --Nihilo 01 (talk) 22:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Nathan, isn't the pretty obvious answer to the uniqueness question "Josiah Warren"? Libertatia (talk) 02:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Josiah Warren is certainly important to American anarchism, but somebody like Stirner is probably at least as important to individualism, so should we have a section called "The German Tradition"? Malatesta, Bakunin, and Gustav Landauer, and any other anarchist you could name each have their own unique flavor of anarchism that differed from their contemporaries, so under the collectivist heading, we should have "The Italian Tradition", "The Russian Tradition", and two entries for "The German Tradition"--one under collectivism to cover Landauer and a second under individualism to cover Stirner (and perhaps the Autonomen for that matter). Why is "The American Tradition" more important than these other traditions? ...and if uniqueness is the key, then somebody like Hakim Bey should have their own entry, right? Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 05:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no notable Italian tradition or Russian tradition, or least not as notable. American individualist anarchism is the most discussed in books and articles as being its own unique type of anarchism. That's why. Goalyoman (talk) 19:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps in the books you read, but I have not seen any reliable sources saying "The American Tradition is the most important and unique tradition within anarchism." Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 20:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Not within anarchism but within INDIVIDUALIST anarchism. All you have to do is look up "individualist anarchism" in Google books, and judge for yourself by the number of sources discussing it. Goalyoman (talk) 20:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Interesting, but your judgement about Google Books is original research. I realize we are talking about individualist anarchism, but there are comparably important traditions within collectivist anarchism that we don't give special treatment. The Russian Tradition or the Italian Tradition are more than a little significant within collectivist anarchism, and yet we don't give them special treatment within that section. And within individualist anarchism, the German, Italian, and French Traditions probably deserves as much attention as the American Tradition, since they too have heavily influenced modern movements, such as the aforementioned Autonomen. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 20:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, by the way. Hope you're enjoying it so far. Did you get a chance to read some of our guidelines? Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 20:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks but I've edited Wikipedia many times. I'm familiar with the guidelines. If you can find a tradition as notable as the American than add it in. I don't see why anyone would stop you. I recommend that you don't delete the American tradition because it's clearly notable enough for its own section. I don't consider it original research to look at a variety of sources and recognize what's considered notable and what's not. That's just a matter for consensus of editors to determine. It comes down to if you don't think it's notable then delete the section. If others think it's notable they'll put it back in. The consensus will win out. Goalyoman (talk) 20:40, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

It's certainly notable, but it's a question of undue weight. I don't think this article is the right place to spell out the differences between different country's traditions. That can be done in the separate articles about those countries traditions. If we were to treat other traditions the same way, this article would be even more unwieldy than it already is. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 20:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you mistake it being about a country. It's not about America. It's just that the individualist anarchism that arose in American is very unique. You could rename the section to something else, such a "Free Market Anarchism," and it would be the same thing. It's not about America but a philosophy that just happens to be centered in America. Goalyoman (talk) 21:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Free-market anarchism is a better title, although I don't know if that term properly applies to all the people who have been grouped into this tradition. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 21:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

And, of course...who's doing the grouping? Do we have a source that says these particular people all belonged to a single tradition, separate and unique from other American anarchist traditions? My feeling is that the line between the individualists and the collectivists is rather murky in itself, let alone the line between the American individualists and the other individualists. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 21:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The source starting out the section by Levy distinguishes it as "another brach of individualism was found in the United States and was far less radical. The American Benjamin Tucker (1854-1939) believed that maximum individual liberty would be assured where the free market was not hindered or controlled by the State and monopolies." He's distinguishing it from Stirner's individualist anarchism. I don't think the line between individualists and collectivists is murky at all. If you believe in social property you're a collectivist. If you believe in individual property you're an individualist. Goalyoman (talk) 22:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

And what are you if you distinguish between property and possession, arguing that certain types of objects should be collectively managed and others should be under the management of individuals, while still others should not or cannot be owned at all? This is, of course a summary of the view of most anarchists today and virtually all anarchists prior to the advent of the anarcho-capitalist position in the 1970s and 80s. The attempt to paint these two camps as a clear-cut divide on collective vs individual property is, as far as I can tell, relatively recent historical revisionism, or at least an exaggeration of the actual split between them. There is a tendency among some to say "individualists believe in property and markets while collectivists do not", but this is oversimplification to the point of distortion. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 02:53, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. Whether you're talking about possession or property, individualists are for individual control. Collectivists are for community control. There has always been a split and antagonism between them back from Benjamin Tucker on through today. That's why "anarchism without adjectives" was invented long ago, people tired of all the arguments between the two ideologies claiming that the other isn't real anarchism. Goalyoman (talk) 03:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, "always" and "ever since Tucker" are two very different time spans. Anyway, like I said, virtually nobody is or ever was for complete community control, and few are for complete individual control. The majority of anarchists, including most of those loosely called "individualists" and "collectivists" are in a gray area. Yes, a people like Tucker liked to oversimplify the people who came before them, but to say that the schools are clearly delineated by the question of property is just inaccurate. Prior to Tucker, the differences probably weren't even perceived by most, which is reflected in the fact that they didn't need a term like "anarchists without adjectives" before Tucker because anarchists were just anarchists. Factionalization is essentially a 20th century phenomenon, and the labeling of every single prominent anarchist as either "individualist" or "collectivist" based on a strict definition of property is an invention of the last few decades. No anarchist has ever been for complete collective control of all property and possessions. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 05:08, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

If you're opposed to individual control in ANY instance, then you're not an individualist. It's that simple. An individualist is a purest. You say "few" anarchists are for "complete individual control." Maybe so relatively speaking, but those relative few are the individualists. Goalyoman (talk) 15:25, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The doctrine of complete individual control is closer to egoism. 19th century anarchists who are lumped into the "individualist" camp by later writers believed in all sorts of community controls, from limits on pricing to contract law, and commonly called themselves "socialists". So, whether you were a "socialist" or an "individualist" or neither or--gasp--both...was very murky back then. Any attempt to draw a clear line is historical revisionism. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 02:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

You're wrong about that. People such as Benjamin Tucker did not oppose individual control of property in any instance. They even denied that society existed. And contrary to your claim, in no case did they support "community controls" on pricing or contract law. That's left to individual decision. The whole meaning of being an anarchist to them is the shunning all coercion over the individual by society or other individuals. The distinction between individualists and others is quite real. In anarchism, you have the individualists who have no trace of collectivism, then everyone else along a scale of reduced individualism and more collectivism with anarcho-communism being the most collectivist and least individualist. Goalyoman (talk) 17:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

(Reduced Indent)"People like Tucker"--whatever that means--believed that price should be limited to cost, believed that "anarchistic socialism" as he called it, would require workers being entitled to the entire product of their labor, and so on. If such rules are to be followed, that would be a societal control since someone would have to be prevented from usurping workers' profits through control of the means of production. Admittedly, this is all, of course just my interpretation, as your view is yours. Such interpretation is, as I said, distortion at best, and partisan historical revisionism at worst. As for denying the existence of society--well, that's Stirner, and he did not consider himself an anarchist though many people have called him an anarchist--another instance of historical revisionism. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 12:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

(Reduced Indent) The section on American Anarchism is interesting and relevant enough. I wonder of other editors could add sections on Anarchism in other countries, as someone suggested, which might solve the issue of WP:WEIGHT and serve us better than outright deletion. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 05:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Aelffin, No, Tucker did not support any rules or laws that would "require workers being entitled to the entire product of their labor." It was his belief that laissez-faire economics would cause everyone to trade equal labor. He thought that would be the consequence if government did not create monopolies. That's not social control over individual decision. You're just not familiar with economic theories of the early individualist anarchists. And Tucker certainly did deny the existence of society. He said "That there is an entity known as the community which is the rightful owner of all land anarchists deny. I maintain that the community is a non-entity, that it has no existence, and is simply a combination of individuals having no prerogative beyond those of the individuals themselves." There is nothing collectivist about individualist anarchists, hence the name. The distinction between individualist anarchists and other anarchists is very real and very solid. The classification is right to exist. Goalyoman (talk) 06:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Is not about "the country" is about an original form of anarchism movement and theory that the political sources continuosly mention, a school of thought that in the beggining set away form european anarchism (a collectivist movement) with another values. I try to fix this "problem" indicating that classical individualism was formed by philophical and economical perspectives. Again, it´s not about "country" it is about "theory". --Nihilo 01 (talk) 18:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Nathan, if you can find a better way to describe the tradition, I would certainly do so. There is obviously a form of mutualism or individualist anarchism that is first crystalized in the work of Warren, and which is frequently described as "American" in both primary and secondary sources (both English and non-English). I'm not certain you'll find enough agreement on any of the potential terms (mutualism, individualist anarchism, Boston anarchism, philosophical anarchism, individual sovereigntyism, etc.) to improve things in a clearly NPOV manner. But it would be nice to avoid the sort of "fixes" that Nihilo 01 is proposing, which involve even shakier notions, like "classical individualism," and sheer historical impossibilities, like individualist anarchism "in the beginning" rejecting a collectivist anarchist movement that would not exist for a couple of decades. Libertatia (talk) 20:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

You have a point here. Calling it "Individualist anarchism" or some other term implies a division which wasn't there early on. I guess there are two problems I have with the section. First, as I said, it looks like we're perpetuating and American bias. Second, using "The American Tradition" synonymously with "Individualist anarchism" implies that collectivism wasn't a significant factor on this side of the pond, which is clearly untrue. I'm not sure how to correct these issues. The best approach is probably to stick to whatever terms they used to describe themselves. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 09:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Probably my English for discussion is not so compressible. I said -or I tried to say- the same of Libertatia in his first lines of his last comment. A point, mutualism is not the same of "classical" anarcho-individualism, and there is "classical" or "old" anarcho-individualism different from comtemporary anarcho-individualism usually asociated with anarcho-capitalism (all these points are distributed in the references around the article, are not POV or primary source). ... Another user have named the "american tradition" like "free-market individualism" for it focus in economy and finances, I agree and added a section of philosophical anarchism for the classical anarco-individualism not focused in economy.--Nihilo 01 (talk) 13:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Simple Suggestion

I think frequent editors here could benefit a lot by referencing the Simple English version of the article here. Complex circumlocutions often mask insincerity. :) Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 01:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The fact that the first paragraph of that article explains anarchism better than this entire page is embarrassing. Zazaban (talk) 00:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

No State Yes Market / "Anarcho capitalism"

"Anarcho-Capitalism," better described as "anti-state, pro-market," has nothing to do with Anarchism, and never has. Even Rothbard just used the word as a handy phrase. I have a serious qualm with this article. I am not an active editor here on wikipedia, and I am saying all this chiefly as a reader. Wikipedia is presenting a horribly mutated view of anarchism in its many pages by including openly the concept known as "anarcho-capitalism." This is a really good example of how easily Wikipedia loses touch with reality. In the real world, and anarchist bookfairs, and demonstrations, in anarchist organizations, there are no "anarcho-capitalists." And I'm even from the U.S. No anarchists have ever considered "free-market anarchism" besides some mutualists who are very strange and not very well understood by most. Seriously though, back to the point. Wikipedia is out of touch with reality, and is doing a public dis-service by continuing to allow "anarcho-capitalism" to appear on the "anarchism pages." I was at an anarchist conference on the west coast awhile ago, and this 16-year-old came in who was whiter than anyone I'd ever seen. He was like a ghost, because he never spent any time inside, and chiefly organized his life around wikipedia, world of warcraft, and 4chan (no joke). He objected to our use of the phrase "capitalism and the state" to define our enemies, because he though that capitalism wasn't bad. The room erupted in laughter, and he left. He had learned about anarchism and "anarcho-capitalism" chiefly or entirely from Wikipedia, and had no relationship with anarchism in reality. This kind of shit isn't taken seriously in the real world. The 3 people in the world who consider themselves "anarcho-capitalists" are not anarchists. Capitalism is an inherent enemy of anarchism, just as much as fascism, or white supremacy. If Anarcho-Capitalism is included here, we should also include "National Anarchism," which is a bad attempt to re-brand white nationalism in a cooler image, because the racists know that naziism isn't publicly acceptable anymore. It's ridiculous. VertetNoir (talk) 20:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Everyone has WP:AN OPINION. This non-debate has been settled for years now.  Skomorokh  22:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

You're correct; this is not a debate. This is my affirmation that wikipedia, and especially the anarchy department, have zero credibility because of obvious, stupid things like this. VertetNoir (talk) 07:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm actually inclined to agree, I don't think the ancap movement is notable enough to have such a large section on this article, if it has one at all. Although I will disagree with the equation of free-market anarchism and anarcho-capitalism. Zazaban (talk) 08:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Is capitalist anarchism really a school of anarchism?

Would one really consider capitalist anarchism a school of anarchism when it allows for hierarchical rule through property and private ownership of the means to production? It seems like, while the term is adopted, it actually shares very little with actual anarchism, which emphasizes collectivism and a horizontal social structure.

If anything, there should be mention of those who doubt capitalist anarchism as a legitimate school of anarchism. (Not that it is any less legitimate as a political philosophy on its own.) 8bit (talk) 04:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Originally you asked about individualism, and I replied: Find a reliable secondary source (ie: scholarly journal non-partisan, university press work in edited collection with named academic editor, scholarly press) that argues that. However, as much as there may be distaste for the ideology of individualism, it has a long tenure of being called anarchism, being considered as such by other anarchists and scholars, and occasionally even taking social action... occasionally.

Regarding capitalist "anarchism"... well... I'd like to see better sourcing... but they exist. I haven't checked the article balance recently, but due to very eager young people who believe in it, it occasionally gets too great an emphasis in this article. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:24, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

"Anarcho"-Monarchism and "Anarcho"-Nazism ("national anarchism") exist too but they aren't even mentioned on this page. Is a page on evolution required to include creationists's views? That's what including capitalists on this page is equivalent to. "Anarcho"-capitalism gets as much space on this page as anarcho-syndicalism, even though the later has vastly more supporters and a longer history. Jgolowka (talk) 23:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The first two are fringe, I doubt any scholarly RS cover them. The latter is more problematic, including from an encyclopedic perspective, coverage is probably undue here. But quite a long time ago I lost the energy to edit down over excited proponents. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Problem solved. Zazaban (talk) 02:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

They were at five paragraphs? Good editing. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

About the inclusion of creationist perspectives on evolution: since we have to have Marxist (i.e., communist, or socialist) perspective of capitalism, I don't see why not. That is, unless, you think we should remove Marxist perspective on capitalism from the article. Macai (talk) 08:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, there's a difference. Marxists view capitalism as a real thing and a natural object of their study... even as a necessary part of the telos of history. Creationists don't view evolution as an existing thing. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:48, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Pointing out a difference does not invalidate an analogy. Also, your explanation does not make sense in the context. "Is a page on evolution required to include creationists's views? That's what including capitalists on this page is equivalent to." Equivalent in what way? Well, in that creationism is the capitalism (in the writer's perspective) is antithetical to anarchism, much like creationism is antithetical to evolution. Macai (talk) 09:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

You're confusing me and User:Jgolowka. The so-called anarcho-capitalists should be here, because their usage is substantiated, and due, in reliable sources. My polemical opinions don't matter. WEIGHT and RS do. And we should edit the article on the basis of WEIGHT and RS. The anarcho-capitalists certainly have a sufficient publication weight... since the 1970s. Problems come forward when contemporary US anarcho-capitalists try to claim individualist and pro-property anarchism, even in the US, as identical with the current brand. Its kind of like claiming Proudhon is an autonomist. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm just going to put it here that when the protection is off, I am going to add sections on post-left and post anarchism. Zazaban (talk) 19:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a section in the anarchocapitalism page regarding the capitalism-haters. And the belief that anarchism qua anarchism (that means anarchism as itself, not as people wish it to be) emphasizes collectivism is the same belief as thinking that atheism emphasizes communism. I have no idea why people continue to bring up this nonsense every year. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 23:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with this, but would like to stress something. Saying anarchism stresses collectivism is, in itself, ironic, since anarchism is "belief in the abolition of all government and the organization of society on a cooperative basis" [3], making it patently individualistic. Saying anarchism emphasizes collectivism is like saying vegetarianism emphasizes eating meat. The answer to the OP's question is "yes; capitalist anarchism really is a school of anarchism--unlike communist anarchism". Macai (talk) 08:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Considering that the founder of anarchism was a socialist, and that it evolved out of the early socialist movement, I'd say your position is nonsensical. Zazaban (talk) 08:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the photo

There are no double standards. I am not excluding Murray Rothbard from the article, or portraying him as less popular. All I want is to include an author that is one of the most visited in this article (http://stats.grok.se/). Put your bias aside and accept that Anarcho-primitivism is fairly popular right now (see statistics). I don't find it strange at all that John Zerzan should have a place of prominence in the post-classical section. I understand that an author who is "fresh and popular" is not necessarily "essential and historical", but his photo, in this regard, is in the right section of the article. Maziotis (talk) 19:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

According to the very same site, Rothbard gets more than twice as many visits than Zerzan. Zazaban (talk) 19:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Who challenged that? What does that have to do with my point? Maziotis (talk) 19:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Gak! I didn't notice you had kept the Rothbard picture, I thought you had simply deleted it. Zazaban (talk) 19:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Fair mistake. Maybe now you can see my argument in a different light. Maziotis (talk) 19:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't find it strange at all that Zerzan should have a picture, I just thought it odd that you were deleting the fellow with the higher visits, when it was you that first were using that standard. But you weren't deleting him, and this is now all quite embarrassing. Zazaban (talk) 19:45, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

It's all fine, as long as green anarchists have their little corner in this article to tell their side of anarchism. I hope you can recognize that the movement has enough impact to justify that. Maziotis (talk) 19:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course; you may notice a few edits back I called green anarchism 'pretty damn important' in an edit summary. I just bought a book called 'socialism and survival' only a couple days ago. I generally agree that civilization will collapse if we keep going with capitalism and the state the way we are. Zazaban (talk) 19:53, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow. A civil conclusion to an edit war on the Anarchism article? I feel like your both doing something wrong. --Cast (talk) 22:45, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I've protected the article for 24 hours. Please don't edit war; you're both experienced enough to know better.  Skomorokh, barbarian 

Aaaaand, unprotected. Let's continue any arguments here rather than in edit-summaries, eh?  Skomorokh, barbarian  01:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to say something else; the picture of Zerzan isn't really very good. Can anyone find a better picture? Zazaban (talk) 19:42, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I've got a better one I took of him at the 2006 SF anarchist book fair. I've been meaning to create a "donate a picture" area at the Anarchist Task Force page where people can request photos of regions (notable anarchist landmarks) or individuals. I'll get around to uploading my Zerzan pic. --Cast (talk) 05:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much. It's too close, from an awkward angle, and the all-black background looks strange. Zazaban (talk) 05:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Changes

Please stop change the article to make it favorable to your oppinions. Here are many people what want to read Wikipedia to get informed not to read the oppinions of wikipedians. I reverted to the last consensued edition, consensued in order or relevance and cronology. Please only add referenced changes, not include original investigations. I had tried to make a translation of this article to Spanish and I had consulted many of the sources. Thank you very much. --Sageo (talk) 16:39, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

What original investigation? Nobody added any original research, and this new version was in fact talked about here. Zazaban (talk) 20:32, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Where are the basis of these changes, that I believe aren't honest. If this situation persist it should be denounced. --Sageo (talk) 22:31, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Changes in long time consensus of theorical and historial relevance, and chronological order long time accepted, should be referenced with very clear sources and reliable publications (not with wikipedian's opinions or with Internet statistics). Also, both Zarzaban and Maziotis, should respect the consensued redaction that a lot of users have built before you with an excellent explanation and redaction and with very good sources.--Sageo (talk) 22:55, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the picture discussion, I'm talking about the one above that. And if your objection is simply to the addition of post-anarchism and post-left anarchy, don't delete everything. I have no idea how on earth

any of it could be interpreted as saying in any way that post-modern anarchism is more important than libertarian anarchism, especially since nothing about libertarian anarchism was even touched. If it will make you happy, I will remove the sections on those two for now, but your argument doesn't make any sense to me, I'm not even clear on what you're objecting to. At the very least it's absurd that the section on anarcho-capitalism should be the largest in the article. Zazaban (talk) 23:09, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure this changes are honest? In the publications that I have consulted one could certefied that anarcho-capitalism (or free-market anarchism, like a synonimous, the use of this term for another theories should be referenced) isn't historical anarchism but is one of the most important contemporay forms of anarchism. It should be first in the list of post-classical schools, and with pictures. And remember, with a neutral redaction, that is what I don't see now. If you broken long time consensus I hope you show that reliable sources what justified that radical change.

Another point, this article shouldn't be a list of all anarchist schools but a chronogical and theoretical review of most important kinds of anarchism. I mean, is suppoused that Rothbard should be mentioned first and wider than Bob Black or John Zerzan. The problem never have been that anarcho-capitalism have a bigger section, is that there aren't reliable sources for make larger the other post-clasical schools sections. --Sageo (talk) 23:38, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone edits this site with that incredible level of meticulousness. If long time consensus is broken, and nobody seems to have a problem with it, then there's no point in making a big deal out of it. Besides the fact that several other established editors have edited the page and commented on the talk page since the edits were made and saw absolutely no cause for alarm. In fact some outwardly expressed support. I don't I've ever seen a process with such an extreme level of sourcing and consulting publications on this site. I don't think I've ever seen sourcing used for how sections are ordered at all. Furthermore, anarcho-capitalism has had less of an influence on anarchism than green anarchism. Anarcho-capitalism is generally isolated from the rest of the movement, and most anarchists that get on the news are greenies. If anything comes first in the section, it should be green anarchism. Zazaban (talk) 06:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Moving forward

The changes in dispute are varied and dramatic. Perhaps if we separated them out and discussed them individually we could come to agreement or at least consensus over which to retain as beneficial or alter accordingly?  Skomorokh, barbarian  02:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC) I agree with Sageo. Zazaban, please explain changes that you are trying to implement. -- Vision Thing -- 10:35, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

So Zazaban you accept that is only the opinion of two wikipedians what broken the long time accepted consensus from a lot of wikipedians, without any visible consult and without any reliable source. I agree that anarcho-capitalism is isolated from the rest of anarchism, because isn't collectivist but individualist and libertarian, but alone anarcho-capitalism have more theoretical relevance in the world of ideas and political influence that any other of the theories alone ("posties", "greenies", like you say, etc), only one have to check political publications like philosophical encyclopedias and dicctionaries and one can see that anarcho-capitalism have produce a debate only comparable with the historical anarchism, saving the differences of course. Anarcho-capitalism have influence in a third party from US, and inside institutes and academical publications around the world. Also, anarcho-capitalism have a chronological order that should be respected. Check that I'm not using my opinions, like Zazaban and Maziotis do, for support this claim, I'm using the references and bibliography used for make this article. I repeat, if this situation persist it should be denounced, specially to that ones who make the long time consesued and referenced article. --Sageo (talk) 21:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Is socialist anarchism really a school of anarchism?

I mean, the concept is kind of oxymoronic. No matter how many pseudo-intellectual European philosophers from the nineteenth century you can find that disagree with me, the idea is internally consistent. I mean how can you advocate "a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole" [1] while also advocating "belief in the abolition of all government and the organization of society on a cooperative basis"[2]?

It is, in itself, internally contradictory. I think at the very least such should be pointed out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Macai (talk • contribs) 08:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Anarchism does not advocate abolishing "the organization of society on a cooperative basis". The vast majority of all anarchism has historically been, and is presently, socialist. To argue that is isn't really a school of anarchism deletes essentially 90% of anarchist history. I would suggest you study the subject before making wide-reaching judgement calls. Zazaban (talk) 08:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I think I see what's happened. The definition given is belief in "the abolition of all government" and the belief in "the organization of society on a cooperative basis". It's not saying anywhere that cooperative should be abolished, it is saying the exact opposite. You read it as advocating the removal of both. Zazaban (talk) 09:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

How can you believe in abolishing government while also believing that the government should own everything? 76.15.41.182 (talk) 10:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Anarchists are working towards a society with no "government" -- i.e. no external institution which regulates peoples' lives. This does not mean that people cannot collectively make decisions about how things are done. As long as people are directly involved in the decision making process (i.e. no "representatives"), consensus is reached for everything (so that everyone agrees with what is being done), and everyone has a say in each decision that affects their own life, then there is no government -- there is only a group of friends making a group decision. In the case of the many flavors of communist anarchism, you don't have any government, and you don't have ownership of the means of production. You just have a group of people working together who reach consensus as a group about what should be done. Does that make more sense now? Jrtayloriv (talk) 15:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Not really, no. You're basically saying that direct democracy among a tiny group of people is anarchism, and it's not. "As long as people are directly involved in the decision making process", and "everyone has a say in each decision that affects their own life", then "there is no government"? This does not follow. What you're describing is direct democracy, not anarchism. While there may be a group of people who believe this is the way things should be, it is oxymoronic to describe it as "communist anarchism", since in order for people, even a small group of maybe ten people, to organize themselves, they are engaging in the act of governing the group. Communist anarchism seems to say that it's not a government if it's a small enough government, which just doesn't make any sense. For this reason, I think it should be noted that communist anarchism doesn't really describe anarchism since they're advocating a system where the community as a whole (i.e., the government) owns everything. Macai (talk) 20:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

No, you're still not quite getting anarchist theory. Regardless, it is not our job to explain it to you. If you attempt to add this, you will be reverted. Communist anarchism has represented the majority of anarchists for most, if not all, of its history, and it's status within the movement is uncontroversial. Zazaban (talk) 21:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, first of all, just because most people that describe themselves as anarchists also describe themselves as communist anarchists doesn't make communist anarchism less of an oxymoron. Likewise, if I got a majority of vegetarians to come to an agreement that they are carnivorous vegetarians, it wouldn't make carnivorous vegetarianism less of an oxymoron. Saying otherwise (which is basically what you just resorted to) is an argumentum ad populum argument, and is therefore fallacious. Second of all, communist anarchism's status as anarchism is very controversial. See the controversy going on right now. That is, unless by "it is uncontroversial" you mean "it is uncontroversial among people that agree with me". Third, and finally of all, threatening to revert edits while actually saying you don't need to provide a reason amounts to the de facto adoption of an "I'm right and you're wrong" position. Doing so is a de facto concession in a debate and is appreciated by those of us with reading comprehension. I'll wait for someone else to attempt to point out how communist anarchism is not an oxymoron before actually making the edit. Macai (talk) 22:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't 'threatening' to revert you. I was simply stating a fact. I probably won't be the one doing it either. Also, it should be pointed out that communist anarchism does not support the community owning everything. It supports possession based ownership. Zazaban (talk) 23:23, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Macai -- it seems that your confusion is a result of the fact that you're getting all of your information about anarchism from a single (poorly written) dictionary entry. You are making false statements such as "communist anarchism's status as anarchism is very controversial". Certainly not all people who call themselves "anarchists" are communist anarchists, but as Zazaban mentioned above, the majority of them have been historically, so it is hardly "controversial" whether it is considered a current of anarchist thought.

Also nobody has said anywhere that "just because most people that describe themselves as anarchists also describe themselves as communist anarchists" that this makes "communist anarchism less of an oxymoron.". The reason that people don't think that it is an "oxymoron" is because there is a large body of anarchist communist theory that has not been logically or historically refuted -- it has nothing to do with the number of people who "describe themselves as communist anarchists". Rhetoric aside, you have yet to demonstrate anything that shows that anarchist communism is logically inconsistent or an "oxymoron". You seem to be coming to this conclusion, because of your mistaken belief that anarchist communists support state ownership of everything, when in fact they oppose the idea of both the State AND of ownership. You seem to be mixing up anarchist communism with state socialism. I don't think you necessarily have flawed logic here -- it seems, rather, that you are starting out with false premises (i.e. misconceptions about what anarchist communism actually is) which are leading you to an invalid conclusion. I would recommend that you take a look at this -- it might clear up some of your misconceptions. Jrtayloriv (talk) 01:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

On anarchist sectarianism

There does not exist an anarchist school of thought that has not been decried at one point or another as not true anarchism. The syndicalists are too beholden to stifling mass control, mutualism is profiteering with a human face, the communists are closet Stalinists, the capitalists are budding hierarchs, primitivism is nothing but luddite inhumanity, the post-leftists are bourgeois individualists, individualism dissolves into barbarism or government, the post-anarchists academic opportunists who wouldn't recognise an anarchist if she slapped them in the face, and the anarchists without adjectives can't make up their damn minds. In short, everyone has an opinion, and there is no faction that emerges unsoiled from inter-anarchist mudslinging.

It is not our business as an encyclopaedia to engage in these disputes, only to chronicle them veraciously. We do so by adopting a neutral point of view and not misrepresenting opinions as fact. This article has no business saying such and such an anarchist philosophy is not truly anarchist, though it can and should report on notable opinions to that effect (cf. "The status of anarchist communism within anarchism is disputed, because most individualist anarchists consider communitarianism incompatible with political freedom", "Because of the historically anti-capitalist nature of much of anarchist thought, the status of anarcho-capitalism within anarchism is disputed, particularly by communist anarchists."), where they are supported by reliable sources.

Our articles on anarchism were for years the most controversial on the encyclopaedia precisely for this reason of sectarian disputes, and there has been long-standing consensus consequently in favour of non-judgemental pluralism and inclusion. This article will not be kicking any school of thought out of the anarchist treehouse. For further guidance on this, please consult the Wikipedia:Anarchism referencing guidelines. Sincerely,  Skomorokh, barbarian  02:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for this. I definitely need some work in this area myself. I have removed the divisive, unnecessary comment I made above about syndicalists. Nice to have a few calm heads like yourself around. Skomorokh++ --- Jrtayloriv (talk) 05:44, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

This is so good, I almost think it should be put up as a warning on the top of the talk page. Half of the stuff here consists of inter-anarchist bitching. Zazaban (talk) 06:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I think this sounds fair enough as well. Macai (talk) 09:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

To follow up on this, I'm thinking of proposing a general guideline for political articles and the like based on this under the name Wikipedia:Do Not Kick People Out of The Treehouse (WP:TREEHOUSE). Considering that almost every political, religious, and social group has some level of sectarianism like this. It would be better than the long drawn out debates all over the place that we have now, quite a few articles are bogged down by this gibberish. Does anyone else like the idea? Zazaban (talk) 06:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

No, not really, "No Sir I don't Like It." RS and WEIGHT work fine already. This only becomes a problem when an area is underworked in terms of Academic RS, or the Academic RS are polemical instead of authoritative. Yet Another Problem is your definition of sectarianism only extends to coherent movements with aligned core goals; and, that the idea that these conflicts are sectarian is used to paper over significant differences between groups or movements with a "why can't we all just get along" appeal. I'm quite happy with RS and WEIGHT to deal with these issues. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Since consensus appears to be changing

I've updated the page to fit what seems to be the emerging consensus. Let's discuss these changes here. Possible additions, or if you think it should be reverted. Zazaban (talk) 09:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

"It is often argued that [socialism anarchism isn't whatever]" was undue. Good work. Not interested in the page positioning issue. Better characterisation of individualism, would prefer to see reference to the thinker who typifies the opinion on that, "Foo, in the mainstream opinion, believes x about individualism". Fifelfoo (talk) 10:51, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

In retrospect, the section was far too large for a summary article. Most of that info is in the main article. Zazaban (talk) 18:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Any Long standing Anarchist communties Article did not say

are they any long standing lastin Anarchist communties?Thankjs! (Dr.Edson Andre' Johnson D.D.ULC Dated Thurs.Oct 15th2009 21st Cent. afternoon)NOVABAKUNINMOI (talk) 20:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

List of anarchist communities. Zazaban (talk) 22:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Sad

Again, years of arguments and work for a relevant estructure of the content... and again and again and again and again try to make a frekish revitionism. Very sad. If Zazaban and Eduen wants to make a estructural reform of the content line of the article they should discusse it and expose why their lonely argument is better than years of discussion. I believe the are many users that are against their editions. --Nihilo 01 (talk) 04:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I have been reviewing the changes you just reverted and if I had been paying more attention I would have reverted too. Good catch Nihlo. - 4twenty42o (talk) 04:24, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Anarchism means no goverment at all = anarchy, not only Anti-Statism, because you may rule without state and this isn´t anarchy, no goverment doesn´t means no state. Revisionism of anarchocapitalist is really absurd. No rule requires equality, because if I am inequal with others there are no free will in "free contract", I am compelled to accept (not free) contract because of my inferior position. --Elm (talk) 14:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

again. the point here is not to erase "anarcho" capitalism. the point is to make justice to history and reality.--Eduen (talk) 23:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

but the most pathetic thing is that "anarcho" neoliberalism apparently wants to gain here some more notoriety by putting individualist anarchism first and putting the history section last. If you want to change history i guess you have to build a time machine and convince all anarchist thinkers and movements since the 19th century to love capitalism instead of hating it. until you do that your economicistic USA centered mini section of neoliberalism cant expect to have too much space here as it does not have in the real world. at best it can be considered maybe as another excentricity alongside something like National-Anarchism. its like trying to get inside an all black people party and wanting to start yelling racist insults.--Eduen (talk) 00:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the most pathetic thing is your hatred for anarchocapitalism. You will not be allowed to POV-push. Period. And you can call anarchocapitalism a "neoliberal" position all you like--that won't make any difference whatsoever. Your insults will not be tolerated. Your hatred will not be allowed to be in the article. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 00:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

and now as far as user Nihilo. for some good reason he was blocked forever from editing in wikipedia in spanish [4] and here also is already very near that point.--Eduen (talk) 00:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

if you want to take the things i said as insults thats your problem. what i said are facts. this position is barely accepted at all within anarchism and it is very recent and you pretend to lie to the uninformed people who come here to try to understand anarchism and what it is and its history.--Eduen (talk) 06:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

No, what you said are lies, Eduen. Plain and simple. Your hatred of capitalism is quite clear. I neither know nor care why you have such a hatred. But this is Wikipedia. No Bias. Your hatred will not be allowed to be in this wiki. You want to rant against capitalism? Go start an anti-capitalist wiki or join Chuck Munson and the rest of the screaming haters. We've decided to not kick anyone out of the treehouse, so it doesn't matter about "history", since then historically the only christians would be catholics. And since I don't see you editing those pages, you must be attempting your marginalization of anarchocapitalism on bad faith.

Now then, let's discuss the changes before they get made. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 13:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

again the issue here is not hate but facts and just treatment to each thing. im not here for erasing references to "anarcho" capitalism but that thing just as National-Anarchism are too controversial and marginally if at all conected to the history of anarchism just as they are too recent. So the issue here is Wikipedia:Fringe theories. "Coverage on Wikipedia should not make a fringe theory appear more notable than it actually is. Since Wikipedia describes significant opinions in its articles, with representation in proportion to their prominence, it is important that Wikipedia itself does not become the validating source for non-significant subjects." And also "The mention of a fringe idea in other articles may be limited, or even omited altogether, if it gives undue weight to the theory within the context of the other article.". So is not "bad faith". Also calling "anarcho" capitalism a neoliberal position is also not an insult but as one can see in the introduction to the article Neoliberalism just points out the fact that is a position that is a "redefinition of classical liberalism, influenced by the neoclassical theories of economics."--Eduen (talk) 15:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

First, Eduen should read about what is an Ad Hominen. Then, what we nedd is a political approach to anarchism, not a "subcultural" one. Also what we need for order the article is refferences about time order of schools and about relevance, present article and structure is very satisfactory in that issue and there isn`t any strong argument for change it. --Nihilo 01 (talk) 13:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC) Check some examples of political approach (also dividing in socialist anarchism and "individualist anarchism" for the two main traditions in political economy, among many others strong coincidences), and we can see current article is very near to these approaches:

• The Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Political Thought
• Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy
• Modern Political Ideologies

That is what political and philosophical experts (from an outer look) say about anarchism, not what we (the users, probably all of us anarchist ourselves) think about it. Over any other consideration we should prefer experts analysis than ourselves thinking. --Nihilo 01 (talk) 13:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

"socialist anarchism" is all anarchism since anarchism has been and is anticapitalist (including individualist anarchism, which also has been a minoritarian position within anarchism). anyway it will be nice to see the citations. i can´t see how you are going to support your "socialist anarchism" outside neoliberal writers.--Eduen (talk) 01:30, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

the reversions made before my last edit just erasedd too many things. And so insurrectioanry anarchism, christian anarchism and post left anarchism have been erased as well as european individualist anarchism. if someone keeps doing that i dont think we can have a debate here since im not erasing "anarcho" capitalism out of the article. Again i didnt erase "anarcho"capitalism and the accusations of me hating it can be answered by me also saying you hate all of those other currents. Also i dont know but maybe if we include "anarcho" capitalism should we include "fascist" anarchism. if we are going to include bizzare things like "anarcho" capitalism we might as well be fair to all. otherwise we should not include "anarcho" capitalism. Again check Wikipedia:Fringe theories. --Eduen (talk) 01:46, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

You make wide-scale changes w/o consensus, get reverted, and then wonder what happened... Soxwon (talk) 01:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Eduen, you might get somewhere if you didn't keep calling anything you disagree with "neoliberalism" and if you didn't make it plain your hatred of anarcho-capitalism with the quote marks. Your fringe view of trying to kick out anarcho-capitalism isn't what the consensus happens to be. So please do stop. You have some good ideas on some edits, but we should discuss wholesale changes. Yes--be bold. But seek consensus. And don't seek to kick out anything you don't like just because you, like a lot of people, conflate capitalism with fascism, mercantilism, and cronyism. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 03:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

consensus could be not erasing "anarcho" capitalism (which i have never done) and you not erasing the other currents. "Your fringe view of trying to kick out anarcho-capitalism" i dont understand what you mean here, as i said many times i have never erased "anarcho" capitalism. "conflate capitalism with fascism" i dont know if here you are talking to me since i never said such thing. all i suggested is that if we decide to include right wing positions as anarchism we might have to be fair to all of them.

":You make wide-scale changes w/o consensus, get reverted, and then wonder what happened..." well the consensus i propose is before this. now thereis of course the issue of inflating "anarcho" capitalism. on that i think adherents to it i guess might be accustomed to it but anyway i could ask you again the question

"why the decision of putting individualism first since it is the minoritarian position from the point of view of historiy and current reality?"

"Why put schools first?"

so if you can answer this questions we might be starting a dialogue, otherwise...well my suspicions that you want to cheat on uninformed readers on anarchism by inflating your particular controversial position are going to grow. i have made many points before me which i havent seen any responses to. so just coming here to complain about me supposdely insulting and them reverting things is not the way of wikipedia. and i said. if you take the neoliberalism label as an insult thats your problem. its a widely used term in academia and politics to denote adherence to liberal neoclassical economics in contemporary contexts. its like if you call me an individualist will you expect me to get angry. well its fine. i do adhere to Stirnerist´positions.--Eduen (talk) 01:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Eduen, every time you use scarce quotes for anarcho-capitalism, you further the idea that your edits are in bad faith. Please do not attempt to cheat the uninformed readers by presuming that your hatred for capitalism should be what stands. As far as individualist first: I comes before S, does it not? It's called "alphabetical order", Eduen. That tends to be a rather fair way so that no haters like yourself can claim "we're being oppressed!" Why do you think I had alphabetized the post-classical schools? - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 16:01, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Since things have calmed down some, I suggest that the *additions* Eduen made to the post-classical schools of thought be considered. The subtractions...well they do look to be just his biases. The additions, however, I think are useful. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 22:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I support this notion. Zazaban (talk) 22:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I support it was well. - 4twenty42o (talk) 23:00, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I would like to add that the anarcho-capitalism section COULD be cut a bit, but only because it wanders a little for a summary. The second paragraph could be merged down into the first, and the stuff in last two could be a little more simply put. Zazaban (talk) 23:06, 29 November 2009 (UTC)