Jump to content

Talk:Anarchism/Archive 66

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 60←Archive 64Archive 65Archive 66Archive 67Archive 68

Laozi

The Origins section says "The earliest anarchist themes can be found in the 6th century BC, among the works of Taoist philosopher Laozi, and in later centuries by Zhuangzi..". (Ignoring the error of 6th Century BC for now) it is true that Zhuangzi and other Chinese writers were often anarchist in flavour, but it is obviously untrue that the Laozi / Dao De Jing is anarchist at any point, and the citation linked does not actually directly claim that Laozi was anarchist -- it says "At the same time (anarchism) evidently found its expression in the writings of some thinkers, since the times of Lao-tsze", which is itself a baseless claim. The Laozi / Dao De Jing is, among other things, a guidebook for a ruler. Look at almost any translation (or the original Chinese if you can understand it) and you will find numerous chapters clearly talking of the sage as a ruler, such as 3, 12, 17, 30, etc. We can also find numerous secondary sources, and I will include this for now: The Philosophy of the Daodejing by Hans-Georg Moeller, where he says: "the Laozi did not aim at helping humans understand what they are, but at instructing a human ruler how to rule humans. It was not a text about humans, but a text about human leadership." Headbeater (talk) 22:07, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Duplication/Unclear: History of Anarchism

The history section of the main article is long and seems an overly expressive summary of History of Anarchism. I propose to shorten down the history of the main article in favour of a single place of reference in the specific page.

Any particular reason not to do this? Situphobos (talk) 12:39, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Jesus as anarchist

@DameCurieuse: Here's the text you were attempting to add to the article – 

However, this statement is refuted by the following verses of Scripture: "{13} Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme;  {14} Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.  {15} For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men:  {16} As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God.  {17} Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king.  {18} Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward.  {19} For this is thankworthy, if a man for conscience toward God endure grief, suffering wrongfully.  {20} For what glory is it, if, when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently? but if, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God." (1 Peter 2:13-20)

Strictly speaking, you can't refute the statement giving LeChartier's opinion by citing a contrary piece of scripture. LeChartier's opinion remains his opinion. Your attempt to argue with LeChartier's opinion here constitutes something along the lines of WP:OR (orginal research) or WP:SYN (synthesis). Quoting a notable source who argues with LeChartier might be considered a worthy addition to the article, but it should be someone who is actually engaging with LeChartier's subject.

You can quote scripture on Wikipedia, but it's important to do so in a way that identifies the translation you are quoting, the actual source.  —jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 01:53, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Added Archives

Here is a list of archives/accessdates that I added to this article.

Reference edited Actions taken
Die bayerische Revolution 1918/19: Die erste Räterepublik: Literaten an der Macht +archive_url, date (archived on 20 November 2012)
E. Armand and "la camaraderie amoureuse" – Revolutionary sexualism and the struggle against jealousy +archive_url, date (archived on 14 May 2011)
Mujeres Libres - Women anarchists in the Spanish Revolution +archive_url, date (archived on 26 September 2015)

--Tim1357 talk|poke 04:39, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Tim1357 Thank you for adding these archives. As was earlier discussed at Talk:Academy Awards#Added Archives, the parameter "deadurl=no" needs to be included when the original link is still alive. User:Stevietheman's edit summary said this, but did something more - stripping a lot of access dates as well as archiveurls that had been added before your most recent edit. I believe I have properly undone that and added the missing deadurl=no parameters. I still have to go over the edits made by InternetArchiveBot earlier this month.  —jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 04:45, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 17 external links on Anarchism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

archive url needed to have port number removed
archive url needed to have port number removed
original URL is usurped; archive url needed to be corrected to an earlier date

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

corrected to say deadurl=yes;
duplicated refs consolidated
replaced with new URL for article - not dead - and new archive link
requested that page with photos be archived as well
duplicated refs consolidated

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:58, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

sourcecheck=mixed; corrections made as noted above.  —jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 08:28, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Anarchism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:56, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Disputed sentence from the lead

I'm moving this disputed sentence from the lead here to the talk page for discussion.

It seems that at least some editors believe that by using "it opposes" the sentence is being overly broad and would prefer to see "some forms of anarchism" instead. 

Other forms of authority it opposes include patriarchal authority, economic domination through private property, and racist supremacy. [9]

References

  1. ^ "IAF principles". International of Anarchist Federations. Archived from the original on 5 January 2012. The IAF – IFA fights for : the abolition of all forms of authority whether economical, political, social, religious, cultural or sexual. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  2. ^ "My use of the word hierarchy in the subtitle of this work is meant to be provocative. There is a strong theoretical need to contrast hierarchy with the more widespread use of the words class and State; careless use of these terms can produce a dangerous simplification of social reality. To use the words hierarchy, class, and State interchangeably, as many social theorists do, is insidious and obscurantist. This practice, in the name of a "classless" or "libertarian" society, could easily conceal the existence of hierarchical relationships and a hierarchical sensibility, both of which-even in the absence of economic exploitation or political coercion-would serve to perpetuate unfreedom." Murray Bookchin. The Ecology of Freedom: the emergence and dissolution of Hierarchy. CHESHIRE BOOKS Palo Alto. 1982. Pg. 3
  3. ^ "Authority is defined in terms of the right to exercise social control (as explored in the "sociology of power") and the correlative duty to obey (as explored in the "philosophy of practical reason"). Anarchism is distinguished, philosophically, by its scepticism towards such moral relations – by its questioning of the claims made for such normative power – and, practically, by its challenge to those "authoritative" powers which cannot justify their claims and which are therefore deemed illegitimate or without moral foundation."Anarchism and Authority: A Philosophical Introduction to Classical Anarchism by Paul McLaughlin. AshGate. 2007. p. 1
  4. ^ "Anarchism, then, really stands for the liberation of the human mind from the dominion of religion; the liberation of the human body from the dominion of property; liberation from the shackles and restraint of government. Anarchism stands for a social order based on the free grouping of individuals for the purpose of producing real social wealth; an order that will guarantee to every human being free access to the earth and full enjoyment of the necessities of life, according to individual desires, tastes, and inclinations." Emma Goldman. "What it Really Stands for Anarchy" in Anarchism and Other Essays.
  5. ^ Individualist anarchist Benjamin Tucker defined anarchism as opposition to authority as follows "They found that they must turn either to the right or to the left, – follow either the path of Authority or the path of Liberty. Marx went one way; Warren and Proudhon the other. Thus were born State Socialism and Anarchism ... Authority, takes many shapes, but, broadly speaking, her enemies divide themselves into three classes: first, those who abhor her both as a means and as an end of progress, opposing her openly, avowedly, sincerely, consistently, universally; second, those who profess to believe in her as a means of progress, but who accept her only so far as they think she will subserve their own selfish interests, denying her and her blessings to the rest of the world; third, those who distrust her as a means of progress, believing in her only as an end to be obtained by first trampling upon, violating, and outraging her. These three phases of opposition to Liberty are met in almost every sphere of thought and human activity. representatives of the first are seen in the Catholic Church and the Russian autocracy; of the second, in the Protestant Church and the Manchester school of politics and political economy; of the third, in the atheism of Gambetta and the socialism of Karl Marx." Benjamin Tucker. Individual Liberty.
  6. ^ Ward, Colin (1966). "Anarchism as a Theory of Organization". Archived from the original on 25 March 2010. Retrieved 1 March 2010.
  7. ^ Anarchist historian George Woodcock report of Mikhail Bakunin's anti-authoritarianism and shows opposition to both state and non-state forms of authority as follows: "All anarchists deny authority; many of them fight against it." (p. 9) ... Bakunin did not convert the League's central committee to his full program, but he did persuade them to accept a remarkably radical recommendation to the Berne Congress of September 1868, demanding economic equality and implicitly attacking authority in both Church and State."
  8. ^ Brown, L. Susan (2002). "Anarchism as a Political Philosophy of Existential Individualism: Implications for Feminism". The Politics of Individualism: Liberalism, Liberal Feminism and Anarchism. Black Rose Books Ltd. Publishing. p. 106.
  9. ^ [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]

The most obvious point of contention is the mention of "private property", since there is still some attempt to consider anarcho-capitalism as a "form of anarchism", but it very definitely does not oppose the principle of private property – though many anarchists may hold the view that any institution of private property must inevitably lead to economic domination. I also see the phrase "racist supremacy" as perhaps problematic because it might be better rendered as "racial supremacy" or "race supremacy".

I'd also like to point out that this sentence, with its long list of references, is in the lead and I don't see it as summarizing content from the body of the article (but it's a long article and I may have missed something). — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 08:26, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

This is a selective list of references and does not deal with the views of such seminal anarchists as Joseph Proudhon for example. I also think is sounds a bit weird having an abstract conception acting in this way. Surely it is the anarchist who claim to oppose these things? Leutha (talk) 08:48, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
How about just using the short-word list from the ref named iaf-ifa.org? That would be more comprehensive and would not necessarily set off the same boundary defenses. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 09:04, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the suggestion, but I feel whilst that might be suitable for the International of Anarchist Federations, this page concerns an ideology which is much more widespread both geographically and temporally than that one particular organsation which in many ways is not typical. Leutha (talk) 18:51, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Anarchism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:49, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Anarchism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:56, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Anarchism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:10, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Etymology Error

Regarding the first line; "The term anarchism is a compound word composed from the word anarchy and the suffix -ism"

I'm no wikipedia editor, so I'm not going to make any changes to the main page, but somebody needs to go back to English class. "Anarchism" is not a compound word by any stretch. A compound word is made up of two separate words joined together to form a new word. (ie bed + room = bedroom). "Anarchism" is a single, unique word, made from the suffix "ism" added on to the root word "anarchy". "ism" is not a word on it's own. 70.50.138.185 (talk) 06:11, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

You're right. I've fixed the sentence in question. Thank you for pointing it out. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 17:32, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Rojava

Don't see why I should explain a very straightforward and long overdue addition, but will do so anyways. Frankly, I'm quite surprised how an article of anarchism can leave out Rojava, one of the most successful anarchist projects since the Spanish Civil War. It's frequently cited as a prime example (or close enough example) to how an anarchist society, replete with workers co-ops and egalitarian principals, be functioned. This source cites it as:

The Rojava revolution is the most important recent example of a convergence of Marxist and anarchist-inspired ideas since Libertarian Socialism was first published.

David Graeber, one of the foremost anarchists of our time, has traveled to Rojava and stated (per this source) that it's a "genuine revolution" and has written several op-eds about it (most notable this). The Jacobin Magazine, the largest and most notable socialist journal in the USA, has frequently published information on Rojava ([1][2][3]), and even mainstream publications such as the NYT, VICE, Guardian, and others. It's obviously a noteworthy subject and should be reflected in this article. I am okay with shortening it, even down to a couple of sentences. But to leave it all out is really not justified. Étienne Dolet (talk) 01:56, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

You seem to have already procured some reliable sources to support whatever mention of the DFNS (Rojava) you want added to the article, EtienneDolet, so I assume you are presenting your proposal here rather than boldly adding it to the article to avoid any reversion and address whatever disputes might arise beforehand. If so, then I might as well initiate what will probably be the most salient concern regarding its addition: on what basis should we classify the DFNS as anarchist?
I understand that the political philosophy informing its government is that of libertarian socialism, especially Communalism per Murray Bookchin and democratic confederalism per Abdullah Öcalan, but neither are explicitly anarchist. Despite Bookchin's former affiliation with anarcho-communism, he began distancing himself from both the latter and anarchism more generally in his later years due to his antipathy toward lifestyle anarchism. In fact, he developed Communalism and libertarian municipalism in part to distance himself from anarchism. Meanwhile, Öcalan turned toward more libertarian politics after being a Marxist–Leninist for much of his political life, so I seriously doubt he would take kindly to him or those influenced by him being described as anarchist. In both cases, I imagine they would object to their theories being classified as anarchist.
I both recognize and accept that the DFNS has historically collaborated with anarchists and that a large anarchist presence and influence can be found therein; however, I would personally stop short of classifying it as anarchist per se. At most, I would classify it as anarchoid, but that is an obscure technical classification without much currency. Perhaps the Rojavan project will end in anarchy, but that seems to not be the explicit goal of the DFNS, neither officially nor otherwise. If it was, and if Communalism and democratic confederalism were indeed explicitly anarchist, then wouldn't all three articles have an anarchism sidebar template? In my opinion, their notable absence is because the classification of the DFNS, Communalism, and democratic confederalism as anarchist is at best contentious and disputed by their proponents, not simply because those articles are still works in progress. I suspect the same rationale is behind their present exclusion from this article.
With that said, I personally would not mind including a mention of the DFNS, and perhaps Communalism and democratic confederalism and so on, in this article; however, if we do so, I think it would be necessary for us to clarify their relation to anarchism, particularly that they are not explicitly anarchist. Many anarchists do indeed support the DFNS, sometimes with military service, and have influenced the shaping of the government since its inception; however, that does not make it anarchist.
The sources you cited do demonstrate that the DFNS is both notable and relevant as a revolutionary movement, and thus may be appropriate in the article about it, but they do not support the claim that it is anarchist. For example, if the source you quoted did, then why does that source qualify "[t]he Rojava revolution" as "anarchist-inspired" rather than just state it as "anarchist" in the same way they did with "Marxist"? Yes, the Vice article asserts that Rojava is an "anarchist collective", but it also states that "the representatives of Rojava also reject the label of anarchism" and classifies Bookchin as an anarchist. Similarly, Graeber's comments in The Guardian assert that the movement is "spearheaded by anarchists and socialists", but does not classify the Rojavan project as explicitly anarchist, and again reiterates that it is "inspired in part by the vision of social ecologist and anarchist Murray Bookchin". The only Jacobin article which even mentions anarchism is this one, but it only states that Öcalan's ideology "blends elements of feminism, environmentalism, and anarchism, inspired by the anarchist philosopher Murray Bookchin". I would consider being "inspired by", or "a blend of", anarchism to be distinct from being anarchist.
Unless we have a majority of reliable sources classifying the DFNS as anarchist, I would discourage doing so and would qualify such an assertion as the opinions of the sources even if we did. With the aforementioned sources, however, only the Vice article really asserts it and even if we cite it, we probably should include its own claim that Rojavan representatives reject the label. If you are satisfied with that being the sum of the addition, then I am fine with that, but I suspect that would dispute such a weak assertion. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 04:21, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
I have never stated that the DFNS is perfectly anarchist, nor have I tried to prove that it is with the sources presented. We all know that anarchism is not a fixed ideal, it is rather an ever-changing process. Even the wording in my edit was careful with the wording ("Anarchism has become influential..." is not the same as "DFNS is anarchist...) But if you were to ask me which society is currently exhibiting anarchist principals on a large scale, I'd point to Rojava (Chiapas is a close second and even that's not in the article!). Indeed, this isn't about my personal viewpoint, it's the opinions of various RSs who indeed do point to the fact that Rojava is officially democratic confederialist which in turn indicates that it implements numerous programs that anarchists advocate (i.e. workers co-ops, egalitarianism, environmentalism, decentralized state, etc.). Remember, this isn't about whether or not Rojava uses the term "anarchist" to describe themselves, it's more about Rojava upholding many anarchist principals I've already mentioned. With that said, I am totally fine with your proposal to provide context for our readers while making the differentiation between democratic confederialism and anarchism, though I've already tried doing that in my edit. It might not have been perfectly written, but we can work together in making it better so it can be acceptable by all parties involved. Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:02, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps I misunderstood you, then, but I hope you see why I interpreted your comments as contending that the DFNS is anarchist, especially given you described Rojava as "one of the most successful anarchist projects since the Spanish Civil War". When I submitted my reply, EtienneDolet, I was also unaware of your recent edits in the article edit history, hence my remark about you not "boldly adding [your proposal] to the article". Sorry about that.
After reviewing your edits, my immediate concern is not so much the length of the addition as is its relevance to the topic of anarchism. A lot of the content of your edit seems to be about the DFNS rather than its relation to anarchism. Although it is indeed important to provide a summary of the DFNS insofar as it is relevant to anarchism, the focus you seem to be putting on it is undue. This is not because of how much lengthier it is compared to the paragraphs on the punk and anti-globalization movements, which is a separate matter, but because the bulk of the content is about describing the DFNS itself and referring to tangentially related concepts which inform its government.
If we are to include content about the DFNS, I think it is crucial that this content focuses specifically on its historic and contemporary relation to anarchism with digression therefrom minimized to only what is extremely relevant, such as Bookchin's influence on the philosophy and theory which produced the DFNS. If the resulting content eventually exceeds the length of the paragraphs on the aforementioned movements, then so be it. What matters is whether the content is relevant, reliably sourced, and properly weighted. But if that means that the content consists of only a few sentences, if only for now, then I think that should be fine, too, since then the DFNS is at least included in the article. From that point forward, we can proceed to expand it as additional reliable sources are found and there is more support for increasing its weight in the section.
Rather than potentially engaging in an edit war with Malik Shabazz and whoever else might dispute your additions in their current forms, and to ensure this article keeps its Good Article status, perhaps we should discuss and establish consensus about the exact content to add before you add it. We can even collaborate on it in a sandbox if we don't do so on this talkpage. I have no particular objection to including mention of the DFNS in this article (and it arguably is relevant to contemporary anarchism), but I am concerned that the current attempts to include it are far too contentious to hold without some prior consensus. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 07:03, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
I agree with everything that you said, and the sandbox idea is a great start. I’m willing to work with you to get this done. Étienne Dolet (talk) 07:27, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The problem is that this is a survey article written in summary style. You added a lot of material about Rojava to this article's section on "Contemporary anarchism", yet Contemporary anarchism doesn't mention it at all. The amount of material you added to this article about Rojava was almost as much as what it says about the punk movement and the anti-globalization movement combined. As much as the article says about the Spanish revolution. Please read WP:WEIGHT. I know it's impossible to anticipate how much relative weight history will give to contemporary events, but that seemed like a lot of WP:RECENTISM. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:08, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Like I said, Malik, I am willing to shorten it as much as possible. That's what I tried doing (and willing to continue to do) until you decided to remove it all again. Besides, just because it's not on the Contemporary anarchism article, doesn't mean it shouldn't be added here either (see: WP:OTHERCONTENT). I'm more than willing to add information about Rojava on that article too, but that's not why we're here. I also don't see it as recentism, especially when it is concerning an anarchist inspired autonomous territory that is alive and function today. It's been around for quite awhile, since 2013 in fact (that's a longer duration than Revolutionary Catalonia), and has played a significant role in not only Syria, but for the anarchist movement at large. It's very useful to note to our readers that there are societies out there that practice numerous anarchist principals on a large scale. I don't see why this should even be debatable. To leave the section as is would be to limit contemporary anarchism to just the "punk movement", "anti-globalists", and "WTO protesters" which is really pitiful, especially when there are notable examples of actually anarchist inspired societies that have moved on from protesting and such but are now putting the theory into practice. That has much more encyclopedic value than anything else I see in that section. Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:39, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
@Malik Shabazz: please check out our draft that both me and Nøkkenbuer worked on: User:EtienneDolet/Anarchism. You're welcome to make any changes to it as well. Let us know what you think! Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:03, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
I think it's a great summary. It gets right to the point, it ties Rojava to the anarchist movement. Please add it to the article. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:55, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Come to think of it, Malik Shabazz and Étienne Dolet, should this new addition be included in the main article on contemporary anarchism, as well? I assume so, and I assume that would be uncontroversial, but I might as well ask first. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 13:01, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
@Nøkkenbuer: I'm okay with that. In fact, it can be expanded since the topic is much more specific. Étienne Dolet (talk) 17:18, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes, it should probably be included there as well. Because the focus of that article is more narrow, it can have more information than may be appropriate for this article. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:22, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Confused over taxinomy

I am a bit confused over the classification of Anarchist schools of thought. One can read about mutualism, social anarchism, individualistic anarchism (which are very well written indeed) in the first part, and then jumps into post-classical anarchism, which is not a school of thought but a board category based on a timeline. More, the text is as if it was a list, as if there is an effort to enlist every anarchist subgroup. Any thoughts on that? Τζερόνυμο (talk) 12:30, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Do you have any specific suggestions for how to improve that section? Simonm223 (talk) 12:33, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
Well, I do not hold a definite solution. Another troubling problem is that the text of the section is the same as in Contemporary anarchism#Post-classical schools of thought and movements. I would suggest that we delete the text of the section and try to summarize the points made at a)Contemporary anarchism By Eric Kerl I.S. Review and b)Understanding Contemporary Anarchism and Its Implications for the United States Intelligence Community by Jeffrey Anchukaitis or any other reliable text we could find. But the problem that we are changing the way of classification still remains.Τζερόνυμο (talk) 13:29, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
I would Oppose deleting a survey section with a preponderance of reliable sources to a summary derived from just two sources. Simonm223 (talk) 13:37, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
I would oppose as well if it wasnt a duplicate from another article. But its ok, I won't insist. I 'd suggest we find more sources and then re-write the section. It certainly does not describe a school of thought though. Τζερόνυμο (talk) 13:54, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

The opening sentence of the section "Post-classical anarchist schools of thought" cites Perlin, Terry M. Contemporary Anarchism. Transaction Books, New Brunswick, NJ 1979, but there is no mention of the specific page. The book does not presents the post classical schools of thoughts, but the contemporary movement of anarchism. The result is confusion. Τζερόνυμο (talk) 14:24, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Current version (oldid = 859254043) has a broken links( or dead?). n8, IAF principles. Neither archived url is working.Τζερόνυμο (talk) 20:31, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Any ideas on how to merge ref 11 and 12? (oldid = 859254043)Τζερόνυμο (talk) 06:39, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

The earliest anarchist themes

I have removed the reference by Rothbard supporting the text "can be found in the 6th century BC among the works of Taoist philosopher Laozi". Rothbard states: Two centuries later, Lao Tzu's great follower Chuang Tzu (369—c.286 BC) built on the master's ideas of laissez-faire to push them to their logical conclusion: individualist anarchism.Τζερόνυμο (talk) 07:57, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Clarification please

Conserning the phrase: On the other hand, some use libertarianism to refer to individualistic free market philosophy only, referring to free market anarchism as libertarian anarchism. This phrase is followed by a citation to Morris Christopher book pg 61 with a comment: "(Using "libertarian anarchism" synonymously with "individualist anarchism" when referring to individualist anarchism that supports a market society". Seems to me as WP:OR. Can anyone check page 61, please? Τζερόνυμο (talk) 12:57, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Restated the definition

I changed the first paragraph, making it the second, as it was only understandable to 10% of the readers. I made the first paragraph understandable to most readers, taking the readability from grade 16 to grade 4. Some will say that we should only use academic English in Wikipedia and those people could not be more wrong, they need to meet some elementary school students trying to use it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.88.25.111 (talk • contribs) 18:24, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

No, you are incorrect, and the original paragraph was the better version. For simplified writing, try the Simple English Wikipedia. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:44, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

No, you are incorrect, the first paragraph is terrible, and I am already aware of the Simple English Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.88.25.111 (talk) 01:28, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

If you truly believe that, work to get consensus for your revision rather than edit warring. See WP:DR for guidance on using WP tools for establishing concensus. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:36, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Confused on why this is considered left-wing.

Anarchism is a political belief of no government... why is this far-left. If it was far-left, it would also be with totalitarianism... the complete opposite of anarchism. Can someone explain. Because I know for a fact the right wing hate government... so why is a political system that has essentially no government left wing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris Roe234 (talk • contribs) 08:39, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

On the overly simplistic left-right political spectrum, groups associated with socialism—including anarchists—are considered "left" and groups associated with conservatism and capitalism are considered "right". Totalitarianism and like or dislike of government are generally irrelevant when groups are classified under the left-right political spectrum. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 18:21, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Anarchism is considered left-wing ideology because most anarchists are either anarcho-communism or anarcho-collectivists, and they share the same criticism on Capitalism. The relevant sentence is well-sourced. Cinadon36 (talk) 19:35, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Ok, but left-wing politics are associated with more government. I just don't get how a system with no government it part of that. It seems like an extreme of the right if you ask me, a side that believes in less government.

Chris Roe234

That's a startlingly inaccurate assessment of what constitutes left vs. right. Please keep in mind that Marx's objective was the ultimate and total dissolution of the state as a social construct. Furthermore what is often perceived as "more government" in socialist regimes is rather the institutionalization of class struggle whereby class distinctions are dissolved with the eventual expressed objective being a level society where government will be unnecessary. The split between Anarchism and Socialism at the first internationale was not over the end goal they shared but rather over how they believed they should proceed toward it. Simonm223 (talk) 21:34, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
The 13th paragraph of the Post-classical anarchist schools of thought section has three sentences with sixteen references. I don't know if this is just someone wanting to make sure there is no doubts or questions of the sentences or plain citation nuke bombing in attempts to prove a point. I didn't look at them.
What I do know is that just the appearance looks bad. A sentence can be questioned as needing a source. The inclusion of a paragraph or presented "train of thought" can be questioned as original research or synthesis. Providing one (maybe even two or three if really needed) citations would suffice but there is absolutely no reason to inundate an article paragraph with so many as if trying to "prove" a point. Someone needs to look at this, probably the entire article, to weed-eat the unnecessary bombing. Thanks, Otr500 (talk) 19:27, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Is Anarchism a libertarian ideology?

Would it be appropriate to write that anarchism is a libertarian political philosophy? Someone keeps deleting my edit and continues to say libertarianism is a "meaningless buzz word", without explaining the reason why he thinks it's a meaningless buzzword.

I always thought libertarianism was a broad set of anti-authoritarian political viewpoints.

I understand that there are nonsensical right-wing forms of libertarianism (classical liberalism, or US libertarianism), but libertarianism was originally applied to anarcho-communists.

Is it okay to say that anarchism is a "libertarian political philosophy" in the lead? Nashhinton (talk) 23:25, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I would agree with you on this. CordialGreenery (talk) 23:43, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
It seems a bit redundant especially in the lead. That an libertarianism is mentioned in the Origin section which seems to make the most sense. Pokerplayer513 (talk) 01:41, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Once upon a time, the words libertarian and anarchist were synonyms. In some English-speaking countries, and in some foreign languages, they still are. In the United States, however, libertarian has become the name of a right-wing pro-capitalist philosophy that has nothing to do with anarchism. (There have been, and are, so-called libertarian members of the U.S. Congress, so obviously they aren't anti-government.) So...
Either you are being unnecessarily repetitive ("Anarchism is an anarchistic political philosophy...") or nonsensical ("Anarchism is a right-wing, pro-capitalist political philosophy... Anarchism holds capitalism, the state, and representative democracy to be undesirable, unnecessary and harmful.") Either way, what does adding the word "libertarian" to the first sentence change that's an improvement for the reader? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:07, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
I second that Malik Shabazz. Cinadon36 (talk) 08:42, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
I also concur with the position put forward by Malik Shabazz Simonm223 (talk) 13:23, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

History of Anarchism

I feel that the section "History of Anarchism" is in need of a serious trimming. It is 83,416‎ KB therefor too long, the size of an article. The total size of this article is 196,929 bytes meaning WP:TLDR. (sizes of current version[4]). I 'd suggest we cut the section to 10-20 KB. That would leave space to discuss other aspects of anarchism (ie the State, opinions on freedom, violence, anarchism and the arts). Also, we can separate it in 3 different sections. Precursors of Anarchism, Classical Anarchism and Post War anarchism. Cinadon36 (talk) 11:20, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Go for it (especially now that the dedicated article is much improved) czar 02:13, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

My Review on the Article

This article is a good one. But there are some problematic spots in the article. I feel I need to share my thoughts.

General comments
  1. The article rest heavily on primary and tertiary sources. I think they should be avoided as there is abundance of RS, freely available on the net.
  2. There is imbalance among sections. The two "topics of interest" gets too much attention where there is no section for "anarchism and art", "anarchism and freedom", "anarchism and the state", or explaining what "philosophical anarchism" is.
More specific
  1. The lede does not summarize the article
  2. The lede gives a definition of anarchism as a political philosophy- but anarchism might be much more than that. It is a political movement, a series of event.
  3. Section History: I wrote it. Contemporary anarchism is not given the appropriate weight.
  4. Section Anarchist schools of thought : I feel that we shouldn't merge collectivism, syndicalism, and communism to "social anarchism" as each one of them is far more notable than their common title. I 'd suggest we create a subsection "Classical schools of though" that we will discuss the 5 currents, and a section "Post-classical schools of thought"
  5. Postclassicalsm school of thought is messy and somehow it resembles a list or a catalog. It needs a long shower with wikilove. It might be the most crucial part of the article but yet is underdeveloped. Many parts of it need better sourcing.
  6. Section Internal issues and debates should be merged with the following topic "topics of interest".
  7. Section Topics of interest holds text that I ve read it in other articles. That is a huge problem. I believed it should be heavily trimmed. There is no need to mention the magazines on free love. New subsections should be created such as "anarchism and capitalism" or "anarchism and violence" art, freedom, the state and so on.

The structure of the article is not perfect, but fairly well, so I believe that with some wikilove, the article could improve to become a FA. Cinadon36 (talk) 21:37, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Classical vs. post-classical

Which sources make a clear bifurcation between classical and post-classical anarchism? I'm interested in how we can know whether this distinction/dichotomy has wide academic acceptance or whether the neologism developed from WP's own "schools of thought"-based manner for presenting these subgenres over the last decade. To be clear, I've seen both terms used descriptively but rarely (never?) together as a definitive separation. czar 17:55, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I get the feeling that the bifurcation between classical and post-classical anarchism school of thoughts, follows the bifurcation of classical and post classical anarchist movement, which was highlighted by almost all anarchist historian. Is it valid though to talk about bifurcation when discussing school of thoughts? It gets complicated. As McLaughlin points out (Chapter Seven, Theoretical Developments of Anarchism, p155) apart from Wolff and Bookchin, there haven't been any other developments in the field of anarchist theory, post WWII. Have in mind though that McLaughlins names Bookchin's anarchism as "neoclassical". (p.167). So, my answer to your Question Czar would be: I do not know.Cinadon36 (talk) 05:56, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Recent additions

@Cinadon36, there was a lot of text added recently—is any of it a restoration of the old version? czar 04:17, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

@Czar: There are some similarities. Some sources are the same. The user who is inserting text has done some substantial job, but some of it is at the wrong direction. Primary sources or not-reliable sources are heavily used. Text has been added in the lede, without being a summary of the main article. Let us take it one by one. There have been 3 major additions of text. first (12,904 bytes), second 12,796 bytes) and third +4Kb. Many changes have been made at each one of them, so it makes it very hard to follow and checking the additions. Text has been copied from other articles as well.
At the first addition, I have spotted that text based on earlier references, and earlier references have been added once more.
Adding at the lede text based on Bakunin and Proudhon. I can not overstate the implications of using sources one and a half century ago and treating their text as holly sculptures. At the lede, we should be summarizing the main body. Even an anonymous source from an encyclopedia is used. At the main body of the article, one can see that text has been added, citing www.iaf-ifa.org, www.theanarchistlibrary.org, http://www.fdca.it/fdcaen/historical/vault/ancom-libcom.htm. The main problem of all these sites, it is that they do not offer us any help to weight appropriately each aspect of anarchism, and will eventually maximize the problem of WP:UNDUE we already face. So, I will revert to the previous version. Any addition should be based on reliable secondary sources.
I have also found that some part of the text, was copied from other articles. ie: "Anarchism has had a strained relationship with Marxism since Karl Marx's life. The dispute between Marx and Mikhail Bakunin and Marx highlighted the differences between anarchism and Marxism, with Bakunin criticizing Marx for his authoritarian bent" can also be found at Marxism. There is more to it. "The phrases "barracks socialism" or "barracks communism" became a shorthand for this critique", also in Marxism. It goes on. Another example is "Charles W. Johnson and others (echoing the language of Benjamin Tucker" which can be found at Free-market anarchism. Cinadon36 (talk) 22:22, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
I removed another text that was inserted earlier today. Sources were not optimal and text could also be found at: Anarcho-communism, Communism, and Anarchist schools of thoughtCinadon36 (talk) 06:48, 2 April 2019 (UTC) PS and at Issues in anarchism, Libertarian socialism, Social anarchism and Anarchist economics. Cinadon36 (talk) 06:53, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Hey, I made these addittions. I found it really weird that among the topics of interest there was not its relationship with Marxism. Since it was deleted and used as a redirect, I thought a summary could have been at least wrote about and I tried to did my best. I did not know it could have been such a problem to add bits from other pages. Or was the sources used the main problem? I admit, I am not good with sources and I have problems to find the right and reliable ones on my own, unless it is really easy and obvious to understand which ones to use depending on the context and argument. So I thought it could be first tried to find better and more reliable sources, eventually changing or modifying the text accordignly if it does not result as what the sources says and only then, if there were none, the text deleted. I also wish I knew how to make the sources appear in the text editing short-like as {{.}}. The bits added to anarcho-communism, I thought it was not a problem either. You reverted it and I re-added it back with the sources, but you reverted it again. I thought the problem was the sources again, so what was it? Were the sources good for the anarcho-communism page, but not good enough for the anarchist one?--79.36.167.52 (talk) 15:26, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for reaching out. I am sorry for reverting your work. I know it hurts, it does hurt me when I get reverted. But I felt that there is sufficient reason for doing so. Let me explain. Copying text from one article and pasting it to another, is not ok. It creates major problems that are not easy to resolve. It creates huge articles which are repeating themselves. We are replicating material that is does not come from a RS. (Keep in mind that Wikipedia is not RS). Moreover, we are placing a text that is not tailored for this specific article. Moreover, users should state it in the edit-summary that the text was taken from another article. As for the sources, they must be secondary RS. Bakunin, Kropotkin, various anarchist federations or projects should be avoided as sources. There is abundance of reliable bibliography available on the net. You can do a g-search and spot the titles you need. (use google.books or google.scholar). You can ask other users to provide you with certain pdf files (through email or dropbox). There is also this project I found very useful. Other options are sci hub or libgen but they are illegal and you might get a virus so I do not advice using them. Marx and anarchism is very much needed. But it should be built from the scrub. Cinadon36 (talk) 13:30, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Relevant policies here: WP:PSTS, WP:COPYWITHIN. Copying within Wikipedia is technically allowed as long as the sourcing is reliable in the original article, but the two big problems are that (1) the edits need to clearly attribute the other WP articles in the edit summaries AND, (2) I agree with Cinadon36, content should be tailored for the article topic (even though technically allowed by policy with the right attribution in the summaries, copying is something I always avoid). If you want to use the same reliable sources also used in these other articles, that's fine, but here we're dealing with a different amount of overall article space; the reader has a different amount of previous context; etc., a lot of reasons why the wording should be original to fit each article. To sum up the primary source thing, policy states that "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources", so primary sources could be used sparingly BUT secondary are usually preferred. Should an article on Abraham Lincoln be written mostly using his diaries and letters? There's a lot of scholarly work that would be better to use. Should an article on Marx come mostly from Capital and his other works, etc? Certainly not: Any WP editor, in deciding which parts of these (massively verbose) primary sources are important, would have to constantly prioritize and apply their own interpretive lens--even basic questions like the book's thesis (Capital). How an editor would sum it up (as a non-expert) would be significantly different from a leading scholar with an educated take on it, even if we both were just trying to straightforwardly communicate what the book is saying. Thus, we shouldn't base characterizations of entire schools of anarchist thought on mostly primary sources.--MattMauler (talk) 14:28, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you all so much for replying me and being so kind and explaining me all this! I actually agree with all of this, you have been really helpful. I thought it could have still been useful to have definitions as used by anarchists. Perhaps I should have been added in the text that it was their own views. Also, often times I do not really know what to put in the summary to explain my edits, sometimes it is just copy edit, formatting, wording, or to keep it uniform and other times I am just so into in the edit because I actually enjoy reading pages and then editing them that I just forget about it and click "Publish changes" and then I remember when it is too late. I am also not good enough or qualified yet to built something from the scrub, so that is why I needed to rely on other pages and sources.--79.36.167.52 (talk) 11:55, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Direct action (gets satisfaction)

MattMauler, conserning your question/comment at edit summary[5]. Dana Williams authored a chapter at Levy's handbook book on anarchism (2019) and has published an article as well (2017). Here is a quote from the 2019 book

Anarchist tactics result in two main outcomes (from anarchists’ perspectives) that either intervene in the bad or illustrate the good (or both). First, doing something to intervene in hierarchical practices and the daily work-to-live grind that most people experience tends to be imminently practical. For example, a street blockade that attempts to prevent a Nazi march, or delivery trucks from a military depot stand in direct opposition to regular, hierarchical norms. These kinds of anarchist tactics constitute a vanguard approach, acting immediately and without representatives. This intervening approach is often called direct action. Direct action is much broader than a typical barricade, though, as it refers to any immediate attempt to self-manage one’s own affairs. Instead of asking other people to act on one’s behalf, the philosophy of direct action encourages people themselves to act. Thus, people do the things that are needed, acting either individually or collectively. Direct action can be contrasted against indirect or representative action, which requires going through an intermediary, official, or lobbyist. Thus, as in a story told by Matt Hern, instead of lobbying a local government to install needed speed bumps in a residential street where children regularly play, neighbours could band together and install a speed bump themselves using cement and basic tools.3

Here is a quote from her 2017 paper:

As with other socio‐political ideologies and movements, anarchism possesses a unique combination of values and goals, which share overlap with numerous antiauthoritarian movements. These values include horizontalism, direct action, antiauthoritarianism, decentralization, anticapitalism, and mutual aid. Horizontalist organizations aim to be popular, autonomous from centers of powers, collectivist, and directly democratic (Sitrin, 2006). These orientations are at odds with hierarchical decision making and top‐down leadership. This “anarchist sensibility” (Epstein & Dixon, 2007) encourages organizing structures, communication, and deliberative approaches to maximize these values. Relatively small organizations, impermanent or limited leadership, inclusive communication styles, and consensus decision‐making strategies are manifestations of these directly democracy anarchist values within organizations (Cornell, 2011; Ehrlich, 1996). Such values are ideals and thus are never fully realized in practice. For example, despite their strong commitment to egalitarianism, the German Autonomen are often governed by informal hierarchies that can contradict their nonhierarchical beliefs (Leach, 2009). In order to overcome potential inequities, anarchists and other antiauthoritarians have developed a tool‐kit of horizontalist strategies, such as formal and informal consensus decision making (see Cornell, 2011; Gelderloos, 2006). Direct action is a key anarchist value, which aims to achieve ends immediately without appeal to intermediaries— especially politicians, elites, or other state actors. Mediated or representative “action” is avoided by prefigurative practices, and thus, anarchists disavow electoral strategies (Franks, 2003). Direct action includes a variety of approaches, from confrontational street tactics to the creation of counterinstitutions (Graeber, 2009). More broadly, direct action works with the goal of antiauthoritarianism, opposing not only the power of hierarchical institutions to dominate but also the “rights” upon which they exist and purport to exercise such power. This antiauthoritarianism extends to a wide array of institutions, such as capitalism, patriarchy, White supremacy, colonialism, militarism, and the state (Gordon, 2008; Milstein, 2010).

Thanks for your Q.Cinadon36 (talk) 06:22, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I was able to access Williams' article (2017), and he includes a very clear description of direct action in the second sense ("self-management"), which I was unfamiliar with. I was used to "direct action" only meaning disruptive protest and assumed other actions (even those that did not go through elected reps), would be called something different, so it helped to see it used both ways in actual scholarship. I have changed the sentence slightly to make it clearer.--MattMauler (talk) 04:27, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Much better now, thanks MattMauler!Cinadon36 (talk) 18:34, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Lead

What was wrong with this lead? Anarchism is an anti-authoritarian, anti-statist and libertarian political philosophy[1] that rejects hierarchies and advocates their replacement with self-managed, self-governed societies based on voluntary, cooperative institutions. These institutions are often described as stateless societies,[2] although several authors have defined them more specifically as distinct institutions based on non-hierarchical or free associations.[3] Anarchism's central disagreement with other ideologies is that it holds the state to be undesirable, unnecessary and harmful.[4] Anarchism can entail opposing authority or hierarchy in the conduct of all human relations.[5][6][7][8][9]

As an anti-capitalist and libertarian socialist philosophy, anarchism is placed on the far-left of the political spectrum[10] and much of its economics and legal philosophy reflect anti-authoritarian interpretations of left-wing politics such as communism, collectivism, syndicalism, mutualism, or participatory economics.[11] As anarchism does not offer a fixed body of doctrine from a single particular worldview,[12] many anarchist types and traditions exist and varieties of anarchy diverge widely, although not all of which are mutually exclusive.[13] As a result, anarchist schools of thought can differ fundamentally yet maintaining the common tenets of anarchism, supporting anything from extreme individualism to complete collectivism.[14] Strains of anarchism have often been divided into the categories of social and individualist anarchism, or similar dual classifications.[15]

  1. ^ McLaughlin 2007, p. 59; Flint 2009, p. 27.
  2. ^ Craig 2005, p. 14; Sheehan 2003, p. 85.
  3. ^ Suissa 2006, p. 7.
  4. ^ Craig 2005, p. 14; McLean & McMillan 2003, Anarchism.
  5. ^ Proudhon 1849: "Anarchy is the condition of existence of adult society, as hierarchy is the condition of primitive society. There is a continual progress in human society from hierarchy to anarchy."
  6. ^ Bakunin 1882: "In a word, we reject all legislation, all authority, and all privileged, licensed, official, and legal influence, even though arising from universal suffrage, convinced that it can turn only to the advantage of a dominant minority of exploiters against the interests of the immense majority in subjection to them. This is the sense in which we are really Anarchists".
  7. ^ Armand 1923: "In practice, any individual who, because of his or her temperament or because of conscious and serious reflection, repudiates all external authority or coercion, whether of a governmental, ethical, intellectual, or economic order, can be considered an anarchist. Everyone who consciously rejects the domination of people by other people or by the social ambiance, and its economic corollaries, can be said to be an anarchist as well".
  8. ^ Fiala 2017: "There are various forms of anarchism. Uniting this variety is the general critique of centralized, hierarchical power and authority. Given that authority, centralization, and hierarchy show up in various ways and in different discourses, institutions, and practices, it is not surprising that the anarchist critique has been applied in diverse ways".
  9. ^ Wilbur 2018: "The anarchists are against all hierarchy, be it moral or material. They oppose to it the respect for liberty and the absolute autonomy of the individual".
  10. ^ Brooks 1994, p. xi; Kahn 2000; Moynihan 2007.
  11. ^ Guerin 1970, p. 35, Critique of authoritarian socialism.
  12. ^ Marshall 1993, pp. 14–17.
  13. ^ Sylvan 2007, p. 262.
  14. ^ McLean & McMillan 2003, Anarchism.
  15. ^ Fowler 1972; Kropotkin 2002, p. 5; Ostergaard 2009, p. 14, Anarchism.

Or was my other edits the problems? What was wrong in adding to the lead anti-statist and libertarian? What was wrong in adding that another thing that distinguishes anarchism from all other ideologies, besides opposition to the state (which is also shared by other ideologies like communism), is opposition to authority and hirerachies (something unique to anarchism)? Indeed, it could be argued that anarchism is both the most consistent form of left-wing politics and the total antithesis of right-wing politics. Or adding As an anti-capitalist and libertarian socialist philosophy to clear why it's considered a far-left ideology? As far as my research on the topic is concerned, all anarchism is (libertarian) socialism, but not all socialism is anarchism, or even libertarian. Economically, communism, collectivism, syndicalism, mutualism, etc. are all different variants or flavors of (libertarian) socialism. As far as I know, anarcho-capitalism isn't part of anarchism; it didn't even originate from it (all influences from so-called individualist anarchists were minor since Rothbard turned them upside down), but rather originated in the United States from European liberalism and is considered New Right liberalism, or stateless liberalism, rather than anarchism. Free-market anarchism is actually part of anarchism because it's (libertarian) socialist. If a philosophy support undisputed, permanent or absentee private ownership of either land or industry, it cannot be considered anarchist or even socialist; as it would be a form of authority and hierarchy that deprive people without it of their liberty. Anarcho-capitalism also support wage slavery, one hierarchy all anarchists have fought against. This is not to be confused with wage labour, which certain anarchists like collectivists and individualist anarchists like Tucker supported; they supported wage labour not because "it's voluntary" (it cannot be voluntary in a capitalist society), but because in their philosophy it would guarantee the worker the full value of his or her labour. Either way, any property rights that isn't based on possession and use, but rather based on absenteeism and receiving income by the simple virtue of "owning" something, cannot be considered anarchist or (libertarian) socialist. Am I wrong?--82.63.72.187 (talk) 15:40, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I suspect your restructuring of the lede was reverted because:
  1. It had too much detail for a lead.
  2. The use of "libertarian" would confuse too many readers, especially absent body-context. Simonm223 (talk) 16:40, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. How does it have too much detail for a lede? My lead was still perfectly three paragraphs, space and four paragraphs. Either way, I felt like it was important detail and I have explained above why I felt it was necessary and you didn't reply to any of my objections and explanations. Well, it's not my fault if many readers think of libertarian as libertarianism in the United States. This is an international Wikipedia and internationally libertarian is still synonym with anarchism, which is the quintessence of anti-authoritarianism, anti-statism and libertarianism; and which is why I believe these three words are worth to be on the lead, just like anarchism's opposition to authority and hierarchy, which puts it away from any other ideology. Just like it's important to state that different anarchist schools of thought aren't mutually exclusive, despite their different approaches. One can be both an individualist and a communist like Kropotkin; or an individualist and a collectivist like Bakunin; or an individualist and a mutualist; a social anarchist and a mutualist, or a syndicalist; an anarcha-feminist and a mutualist or a communist, and so on and so on. They all share some common tenets.--82.63.72.187 (talk) 17:29, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
As an international wikipedia though, it should also not be confusing to Canadians and Americans for whom Libertarian refers specifically to ideologies near Anarcho-Capitalism and Objectivism. As for ideal length / detail, the good rule of thumb is that a lede should be accessible immediately to a layperson absent confusion, or ambiguity, and should summarize the content of the article clearly and concisely. Simonm223 (talk) 17:38, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Well, then create a Libertarianism in Canada just like Libertarianism in the United States and link to that when talking about libertarianism in Canada or the United States. Anyway, even in the United States the origins of libertarian were exactly the same as in the rest of the world. Déjacque coined the word libertarian even in the United States when he was living in New York and individualist anarchists like Tucker also used the word libertarian. In the 20th century, libertarian was specifically used to refer to what in Europe would be known as classical liberalism. It's also not true that Libertarian refers specifically to ideologies near Anarcho-Capitalism and Objectivism. This kind of libertarianism isn't a new ideology, it's just classical liberalism renamed because in countries like the United States and Canada liberal means social liberalism. Anarcho-capitalism and Objectivism are part of this tradition, but they're by no means synonyms with libertarianism as a whole, even in the United States and Canada (the Libertarian Party in the United States is neither anarcho-capitalist nor Objectivist). The layperson may also think that anarchism is anarcho-capitalism; and so what's wrong in stating that As an anti-capitalist and libertarian socialist philosophy, anarchism is placed on the far-left of the political spectrum? It better clarify why it's considered a far-left ideology. Then again, why not state that Nazism is left-wing and socialist; after all, that's what a layperson in the United States may think of. Accuracy based on reliable sources should be prioritised in this case, especially if the common name is wrong (means different things, etc.) according to the same reliable sources. Then don't get annoyed or blame people when they keep making confusions between the two and you have to have a FAQ like in Talk:Nazism, Talk:Nazi Party, etc.--82.63.72.187 (talk) 18:01, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Indeed libertarian is a confusing word. Another major issue is that definition (or every other text) should be based on the references. My understanding is that the changes were remotely based on sources. Libertarian is an example and anti-statism, are the best examples. Antistatism is not used my the sources but yet you have placed it in the second place. The reason why antistatism is wrong, besides it is not mentioned by the sources, is that its a consequence of anti-hierarchism.Cinadon36 17:55, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. Then could you please help me with reliable sources? I'm not an expert and I don't know how and where to find them, or even how to start and how to make sure that the source is actually reliable, because finding a source may be easy but find a source that is realiable is another thing; I found out about Google Scholar only now. Well, anarcho-capitalism and communism can also be said to be anti-statist, but that doesn't make them anti-hirerachists (especially anarcho-capitalism) and that's why I believe it's worth adding; namely that anarchism is the only anti-statist ideology that is also anti-authority/hierarchies.--82.63.72.187 (talk) 18:01, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Its ok. About sources, I would strongly advice you to search through a near-by library. Other ways exist (ie sci-hub.tw -Sci-Hub for articles or libgen.io -Library Genesis for books). Cheers! Cinadon36 18:11, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you; you have been really kind and helpful! I didn't add sources (beside Anarchism can entail opposing authority or hierarchy in the conduct of all human relations.[5][6][7][8][9]) because I knew the lead shouldn't be necessarely full of sources since it should summarise the body next. Anyway, if the problem are sources, then someone could help me find if there're reliable sources that support my edits and base our decision on that. I know how Wikipedia works and I have no problem accepting the final decision and what reliable sources say, but I would like to have a more thorough discussion and some sources sharing. I also would like to apologise if I may have been disruptive; it's not my intention, I'm just very passionate and I want to learn. Back to the discussion, I believe anti-authoritarian, anti-statist and libertarian should be added to the lead. If there's anti-authortarian, why not also add the other two which are just as important or/and complementary? Even if anti-statism is based on anti-authoritarianism, or vice versa, I believe it should be added because anti-authoritarianism and anti-statism along with libertarianism better describe anarchism; and if that is a short description of it, that would be the best and shortest one I could think of. While I personally believe only anarchism is the only philosphy that I actually see consistent with both anti-authoritarianism and anti-statism; and I see the two as synonyms for anarchism, reliable sources may also describe other ideologies as anti-authoritarian or anti-statist. Either way, anarchism is the only philosophy that is both anti-authoritarian and anti-statist. Libertarian should be added not only because it's a word created by anarchists but also as to not make it look like anarchism is just an anti-something philosophy.--82.63.72.187 (talk) 18:37, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I wouldnt suggest you work that way. Rather the opposite way would be more constractive. My advice is first find thw best available sources. Second read them and try to comprehent what their main points are. Not an easy task. Third, edit the main body of the article.Forth, wait for consensus. Fifth, edit the lede. Having yourself a narrative and trying to find sources to support it, you are entering into a danger zone full of cherry picking and confirmation bias. And you will spend some significant amount of time without improving yourself and your understanding. And most probable you will find yourself in an edit war. Last advixe, when you argue in WP, it is much better to support your opinion using a cited reference.I have seen your edits and I noticed your effords to improve the article. Keep up the spirit. Cheers Cinadon36 20:59, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure I got you, but I'm asking for help and source sharing exactly because I want to avoid cherry picking and confirmation bias myself; despite my personal opinions and biases, which everyone has, I'm full aware of it and recognise it. Everything I know was what I studied and researched and now I don't remember everything, every page, every book, etc., but I have done my homework. I would have done exactly that and cited references (which I thought would also be what my responders would do in response to my objections, but this didn't happen in any single talk I have had this far; and I do accept reliable sources; if only they were shown to me; if I'm wrong, it shouldn't be hard to prove so), but as I have told you I'm not an expert with that and I'm afraid to cite the wrong source or a non-reliable one, etc., or I don't even know from where to start and what to search for exactly, that's why I would be very thankful for you or anyone else to help me with the sources; I hope your advices will help me and I will be able to do exactly that. Either way, I thank you for your reply, time and talk; and I apologise from any mistake or error I may have done, or do in the future.--82.63.72.187 (talk) 01:52, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Definitions of Anarchism(s)

What is anarchism? a movement? a philosophy? a series of persons and struggles? Who knows? Apparently there is not consensus in defining anarchism. Here are some RS and their views on definitions.

  • Marshall (1993), page 3: It would be misleading to offer a neat definition of anarchism, since by its very nature it is anti-dogmatic. It does not offer a fixed body of doctrine based on one particular world-view. It is a complex and subtle philosophy, embracing many different currents of thought and strategy. Indeed, anarchism is like a river with many currents and eddies, constantly changing and being refreshed by new surges but always moving towards the wide ocean of freedom.
  • MacLaughlin (2007). First Chapter is dedicated on definition of Anarchism. This part quote is of particular importance: "Leaving ‘comprehensive’ definitions aside, let’s take a look at some of the more common definitions of anarchism. Three definitions are familiar enough from the literature: the etymological definition, the anti-statist definition, and the antiauthoritarian definition. None of these definitions is satisfactory." {p. 27) and goes on dismantling each one of those definitions.
  • Levy (2019) In his handbook, Levy does not really bother with the various definitions of anarchism. He rather notes that "For definitions of anarchism see, B. Franks, ‘Anarchism’, in M. Freeden, L. Tower Sargent, and M. Stears (Eds), The Oxford Handbook of Political Ideologies (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), 385–404 and L. Davis, ‘Anarchism’, in V. Geoghegan and R. Wilford (Eds), The Oxford Handbook of Political Ideologies (London: Routledge, 2014), 213–238.
  • Oxford Handbook by Freeden (Ed.) (2014): Benjamin Franks authors the chapter of anarchism, which is quite interesting but offers no definition. He Franks rather discusses definitions posed by other writers.

So, what I got from all of the above, is I should focus on easier tasks of Anarchism Cinadon36 21:03, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

section 3.2 Post-classical and contemporary

I do not like that specific section coz it looks like a catalog to me. It seems like we are trying to mention every minute branch of contemporary anarchism, without giving any substantial information to the reader apart from the name of the branch. Another problem is that we are repeating info of previous sections (2.3) I have found a paper that seems that can serve as a basis for re-writing this section. Williams, DM. Contemporary anarchist and anarchistic movements. Sociology Compass. 2018; 12:e12582. https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12582 [6] The more significant change would be that instead of having a catalog of various branches, we could describe the main tenents of contemporary anarchism, that would be: horizontalism, direct action, antiauthoritarianism, decentralization, anticapitalism, and mutual aid. What do you think my fellow Wikipedians? Cinadon36 21:47, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

@Cinadon36: I'd asbolutely support that. While I think that's better than nothing, it really needs to be re-written and I hope you can do just that. We could also finally remove anarcho-capitalism; I see it everywhere, when it should only be in Anarchism and capitalism and Issues in anarchism, or perhaps in Anarcho-capitalism itself, when we have to repeat that it's not considered part of anarchism. If it's not considered part of anarchism, then it shouldn't be in anarchist-related articles and topics.--Davide King (talk) 07:56, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Lede revisited

@Cinadon36: could you please better explain what did you mean by this? Could you please analize each of my additions and tell what's wrong with them, or what can I do improve it?

Anarchism is an anti-authoritarian and libertarian[1][2] political philosophy[3] that rejects hierarchies deemed unjust and advocates their replacement with self-managed, self-governed societies based on voluntary, cooperative institutions. These institutions are often described as stateless societies,[4] although several authors have defined them more specifically as distinct institutions based on non-hierarchical or free associations.[5] Anarchism's central disagreement with other ideologies is that it holds the state to be undesirable, unnecessary and harmful.[6] As a result, it entails opposing authority or hierarchy in the conduct of human relations.[7][8][9][10][11]

As an anti-capitalist and libertarian socialist philosophy,[12] anarchism is usually placed on the far-left of the political spectrum.[13] Much of its economics and legal philosophy reflect anti-authoritarian interpretations of left-wing politics such as of communism, collectivism, syndicalism, mutualism, or participatory economics.[12] As anarchism does not offer a fixed body of doctrine from a single particular worldview,[14] many anarchist types and traditions exist and varieties of anarchy diverge widely,[15] although not all of which are mutually exclusive.[16][17][18] Anarchist schools of thought can differ fundamentally yet maintain the common tenets of anarchism,[19] supporting anything from extreme individualism to complete collectivism.[20] Strains of anarchism have often been divided into the categories of social and individualist anarchism, or similar dual classifications.[21]

References

  1. ^ Woodcock 1962.
  2. ^ Guerin 1970, The Basic Ideas of Anarchism.
  3. ^ McLaughlin 2007, p. 59; Flint 2009, p. 27.
  4. ^ Sheehan 2003, p. 85; Craig 2005, p. 14.
  5. ^ Suissa 2006, p. 7.
  6. ^ McLean & McMillan 2003; Craig 2005, p. 14.
  7. ^ Proudhon 1849: "Anarchy is the condition of existence of adult society, as hierarchy is the condition of primitive society. There is a continual progress in human society from hierarchy to anarchy."
  8. ^ Bakunin 1882: "In a word, we reject all legislation, all authority, and all privileged, licensed, official, and legal influence, even though arising from universal suffrage, convinced that it can turn only to the advantage of a dominant minority of exploiters against the interests of the immense majority in subjection to them. This is the sense in which we are really Anarchists".
  9. ^ Armand 1923: "In practice, any individual who, because of his or her temperament or because of conscious and serious reflection, repudiates all external authority or coercion, whether of a governmental, ethical, intellectual, or economic order, can be considered an anarchist. Everyone who consciously rejects the domination of people by other people or by the social ambiance, and its economic corollaries, can be said to be an anarchist as well".
  10. ^ Fiala 2017: "There are various forms of anarchism. Uniting this variety is the general critique of centralized, hierarchical power and authority. Given that authority, centralization, and hierarchy show up in various ways and in different discourses, institutions, and practices, it is not surprising that the anarchist critique has been applied in diverse ways".
  11. ^ Wilbur 2018: "The anarchists are against all hierarchy, be it moral or material. They oppose to it the respect for liberty and the absolute autonomy of the individual".
  12. ^ a b Guerin 1970, p. 35, Critique of authoritarian socialism.
  13. ^ Brooks 1994, p. xi; Kahn 2000; Moynihan 2007.
  14. ^ Marshall 1993, pp. 14–17.
  15. ^ Sylvan 2007, p. 262: "As varieties of anarchy diverge widely so too, correspondingly, do motivations and justifications for these divergent forms".
  16. ^ Woodcock 1962, p. 434: "But it is not enough just to argue that anarchism can be synthetic; it must be so".
  17. ^ Guillaume 1972.
  18. ^ Kinna 2012, p. 329: "[Anarchism without adjectives and small 'a' anarchism] describes a commitment to non-sectarian anarchism [...]. The exponents of anarchism without adjectives were not so much driven by a rejection of anarcho-communism as by a belief that the anarchist future should be left undefined, so that it might better be constructed in the process of revolutionary change".
  19. ^ Sylvan 2007, p. 258: "Firstly, a variety of political arrangements and organization, including governments of certain sorts, are entirely compatible with anarchy. All that is required is that these arrangements not include authoritarian or coercive elements".
  20. ^ McLean & McMillan 2003, Anarchism.
  21. ^ Fowler 1972; Kropotkin 2002, p. 5; Ostergaard 2009, p. 14, Anarchism.

I thought I added the necessary sources. How much contemporany?--82.54.10.243 (talk) 21:36, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Once more, you have made significant changes at the lede, even in the first sentence. The first two refs are of the more 50 years old or more, plus it is wrong to pick adjectives from various authors and construct a definition. The definition should derive from contemporary RS. Another problem is the sentence "As a result, it entails opposing authority or hierarchy in the conduct of human relations." which actually repeats what is mentioned earlier. Moreover is based on 5 authors (oversourcing), 3 of them are 100+ years old. The third addition is "As an anti-capitalist and libertarian socialist philosophy". While it stands true on anti-capitalism, (even though is debateable), is clearly fault concerning socialistic. Individualist anarchists do exist. Moreover, Guerin is not the best available author. He is known because he is an anarchist, not because he is an accredited professor on anarchist studies. Also, there is an extensive use of quatations within the references, there is no need for that, unless is something really important.Cinadon36 21:59, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
More, I d suggest we fist change the main body of the article, and after a broad consensus is formed, we can make changes at the lede. Making changes directly to the lede, is not constructive.Cinadon36 09:38, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
I wanted to see if more people would discuss it. Do you have contemporany reliable sources? What do they say? Maybe it could be worded better, but I don't think it repeats what is mentioned earlier because it spoke of "hierarchies deemed unjust"; there're also anarchists/definitions which oppose all hierarchies in human relations and not just these demmed unjust. I don't understand the problem with that; I believe it's important to state what anarchists actually thought about as well as what reliable sources say and that's why I also add more sources to have both primary, secondary and tertiary sources. How is that debatable? We're talking the political philosophy and movement and the anarchist movement have been both anti-capitalist and (libertarian) socialist. As far as I know, it wasn't socialism the issue (only so-called state socialism was, which all anarchists opposed) but communism, hence the first issues between anarcho-communists and individualist anarchists, then other issues between social and individualist anarchists were mainly related to organisation issues and the means. Syndicalism, mutualism, etc. are all different variants of a broad socialist concept and as a result anarchism as a whole is (libertarian) socialist, even if individual anarchists may personally reject that or not want to be associated with socialism; or at least that's what I thought and know of. The issue isn't socialism, but whether decentralised planning, free-market or a mix of both is preferable. An individualist anarchist could support anything from communism to free-market socialism and a social anarchism could support anything from communism to syndicalism and so on. Green anarchism is a form of eco-socialism, with also a syndicalist wing; and anarcho-primitivism could be considered a form of indigenous/eco-communism. I believe this should be highlighted, if we can find contemporany reliable sources that support it. Either way, what do you believe could be improvements in the body? Which changes would you suggest?--79.52.17.197 (talk) 15:48, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Remember that the lede is meant to summarize the existing article. To Cinadon's point, any of the associations/claims noteworthy enough for the lede should first made sufficient in prose. The lede only needs footnotes for the article summary points that are so controversial as to be repeatedly challenged if no footnote is provided. That said, if the lede is adequately presented in prose, it would only need to link and use the same citations. Given the article's scope, the lede is the place for a broad overview, not delving into topical nuances unless somehow reflected elsewhere in the article. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 15:29, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  • @Czar: Thank you so much for your reply; I was just going to write a new message to say if there was any development. I was the IP in this discussion and also in this one, but I will be using my account to avoid confusions now that I got it back. I knew that and I thought I was doing exactly that and that it was "adequately presented in prose". What do you personally think of my lead proposal? I believe there should be a mention of the word libertarian since it was actually first coined by anarchists and today it's still used as a synonym for anarchist and anarchism; I also believe it's worth stating that it's a libertarian socialist and anti-capitalist philosophy and that's why it's placed on the left; and that not all schools of thoughts are mutually exclusive. Despite diverging from extreme individualism to complete collectivism, they all share the common tenets of anarchism, including opposition to state, capitalism and hirerachies as well as support for libertarian socialism; socialism was never an issue (other than state socialism, which all anarchists oppose; the issue was on communism and between certain anarcho-communists and individualists; anarcho-capitalism is generally rejected for various reasons by both anarchists and scholars alike and instead it's considered more part of liberalism or a radicalisation and new form of classical/19th century liberalism). Could you please analyse my proposal? Should I also make further additions to make sure the text reflects the lead and viceversa (I thought it already did reflect that)? Because perhaps there're additions that are fine and others not so good, so I would like to know which are which.--Davide King (talk) 17:52, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Would it work to discuss one sentence at a time? This is a high-traffic article on a relatively controversial topic; from my recollection—when this article used to be on my watchlist—passersby always take aim at their favorite part of the lede, but it still retains some elements from its last formal (GA) review in 2010. If going line-by-line to establish a consensus on what should be added/removed, it becomes easier to point back to this discussion (and our supporting sources) as rationalization for why the lede is the way that it is.
  • For example, re: I believe there should be a mention of the word libertarian, even while I'm inclined to agree in principle per the formal connotations of the term, there have been prior talk page discussions on that question with more convincing counterpoints. (We miss you, @Malik Shabazz!)
  • Or in the addition of As a result, it entails opposing authority or hierarchy in the conduct of human relations. what is "the conduct of human relations" and what is this sentence designed to add that isn't already said in the first sentence? (Or should the first sentence be made clearer?)
  • re: moving the libertarian socialism link, I'm neither here nor there because (per its talk page) I think that article should be merged with this one as a widely used synonym.
  • re: not all of which are mutually exclusive, I'm also neither here nor there. Yes, the variety of anarchist types/traditions can overlap, but is there a simpler way to put this? (If so, then we wouldn't need yet maintain the common tenets of anarchism either.)
  • re: sources, when constructing the footnote, I recommend doing a list-defined ref so that the lede wikitext becomes easier to read. Those list-defined footnotes can then also be used to source the same text below in the actual article. I also want to back Cinadon's statement that for purposes of the declarative lede, we should be using the most recent, authoritative reference, which is rarely 19th-century primary sources (e.g., Proudhon or Bakunin).
Happy to discuss any of the points in particular too, but let's break out a separate section for each if it warrants significant discussion czar 19:09, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
@Czar: I'm sorry, I didn't check that discussion. Anyway, I understand and thanks for advices. My proposals aren't necessarely wrong but perhaps unneeded or confusing. It's just I'm tired of people not understanding left-wing politics, with Nazism being seen as a form of socialism and left-wing, communism as Marxism–Leninism and now anarchism with anarcho-capitalism; and I wanted to make it more clear but I didn't do exactly a good job and I apologise for that. Anarchism's central disagreement with other ideologies is that it holds the state to be undesirable, unnecessary, and harmful.[4] Isn't it actually its opposition to hierarchies which makes anarchism not only separated by all other ideologies (communism and also anarcho-capitalism claim to oppose the state) but the perfect antithesis of right-wing politics as commonly understood, i.e. authority and hirerachies as natural and inevitable? That's why I thought of adding that phrase.--Davide King (talk) 19:30, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
I think that makes sense, but does it need its own sentence? E.g., could the "central disagreement" sentence be rephrased to mention opposition to hierarchy or maximization of autonomy to say the same thing without warranting an additional sentence? Spitballing: "it holds the state" → "it holds hierarchical relations, such as the state" czar 19:52, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  • @Czar: Yes, that would actually be perfect and much better than anything I came up with. As you can see or have probably noticed, I'm not good in summarising. I need to improve this.--Davide King (talk) 20:34, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
@Czar: What about As an anti-capitalist and libertarian socialist philosophy, anarchism is placed on the far-left of the political spectrum[1] and much of its economics and legal philosophy reflect anti-authoritarian interpretations of left-wing politics such as communism, collectivism, syndicalism, mutualism, or participatory economics.[2]
Or perhaps this phrasing instead: As an anti-capitalist and libertarian socialist philosophy,[2] anarchism is usually placed on the far-left of the political spectrum.[1] Much of its economics and legal philosophy reflect anti-authoritarian interpretations of socialism such as of communism, collectivism, syndicalism, mutualism, or participatory economics.[2]

References

  1. ^ a b Brooks 1994, p. xi; Kahn 2000; Moynihan 2007.
  2. ^ a b c Guerin 1970, p. 35, Critique of authoritarian socialism.
Thoughts?--Davide King (talk) 20:49, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
I am a little lost here. Are you talking about the first sentence? If so, I 'd prefer that the first sentence should be the best available definition, therefore, it should be something like "Anarchism is that". May I ask, have you checked Brooks, Kahn and Moyinihan? Have they placed anarchism on far-left spectrum because it is anti-capitalistic and libertarian-socialist? One more comment, what we listen in our daily lives about anarchism, online or offline, all those nonsense, shouldn't be the driving force on how to construct or change the article. That approach will create a havoc. The best way forward is to study the best RS on anarchism and nothing more.Cinadon36 07:07, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure it needs the anti-capitalist and libertarian socialist philosophy part, as written. I think that by tightening the intro, the later jargon drops will become unnecessary. czar 15:49, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
@Cinadon36: @Czar: I wasn't talking about the first sentence but the part that talks about "[a]narchism [being] placed on the far-left of the political spectrum". Well, I think we should check them; I also thought that the lead should summarise the text reflected in the article's body and I thought that supported the claim. Czar better explained here when saying "generally invokes a tradition of far-left socialism and anti-authoritarianism". Anyway, thanks again for your kindness and comment. I hope you can help to better study and understand the best reliable sources on anarchism.--Davide King (talk) 07:56, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
  • @Cinadon36, per Talk:Anarchist socialism, what would you think of opening the lede with something similar to the following: "a political philosophy that advocates for voluntary, cooperative institutions in place of hierarchical associations, and generally invokes a tradition of far-left socialism and anti-authoritarianism"? The idea is that we've bifurcated the socialist tradition of anarchism into its own article when it should really just be covered in context here, since anarchism refers to two connotations: (1) the big tent of anti-authoritarian, non-hierarchical organization, and (2) the far-left socialist tradition of collectivization/mutual aid. If this direction smells right (I know the specific language needs work), would you recommend particular sources for the italicized part? czar 15:49, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
@Czar: Thanks for the Question. I am somewhat hesitant to use the term "far-left" (Left–right political spectrum is, in my opinion, an outdated and overly simplistic way of classifying political ideologies). The same goes for "socialism" as well. Socialism does not only rule out anarcho-capitalists (I am ok with that) but also the individualist trait of anarchism (ie Stirner, Tucker and others). But besides my own opinion, the best available source on "defining anarchism" (which clearly is not an easy task) is McLauglin's book, already cited in the article. McLauglin does not use the specific terms, so I see no reason why should we. As for your request regarding the italicized part, I 'd like to have a look on my sources and I 'll get back to you. I 'll need a couple of days. Cheers. Cinadon36 12:38, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree that the left–right political spectrum is "an outdated and overly simplistic way of classifying political ideologies", but I still find it useful; it should use more and better clarified parameters. Anyway, I didn't add "far-left" so the sources which support that claim refers to it as such. I'd disagree that "Socialism does [...] rule out [...] the individualist trait of anarchism (ie Stirner, Tucker and others)", per reasons stated in this discussion and more clearly here.--Davide King (talk) 07:56, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
The current article is biased toward anarchy-socialism. I will revert it to the generic definition of anarchism which does not favor any particular school. I had to go back years! If there is a more recent article version that is unbiased, tell us here. PhilLiberty (talk) 20:16, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Criticism section

I don't know if it's appropriate for the criticism section to contain responses to each critique (maybe reach out to SocPolPhilosophy Task Force?). As editors, we are not here to advocate for anarchism, and it might be best to let readers decide, after reading the first part of the article, the merit of the criticisms. More importantly, though, IF a response to critique is included, it should not come only from a primary source such as Anarchist FAQ. Not all anarchists would be on board with a body that "adjudicates" at all, for instance, nor would they respond in agreement with the other FAQ counter-points included in the section. Also, FWIW, the GA version of this article did not include a separate criticism section, eliminating the issue of whether or not to include such rebuttals.--MattMauler (talk) 20:27, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Excessive duplication

The sections History (main) and Anarchist schools of thought (main) are too long and duplicate far too much of the scope of their main articles. In the case of History this is more a matter of the prose lacking brevity, and in the case of Anarchist schools of thought there is simply too much information trying to fit in this article. These sections should follow summary style guidelines (WP:SUMMARY) and not be divided by several subsections—a handful of paragraphs should suffice to summarize the most important elements of the main articles and the rest should be moved. Oeqtte (talk) 00:01, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

I tend to agree with your remarks but it is not an easy task to fix it. Have a try if you wish. Cinadon36 00:12, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
I think the first thing to do would be to move as much of the information that can be moved to the main articles. Then the Anarchist schools of thought can be restructured more freely. History probably just needs to be copyedited more. Oeqtte (talk) 00:48, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
I have contributed to history section alot but I am little poor in English. So copyedit freely pls! Remove whatever you think is irrelevant or duplicate and don't worry about any mistakes, I am sure lots of eyes are surveilling this article. Cinadon36 21:28, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

I have revised the "Schools of thought" section and removed much of the text duplicating the scope of its sub-article. If there is any information critical to this article that has been removed, please re-add it where you see neccessary. Thanks. Oeqtte[t] 02:54, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Good job Oeqtte. Certainly on the right path. Further work is needed though, especially addressing the many bullet points and hence the fragmentation of "Post-classical and contemporary". The names of the anarchist branches (ie transhumanism anarchism) are not "school of thoughts". Note that many of them do non have proper, or none at all, reference.Cinadon36 07:25, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I was aware of some discussion at Talk:Anarchist schools of thought of what should or should not be included, and thought that perhaps those involved would help replicate those decisions here. But I guess this doesn't regard a duplication of scope anymore. Oeqtte[t] 23:24, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Possible misuse of source

I understand that defining anarchism is a difficult issue, and that an article (Definition of anarchism and libertarianism) has been dedicated to the subject, however I do have some concerns about the following source.

Anarchism is an anti-authoritarian political and social philosophy[1]

This portion cites McLaughlin 2007, p. 59, however this is a dishonest citation given that the same text also states the following:

We are simply defining anarchism fundamentally in terms of the philosophy of authority, and we have established that while it is radically sceptical towards authority, anarchism is by no means anti-authoritarian.

— McLaughlin 2007, p. 73

In addition to his critique of defining anarchism, McLaughlin widely mentions anarchism as a radical philosophy, which may or may not be a useful inclusion in either article. Oeqtte[t] 05:42, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Calling it dishonest is really not constructive. Everybody is entitled of making mistakes. I will have it a look later. Cinadon36 06:08, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

@Cinadon36: Why do you take this as accusatory? It isn't really in good faith to do that. Oeqtte[t] 07:21, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Now, as far as I can understand, the adjective "anti-authoritarian" is describing the noun. It is not trying to define it. McLaughlin when discussing the definition of anarchism at p. 28, he writes on "anti-authoritarianism": "Even if this statement reflects his anarchist position accurately, it must be seen as a conclusion to his sceptical inquiry rather than as, let us say, a metaphysical prejudice". So it seems that while he thinks that anti-authoritarianism describes Anarchism, it is not, let's say, the proper word to define it. As for page 58, I do not know why it is cited- maybe it 's typo. A more general comment though, is that refs at into/lede are not needed. Lede must summarize the main body. So maybe we should remove them. But first we should deal with various problems at the main body of the article, and address lede afterwards.Cinadon36 07:34, 10 January 2020 (UTC) After edit conflict: I didnt take it as accusatory, I am just saying it is not constructive. It is an ethically charged word that might act as a red herring. Here is a (funny) essay on good faith: [7]. Cinadon36 07:34, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Anyway, I removed the ref to McLaughlin.Cinadon36 09:05, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Oeqtte[t] 09:56, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

"Internal issues and debates"

I am wondering about the wording of this section heading. Where "issues" could misleadingly imply problems or faults I think "Internal disputes" may suit better as the name for this section (and perhaps the article Issues in anarchism by extension). Let me know your thoughts. Oeqtte[t] 02:02, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

My thoughts excactly. Yeap, the title of the section is a bit sttange but I think we ought to be a little more bold here. I think we shoud revisit the structure of the article. A suggestion: Sections should be: History, Thought, Practices, Key issues, criticism and what else? We have to add organizational issues somewhere. Cinadon36 07:23, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
I agree too. Also since I'm here, could this with some contemporary anarchists espousing alternative direct action methods such as nonviolence, counter-economics and cryptography to bring about an anarchist society. About the scope of an anarchist society, some anarchists advocate a global one while others do so by local ones. be verified? Does the source actually include counter-economics and cryptography?--Davide King (talk) 03:02, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Well spotted Davide King. That specific book is in Spanish, it was translated from the English original (The Oxford Companion to Philosophy) that was published in 1995. There is a new edition, published in 2005. I had a look- there is a nice article on Anarchism, but nowhere does it mention cryptography or counter-economics. The article is signed by Prof. Richard T. De George, University of Kansas. I will remove the specific sentence if nobody objects.Cinadon36 08:08, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
You're welcome, Cinadon36. So what does the source actually say? Does it mention only nonviolence or does it just talk about some contemporary anarchists espousing alternative direct action methods without making any example?--Davide King (talk) 08:12, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
It doesn't really talk about methods, it rather focuses on the historical figures of anarchism initially, and after a while it talks about anarchist's goals but doesn't go in depth. It is a tertiary source after all. Cinadon36 08:27, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Structure of the article

Hey all, I 'd like to share some thoughts. I think the article needs to be slightly restructured. We should find a way on doing so, to avoid talking about the same topic over and over. Most prominent example of repeating ourselves is the history and school of anarchism sections. Also we must take care not to create section that could easily turn into endless lists. My first thoughts is to restructure the article like this: (this is an initial thought)

  1. Anarchist History
  2. Anarchist thought (What anarchists think? We should be dropping "school of thoughts" as the specific ideologies overlap each other- and focus on contemporary thinking, like what do anarchist think about freedom, the State, or Religion, what poststructural anarchism is etc)
  3. Tactics (what anarchists do? like squatting, direct action, confronting the police, small a anarchism)
  4. Key issues/Core traditions. (an/feminism, class struggle, democracy or participatory democracy)
  5. Demography (who anarchists are?- if we find a RS on that of course)
  6. Criticism (we should be Steelmanning)

What do you think? Your feedback please, Thanks, Cinadon36 13:24, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

I think that's fine, Cinadon36. As I stated above, I hope the section that talks about classical anarchist thought can be turned into proper paragraphs much like the Contemporary anarchism section, rather than just the lead of each article.--Davide King (talk) 19:15, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

section 3.2 Post-classical and contemporary, Revisited

Above you can find a brief discussion about this section between me and Davide King on the 3.2 section. The problem is that the section is multi-fragmented by the use of multiple bullet points, without giving a solid view of contemporary anarchism. Various branches or currents of anarchism are listed as school of thoughts, which is not really correct. I haven't moved to any significant change to this text as I didn't know a way to fix the problem. Until now. I have seen some edits by Czar, that can help us resolve this issue. Czar nicely build a brief but comprehensive paragraph at a new article Definition of anarchism and libertarianism. Czar, I feel that various parts of your contribution there, esp the third paragraph of section Overview, would be better if they were sited here. After all, they are a description of anarchism, not a definition of it. I plan on transferring the aforementioned paragraph to this article, but I 'd need your feedback pls. Any better ideas maybe? Cinadon36 14:45, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

@Cinadon36: As I stated here here, I hope you can turn that from a list, usually repeating the lead of the respective article, into a proper written text with paragraphs that discuss it, simply having Anarchist schools of thought as See also. There should be no mention of anarcho-capitalism (there're other pages for that) or other not notable, not referenced, not even real/proper schools of thought like anarcho-transhumanism; it should simply discuss and describe the main tenents of contemporary anarchism, that would be: horizontalism, direct action, antiauthoritarianism, decentralization, anticapitalism, and mutual aid.--Davide King (talk) 15:01, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Here is what I have done [8]. Czar, I hope you dont mind...This article is much more important than the definitions one, it is central to anarchism project, and I felt that your marvelous piece could fix a serious problem of this article. Cinadon36 19:43, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
All text added to WP is freely licensed so always okay to copy as long as the edit summary shows where it's from. Glad you found it useful! czar 03:38, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Good changes, though regarding the first paragraph of the section, several sentenses may address contemporary anarchism outside the context of schools of thought. For example, text addressing anti-globilization movements and 21st century radicalism does not present this information in relationship with the subject of anarchist schools of thought. Oeqtte[t] 23:24, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
You are right on your remark Oeqtte. But I think that the first paragraph is valuable. Maybe we could move it somewhere else. Maybe we should rethink the structure of the article to avoid duplication. Lets wait a little bit for other users to contribute. Cinadon36 23:37, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
@Cinadon36: If the text can be related into the topic then that would be preferable. Oeqtte[t] 23:50, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

@Cinadon36: @Oeqtte: Do you think you would be able to turn the Classical section from a mere list into paragraphs like it has been done in the Post-classical and contemporary section?--Davide King (talk) 16:51, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

It is a possibility, but I will wait to hear what Cinadon36 thinks. The information may have to be broader that what is currently there. Oeqtte[t] 02:08, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Go for it!Cinadon36 07:25, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Given the decisions made at History of anarchism, should individualist anarchism be considered part of or separate from classical anarchism? It would be nice to be consistent across all articles. Oeqtte[t] 03:49, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

"Being a dutiful member of society"

In the "Anarchism and education" section "Being a productive member of society" should be "Being a dutiful member of society". Anarchism in practice by necessity also very much needs to be productive. Ah, but yeah theorists do not dabble in practice so they can swim in the idealistic versions of the concepts. And yeah it is also a question of bias against anarchism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.11.99.87 (talk) 21:23, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I get what you are saying, pretty legit concern, but Kinna R. wrote about productivity.Cinadon36 09:01, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Engels criticism

Maybe there should be an explanation of why Frederich Engels criticized anarchism even though communism aims to create a classless stateless society. Magnigornia (talk) 21:23, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi Magnigornia, are there any Secondary Sources focusing on Anarchism that are explaining Fr. Engels opinions or criticism on Marxism in a certain extent? There is a ton of interesting facts/opinions on anarchism, we can not possible include everything. Cinadon36 22:07, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
This seems extraneous to me. Would need to know what sources think this is pertinent to a general overview of anarchism. czar 22:20, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Unjust Hierarchies

There's been a bit of back and forth in the edits over hierarchies and whether the word "unjust" belongs on this page, so I decided to look into the issue a bit further. Here's essentially an extended justification for the edit I'm about to make. The qualifier "unjust" has no place in front of "hierarchies" when we're discussing things that anarchists are against. Anarchism involves protesting all social hierarchies; they're not okay with allowing any kind of "just" hierarchy to exist, as anarchism views all hierarchy as unjust.

The above is just my observation from having read about anarchism as much as I have. Now I'll refer to a source. The source for the sentence in the body of the article that uses "unjust" is [1], pp. 4-5. When reading that article, there is no mention of unjust anything; the word does not occur in the article. Here is what the article actually says in the place to which the page refers:

Mass organizing involves anarchists working alongside nonanarchists to build social movements capable of challenging capital, state, and other adversaries (p. 4)

The source even specifies that anarchists use nonheirarchical means:

During antiauthoritarian Critical Mass (CM) bicycle rides, participants use nonhierarchical strategies to guide the ride, temper threats from cars, and create a form of do‐it‐yourself (DiY) policing that reinforces community. (p. 5)

So there is no justification for inclusion of the qualifier "unjust" with regard to hierarchies that anarchists ara against. Anarchism precludes the existence of any hierarchy whatsoever. Trogyssy (talk) 07:59, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Williams, Dana M. (2018-06). "Contemporary anarchist and anarchistic movements". Sociology Compass. 12 (6): e12582. doi:10.1111/soc4.12582. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Hi @Trogyssy:, thanks for looking at this, you do have a point. Some comments:

  • I think you should have resisted in changing the text. Not a significant problem though.
  • As for the world "unjust" the first sentence: it isnt derived from section "tactics" but from section on Etymology. I used it as I had to build the first sentence, and I felt I had to use the anti-hierarchical parameter of anarchism, as it is important (per main body of the article). But Anarchism does not simply means negation of every authority- at least as an a priori concept. See McLaughlin p 28 (last paragraph). I was trying to avoid this particular misconception when I inserted the word "unjust".
  • The adjective "social", that you used to replace the word "unjust" does it derive from the main body?
  • Maybe we should try to construct the first sentence right from the scratch.

Cheers, Cinadon36 18:40, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

The word "unjust" should not be used in this context without distinguishing between a priori anarchism which holds that as an absolute or a priori claim, all states are always and everywhere illegitimate and unjust, and a posteriori anarchism which argues that states can be justified in theory, but that in practice, no state or very few states are actually legitimate (per the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Carlstak (talk) 01:43, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

The lede is messed up

− Not all anarchists are socialists. Since when did Anarcho primitvists promote socialism?

− − If a society is truly Anarchist, it would promote 'anarchism without labels'. If a voluntary society wants to refuse to be socialists, are the other anarchists going to force them to be so?

− − Also, the lede is full of redundancies and wordiness. It needs to be trimmed but still have the essentials found in the main body. 2601:940:C000:46A0:B125:E495:1C6B:1B21 (talk) 16:39, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

You seem to assume as that is mutually exclusive from socialism, or anti-capitalism; so I don't see how anarcho-primitivism is mutually exclusive from a form of socialism that is ecological and primitivist (see also Primitive communism). Anarchism isn't based on the non-aggression principle and it actually criticises authority and social hierarchies, among other social relations, that are considered perfectly fine or voluntary under capitalism.--Davide King (talk) 19:07, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Anarchism criticizes coercive hierarchy Nashhinton (talk) 21:18, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anarchism/Archive_66&oldid=1051716349"