Talk:Anarchism/Archive 68

Archive 65

Archive 66

Archive 67

Archive 68

Edits

@Cinadon36 You said that the third source is outdated (1994), but two sources provided to say ancap is not real anarchism are from 1992 and 1993 respectively. I also don't see how datedness would be an issue, since nothing about what ancap is has changed since then. Not sure how the second source is tertiary or unreliable, since it is a text written by a author explaining Anarchism that is known for writing books about politics. The first source is written by Michael Huemer, who is a professor of philosophy, which sounds like a scholar to me. Since some of them are authors and not scholars, maybe I should have same that some scholars and authors believe this, but that's a minor fix. If you have any objections to my reasoning, feel free to reply. If you think I need more sources, I'll see if I can find more. X-Editor (talk) 07:39, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

The Oxford Handbook of Political Ideologies has some useful commentary.  Tewdar  07:59, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

A Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy 2nd Edition Volume I (isbn 978-1-4051-3653-2) pg 274 briefly discusses anarcho-capitalism, describing it as a form of anarchism.  Tewdar  08:02, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Here's what it says: More generally, different types of anarchism will offer different economic theories. Those with stronger individualistic component will tend to rely not merely upon market or allied exchange arrangements, but upon capitalistic organization; thus anarcho-capitalisms, logical end-points when libertarianism and economic rationalism are really driven to state minimalization. These types of anarchism, whose small home base is the USA, propose several, often ingenious uses of private and market means to substitute for social and state functions (Friedman, 1973; Rothbard, 1977).  Tewdar  14:34, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

@X-Editor It seems to me that the third source is an anthology of earlier writings. The book is titled "An Anthology of Liberty (1881–1908)". The second source is a tertiary work since it is not about anarchism but offers a broad view on ideologies. Also, I couldnt check the url since it redirects somewhere else, so may I ask, where did you find that specific url? Lastly, it seems that the edit do not add anything significant since an-cap being a form of anarchism is a fringe opinion. More relevant and mainstream, is that anarchism has strong individualistic and libertarian connotations but that is already included in the text of the article. PS-Dictionaries and Handbooks are tertiary sources by definition Cinadon36 08:08, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Heywood's Political Ideologies: An Introduction (9781352011838) describes anarchism: ANARCHISTS reject any form of economic control or management. However, while anarcho-communists endorse common ownership and small-scale self-management, anarcho-capitalists advocate an entirely unregulated market economy.  Tewdar  08:09, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Same book: Anarchists of all kinds have a preference for an economy in which free individuals manage their own affairs without the need for state ownership or regulation. However, this has allowed them to endorse a number of quite different economic systems, ranging from ‘anarcho-communism’ to ‘anarcho-capitalism’.  Tewdar  08:10, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Merely using the term anarcho-capitalism, is not an argument for supporting the sentence "anarchocapitalism is a form of anarchism". We need RS discussing the forms of anarchism, including anarcho-capitalism. The term is legit, but anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism per analysis of most RS. Ok, anyone can google-search and find various mentions in various books, but that is not enough. Cinadon36 08:14, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Heywood explicity describes anarcho-capitalism as a form of anarchism. I am not "doing a Google search", and I wrote a dissertation on anarcho-capitalism once. 😁👍  Tewdar  08:20, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

I cant locate were Heywood explicitly says that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism. Can you help pls?Cinadon36 08:28, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Same book again (pg 14) Anarchism, for instance, can be seen as either ultra-lef t -wing or ultra-right-wing, since it encompasses both anarcho-communist and anarcho-capitalist tendencies  Tewdar  08:18, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

That is not a statement supporting that an-cap is a form of Anarchism. Cinadon36 08:29, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

So, that's how it's going to be, eh? Hang on, I'll try and find you a non-tertiary source entirely about anarchism that isn't from dictionaries or handbooks that literally word-for-word says an-cap is a form of Anarchism. But I don't think this is a very reasonable set of criteria.  Tewdar  14:09, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Heywood, pg 104: Anarcho-capitalism: A form of anarchism that seeks to replace government with a system of unregulated market competition. - lol 😂👍  Tewdar  14:11, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Probably fails a few of your strange requirements, though.  Tewdar  14:13, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

I suppose The Oxford Handbook of Political Ideologies (pg 389) including anarcho-capitalism in the "individualist anarchism" section is not "explicit" enough for you..?  Tewdar  14:24, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Havent I mentioned that handbooks are tertiary sources? I ld prefer sources from a couple books dedicated to Anarchism, discussing in a certain extent that anarchocapitalism is a form of anarchism. Is that too much to ask? Cinadon36 17:08, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Is it too strange for you to ask a RS to directly support a sentence? Weird. Cinadon36 17:04, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

No, but some of your other requirements do not seem to be supported by policy. Anyway, I'll try and find some non-dictionary non-handbook sources exclusively on anarchism that describe anarcho-capitalism as a form of anarchism for you...I'm presuming you don't like the Heywood source, or "A Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy", because they are not exclusively about anarchism...  Tewdar  17:31, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Dont make it about me and you please. Take your time and find the sources and we can discuss later. Cinadon36 17:34, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, somehow I suspect this might become another 'never ruddy good enough' discussion. I feel the sources are already good enough to support 'a small minority of scholars describe anarcho-capitalism as a form of anarchism", or similar, and I think I'd rather waste my time doing something enjoyable, instead of finding more sources for this claim, which I'm not particularly keen on myself. All the best. 🙂  Tewdar  18:42, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

@Cinadon36: What policy or rule on WP says that we cannot use tertiary sources? In fact, WP:TERTIARY says the exact opposite. "anthology of earlier writings" How is that a problem? The meaning of Anarcho-capitalism hasn't changed since it was first coined and explained and you've failed to provide evidence that the meaning of anarchism has changed to disfavour anarcho-capitalism as a form of anarchism. "an-cap being a form of anarchism is a fringe opinion." That may be true, but that doesn't mean we cannot note that a minority think anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism. In fact, my edit to the article very clearly said that only "some" agree with this position and I did not change the sentence that said that "most" scholars disagree in my edit. I did not make the "fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is." per WP:FRINGE. X-Editor (talk) 21:42, 21 September 2022 (UTC) @Tewdar:, If you have any more sources that indicate anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism, please provide those sources here. X-Editor (talk) 21:42, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

tbh this looks like a massive time sink. The three sources provided are good enough to insert the text you wanted, at least in my opinion. Heywood is certainly a reliable source. The Oxford handbook is a reliable source. Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy is also a reliable source. I'm kind of bored digging up thirty sources and then hearing bizarre arguments about 'orders of magnitude' or discussions about whether a term is a proper noun or not. But maybe I'll take a look tomorrow if I have some time.  Tewdar  21:50, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Please do take a look tomorrow to see if you can find more sources. X-Editor (talk) 01:02, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

• I think the already-existing text in the etymology, terminology, and definition section is sufficient and accurate; saying that ...most scholars reject anarcho-capitalism obviously carries the implication that some exist who do not. I don't think there's enough who disagree to justify more than that or to include an extensive back-and-forth, especially given that most of the examples here so far are basically just passing mentions rather than full-throated disagreement. I also think that this comes up often enough that we might want to consider an RFC. (I was surprised we hadn't already had one.) --Aquillion (talk) 22:04, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

  "just passing mentions rather than full-throated disagreement" That's still disagreement that's been noted in articles about anarchism in reliable sources. "most scholars reject anarcho-capitalism obviously carries the implication that some exist who do not." sounds like a false dicotomy. How do you know the opinion of the minority scholars isn't "left-wing anarchism isn't real anarchism actually" instead, without clarifying that it is actually some scholars who simply think anarcho-capitalism is real anarchism. X-Editor (talk) 01:08, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Here WP:SCHOLARSHIP: " Prefer secondary sources – Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible." Hope that helps. Tertiary sources are not excluded, but weight much less than secondary ones. Cinadon36 06:42, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

WP:TERTIARY - Reliable tertiary sources can help provide broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources and may help evaluate due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other - Hope that helps. Also, please point to the policy, guideline, or essay that claims tertiary sources weight much less than secondary ones.  Tewdar  08:10, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

When articles rely on secondary sources, it means that tertiary do not weight that much, it is common sense. But hey, I thought you were to search for secondary sources today? Cinadon36 08:16, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

@Cinadon36 I'm also curious as to whether or not @Tewdar has done any research that could prove his point. X-Editor (talk) 22:44, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I dont get your point, but in any case, please restrain from edit warring.[1]. An-cap is due covered in the article, no need for pushing more info. Cinadon36 07:14, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

@Cinadon36 How is it POV pushing to insert a paragraph simply explaining an ancap critque? IMO, POV pushing is horrible argument because everyone has a POV to push. "no need for pushing more info." Why should more info not be included? "please restrain from edit warring." The edit you link to clearly shows that I did not readd any content you previously reverted. Maybe we could take this to WP:NPOV/N? X-Editor (talk) 07:25, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

More info is undue weight. This article is not about ancap. It is about anarchism. Anarchism received a lot of criticism from liberals, communists, centrists etc. (There is a relevant section to criticism where secondary- not primary sources should be used) Ancap critique to anarchism does not weight that much (the fact that you cited a primary source is indicative). Also, re-adding content about AnCap, even if the words differ, is still edit warring. Dont try to game the system. Cinadon36 07:40, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Lets wait a couple of days for more users to comment and then take it to WP:NPOV/N or wherever you wish. No problem. But please restrain from editing the article regarding ancap before consensus.Cinadon36 07:42, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Was this where the discussion ended? From the looks of this talk page the consensus appears that ancap is anarchism. Not to mention the fact that dismissing an ideology from a category entirely despite it borrowing the name of that category is dubious at best. Pernicious.Editor (talk) 02:07, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

No, discussion didnt end "here", also, no consensus was reached. Cinadon36 09:34, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I thought your complaint was regarding the specific contribution I made to the "Etymology, terminology, and definition" section and not about adding ancap in general. Regardless, I'm done with this discussion. X-Editor (talk) 20:04, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

In this talk page archives and others, it has been repeatedly established that "anarchism" is scoped here to refer to the libertarian socialist tradition, per its history, per the sources. Yes, if you modify the definition enough, many other traditions could also be called anarchism, but that's not how the major sources in the field define it. That much is not under debate, but if you would prefer a formal, neutrally worded RfC, we can do that as well.

As for edit warring over the latest addition, LewRockwell.com has been repeatedly established as an unreliable source at WP:RSN and if Rothbard's critique needs any more explication in this article, it should be easy to furnish a reliable, secondary source that shows the noteworthiness of the claim. The problems of the "Criticism" section serving as an unfocused catch-all have also been repeatedly established on this talk page. czar 15:23, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Suggestion to change the complete misunderstanding of the citation in Gender, sexuality, and free love section.

The second citation in the second paragraph of Anarchism#Gender,_sexuality,_and_free_love misunderstands the source it cites from completely and is VERY problematic. The current version says:

Sexual violence was a concern for anarchists such as Benjamin Tucker, who opposed age of consent laws, believing they would benefit predatory men.

I quote Lucy 2020, pp. 177-178:

Sexual violence has long been a concern in anarchism, ... While some early individualist manarchists may have used anarchist arguments to undermine attempts to protect women from sexual violence, such as Benjamin Tucker's 1888 use of anarchism to oppose age of consent laws that would inevitably benefit predatory men, there is consensus that an anarchis ethos of sexuality means that it ought to be free of coercion, ...

This passage says that Tucker used anarchist arguments to undermine protection of women from sexual violence by opposing age of consent laws, and that this will benefit predatory men, NOT that the age of consent laws will benefit predatory men.

I suggest changing this to:

Sexual violence was a concern for anarchists, but some like Benjamin Tucker opposed age of consent laws, which would benefit predatory men.

--Thas (talk) 16:01, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't think your reading is unambiguous? Even with your explanation I could reasonably read it either way.

We probably should just remove the statement entirely if it can't be sourced unambiguously. Loki (talk) 16:17, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

That's fine by me, or remove the ambiguous part and just say:

Sexual violence was a concern for anarchists, but some like Benjamin Tucker opposed age of consent laws.

--Thas (talk) 05:12, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

What I meant by removing the ambiguous part is that the source may be ambiguous regarding the predatory men part, but it is unambiguously providing a counter example to the consensus. "While some early individualist manarchists may have used anarchist arguments to undermine attempts to protect women from sexual violence such as Benjamin Tucker ..." vs "there is consensus that an anarchist ethos of sexuality means that it ought to be free of coercion, ..." --Thas (talk) 05:20, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

"most scholars disagree ANCAP is a form of anarchism"

Having Most instead of Some is some of the most blatant propaganda I have ever seen on this website 2607:FEA8:2CDC:96D0:79FF:BFB5:B693:4283 (talk) 14:44, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Recent mergers

I noticed Hoponpop69 merged the articles on anarchism without adjectives and expropriative anarchism into this article.[2] I have to object to the manner in which this merge was done, as they have just shoved the text from these two articles into the "Branches" section, without thought for how that fits with the rest of the text. This has resulted in the citations in the article losing their consistency, as most of the citations in the merged text are not Sfn formatted and many aren't even particularly reliable. It has also completely thrown off the weight of the section, giving the same amount of weight to these two tendencies as the entire sphere of classical and post-classical anarchisms.

I've reverted these changes (both the mergers and the deletions),[3] as I don't think they were constructive to this article and have in fact made the article worse. I'm not sure why there wasn't so much as a talk page message left, let alone an actual merge discussion, that preceded this move. This could have been done with greater care and more prior consensus building. -- Grnrchst (talk) 09:17, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Grnrchst, my first impression is that your revert is correct. Esp "Expropriative anarchism" the citations were far from RS. Cinadon36 20:39, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

nietzsche and anarchism

Hi @Grnrchst:, I am sorry I have reverted your last edit [4] but I feel that Nietzsche's influence on anarchism is well studied and should be mentioned at the article. In the article, we should strive to tell the various histories that shaped the idea and political movement of Anarchism. Nietzsche criticized hierarchical institutions and celebrated freedom and autonomy. Anyways, I am open to discussion. Cheers, Cinadon36 22:27, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

@Cinadon36: Problem is that neither of these sources actually discuss Nietzsche's connection to anarchism. Bookchin doesn't even talk about Nietzsche in any detail, he just quotes his phrase "transvaluation of values" in passing. I'd be open to including a section about Nietzsche, but that needs to come from reliable sources that verifiably discuss the subject, not a synthesis of primary sources, which is what that paragraph is. -- Grnrchst (talk) 07:13, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the removal. If the mention of Nietzsche was in context of why a general reader needs to understand his connection as part of an overview of the larger topic, then perhaps I could see it, but that's not the current text. It reads as a non sequitur. czar 11:43, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

@Grnrchst and Czar: Ok guys, you have convinced me. "I'd be open to including a section about Nietzsche, but that needs to come from reliable sources that verifiably discuss the subject, not a synthesis of primary sources, which is what that paragraph is". I 'll dive into my resources during weekend and I will let you know if I find anything worth mentioning. Cinadon36 14:47, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

A good starting point would be with Bataille's work on Nietzsche such as "Nietzsche and the fascists" or the monograph On Nietzsche as a starting point. Simonm223 (talk) 15:15, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

anarcho-capitalism

an editor has made an edit that is not actually supported by the sources they provided, their sources do have a problem of neutrality in themselves, and the editor has made an accusation of gatekeeping.

clearly, this edit should have been discussed before it was made, given the maturity of the article and its "good article" rating.

i'll be flagging this for review as well.

commie (talk) 21:37, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

• User:BigMouthCommie, I think you need to take it easy: this is not a battleground, or at least it's not supposed to be. User:X-Editor, I don't quite understand why anarcho-capitalism needs to be mentioned in the lead, with a discussion and a half dozen or more sources. The article is fat enough already. Drmies (talk) 22:18, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I apologize for being a bit too aggressive with the gatekeeping accusation, but my edit does not add anything about anarcho-capitalism to the lede. My edit simply adds that there are anarcho-capitalists who argue that their ideology is real anarchism. If the sources in question to not back up that claim, then I apologize for adding the content to the article in the first place. X-Editor (talk) 22:22, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I looked at the sources and all of them argue that anarcho-captialism is a form of anarchism.

"In other words, we believe that capitalism is the fullest expression of anarchism, and anarchism is the fullest expression of capitalism. Not only are they compatible, but you can't really have one without the other. True anarchism will be capitalism, and true capitalism will be anarchism."[5]

"Usually considered to be an extreme left-wing ideology, anarchism has always included a significant strain of radical individualism, from the hyperrationalism of Godwin, to the egoism of Stirner, to the libertarians and anarcho-capitalists of today" The Individualist Anarchists: An Anthology of Liberty

"There are two main varieties of anarchism: the socialist variety (aka "social anarchism" or "anarcho-socialism") and the capitalist variety ("anarcho-capitalism")"[6]

I can't copy paste for the last source, but you can find the mention of ancap in the second paragraph. [7] X-Editor (talk) 22:29, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

@X-Editor individualist anarchism is not synonymous with capitalist anarchism commie (talk) 22:33, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

@BigMouthCommie While that's true, all of the sources that I've provided argue in some way that anarcho-captialism is a form of anarchism, showing that your claim that the sources don't say that is wrong. My proposed addition of "although others, including anarcho-capitalists and right-libertarians, have argued that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism." lines up with what the sources say. X-Editor (talk) 22:44, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Do we have any sources from people who aren't self-identified right-libertarians or anarcho-capitalists claiming that anarcho-capitalism is an anarchist tendency? Because if we only have self-identification then, honestly, WP:FRINGE might be apropos. Simonm223 (talk) 15:55, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

The self-identification argument applies to many of the sources used to back up the claim that anarcho-capitalism is not real anarchism as well, since several of these sources are from anarcho-socialists. Two of the sources provided above are not written by anarcho-capitalists, including "The Individualist Anarchists: An Anthology of Liberty" and the "Heywood Political Ideologies" source. I'm not sure why and when WP editors suddenly decided that ancaps aren't real anarchists and considering there are several sources that go against this claim, I might bring the issue to the NPOV noticeboard. X-Editor (talk) 03:39, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

The Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy also considers ancaps to be anarchists: "In some cases anarchism is related to libertarianism (or what is sometimes called “anarcho-capitalism”)."[8] X-Editor (talk) 03:44, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Then again, I might have to do more digging into the sources in order to figure out if there are enough that accept anarcho-capitalism as anarchism in order for this to be a major issue. X-Editor (talk) 04:03, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

The Stanford Encyclopedia entry seems to be leaning on the following for its description of Anarcho-Capitalism: Casey, Gerard, 2012, Libertarian Anarchy: Against the State, London: Bloomsbury. So I'd suggest that the reliability of that text would be the basis for determining whether this should be treated per WP:FRINGE Simonm223 (talk) 12:52, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

I'd consider him to be a marginal case: Gerard Casey (philosopher) - he certainly meets the self-description clause of WP:FRINGE but I'm not sure how well received his poli-sci work has been by the academic community. Simonm223 (talk) 12:55, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm having trouble finding information on his h-index or any similar measures of frequency of citation. Anyone able to confirm? I personally would consider somebody associated with the Mises institute a fringe source for discussing leftist politics but reasonable minds may disagree. Simonm223 (talk) 13:02, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Isn't Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy RS? It doesn't seem necessary to track down what it "seems to be leaning on."--MattMauler (talk) 15:40, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm kind of iffy on using the Stanford Encyclopedia for claims that anarchism includes capitalists when those inclusions all point to a sole source affiliated with the Mises institute or to no source at all. I'm not saying that the Stanford Encyclopedia is not an RS. I'm saying it is not a sufficient RS in this case. Simonm223 (talk) 15:42, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Random false statement

"Humans have lived in societies without formal hierarchies long before the establishment of states"

This statement is untrue. There has never been a non-hierarchical society. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.38.189.222 (talk) 17:33, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

it doesn't say nonhierarchical. it says without formal hierarchy. 2601:985:4101:C9E0:9574:17FC:1D08:8E06 (talk) 22:10, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Suggest the IP read Society Against the State which is a key Anthropological text for Anarchist perspectives on non-state culture. Also The Dawn of Everything for something a bit less mid-20th century French academic. Simonm223 (talk) 12:57, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Both text overly romanticize, stateless society’s as if living in large numbers means anything to support modern anarchism considering their weren’t even 1/10th of the population around today. It also doesn’t take into account that people are individuals who are allowed to make choices, we’ll never know what the people them selves thought of their society. B ThatNerdyGuy (talk) 04:39, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

It is a sentence that reflects article content that is based on RS. If anyone doubts the sentence, they should bring a RS of at least equal validity. Cinadon36 16:00, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean by "people around today"? Around to what and where? And how do you know those books romanticize their topic? 95.246.236.63 (talk) 17:57, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Far right anarchist

The topic fails to address the anarchist movement of the far right that is created after WWII and Nazi defeat. Libertarian, fascist, anarchist are now wide spread in both the US and Europe. 69.54.142.165 (talk) 17:25, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

No source, sounds completely inaccurate and false. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 18:11, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

@69.54.142.165 can you provide a source? commie (talk) 02:03, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Due to most far right movements being hierarchical in form, function, or ideology, it would be unusual to say that here are far right anarchist groups. A list of such groups, literature related to such groups, or other acceptable sources about such groups would be beneficial to understanding what it is you are referring to. Yeastmobile (talk) 20:56, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Removed a recently added sentence.

Thanks for your recent edit, I am sorry I had to remove the sentence you added today

Generally, anarchist groups state that they represent a vision of a future "society [that] runs without coercive authority from government, religion, education and industry".

References

The reasons I did it are as follows: A) I am uncertain about the reliability of the source. Furthermore, it's not a primary or secondary source discussing the topic but rather a tertiary source on world history. Additionally, I am unfamiliar with the reputation of the publishing house, Parragon. B) The particular sentence duplicates information that has already been covered elsewhere in the article.

I am open to discussion though, so let me know what your objections might be! Cinadon36 22:07, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Is the image of the painting correct?

The text below the final image in the article is "Les chataigniers a Osny (1888) by anarchist painter Camille Pissarro is a notable example of blending anarchism and the arts". However I suspect the image is of an Apple Harvest--especially given the filename: Apple_Harvest_by_Camille_Pissarro.jpg.

The best confirmation I could find about the title of the current image was a page from a past exhibition at the Guggenheim — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgwalker (talk • contribs) 19:56, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Instead of the current image, I suspect that the correct image (already hosted on Wikimedia) can be found at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pissarro,_Camille,_Les_chataigniers_a_Osny_(The_Chestnut_Trees_at_Osny),_1873.jpg

There would then be an issue with the dates. It appears the date in the text (1888) does not match that of the artwork (1873).

--Mgwalker (talk) 19:48, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Generalisation about Palaeolithic societies’ method of organisation

Citation needed for: “Before the creation of towns and cities, established authority did not exist.” Archeological discoveries from all over the world, especially of nomadic tribes, prove otherwise. 24.86.184.21 (talk) 06:58, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

There is citation at end of the next sentence. Cinadon36 09:20, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Intro sentence not in line with supporting source

I suggest revising the intro sentence to replace "skeptical of all justifications for authority" by "skeptical of justifications for hierarchical authority associated with the nation state" to correct a widely held misconception and to be in line with the quoted source (which states just that "it is not government as such that they find objectionable, but the hierarchical forms of government associated with the nation state").

Specifically, anarchy does not seek to have no government or ruler, it seeks to not have a ruling class with potentially different interests to those over which it rules. This reading is specifically supported by the quoted source at the end of the intro sentence [1].— Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.178.202.229 (talk) 19:54, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Anarchy is against all forms of hierarchy, therefore against all forms of ruling, too. DefendingFree (talk) 14:46, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: The first part of the sentence seems to summarize the article and not be based on that source. The source says anarchists are against the nation state, not that it is the only form of authority they are skeptical of. HansVonStuttgart (talk) 07:44, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @HansVonStuttgart, my thoughts exactly. Cinadon36 13:02, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Claim: "Humans have lived in societies without formal hierarchies long before the establishment of states, realms, or empires."

I put a citation needed tag on the above claim. From layperson study of anthropology, I don't believe this is generally true. I believe even the earliest hunter-gather societies had anywhere from simple to complex hierarchies that often involved seniority, chiefs, councils, etc. From my recent study of the Shawnees at the time they were driven off the land by the British and U.S., they certainly had a fairly complex hierarchy.--David Tornheim (talk) 05:59, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Shawnee society in the 1800s, at a time when it was being subjected to a genocidal onslaught by European settler society, should not, in any way, be construed as typical of "early hunter gatherer societies". On the contrary, it was, like that of many other indigenous American cultures at one point or another in the last 500 years, a society in its death throes, a society undergoing its own apocalypse.

...That said I think the claim is problematic and needs revision. Also, we shouldn't forget that hunter gatherer societies exhibit differences. Not all hunter gatherer societies are/were equally hierarchical or un-hierarchical, though that also shouldn't stop us from making general statements where appropriate and backed by evidence. Brusquedandelion (talk) 12:16, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

@Brusquedandelion: Thanks for your comment. I agree about Shawnee's--definitely not hunter-gatherers. When I wrote that, I meant them as an example "before the establishment of states, realms, or empires." I also agree with rest of what you said. I made a suggestion below. And Cinadon36 agrees. I also added this comment about why I would prefer someone else make the change. What do you think? --David Tornheim (talk) 23:43, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

After further research, I discovered this sentence morphed from "The timeline of anarchism stretches back to prehistory when people lived in anarchistic societies long before the establishment of formal states, kingdoms or empires." History_of_anarchism#Prehistoric_and_ancient_era says: "Many scholars of anarchism, including anthropologists Harold Barclay and David Graeber, claim that some form of anarchy dates back to prehistory." But that's the view of scholars of anarchism--not necessarily the view of all scholars of anthropology. I don't know if it is even true that "many" scholars of anarchism say this, or just the two that are cited. --David Tornheim (talk) 06:25, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I see that PBZE noticed the problem in 23-Novemeber-2021. The statement was originally added 12-Feb-2020 by Cinadon36. There was also another version that existed in May 2021 that said, "...when humans arguably lived in anarchic societies..." (emphasis added). --David Tornheim (talk) 07:08, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I interpret the current claim as very weak -- simply that such societies have existed before states formed. Not that they necessarily were the norm. But I do agree that a source is needed. Ornilnas (talk) 13:43, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

A source is not needed in the lede (See WP:LEDE). Someone might dispute the claim made further below, in the main body of the article. Lede has to summarize the main body. I have reverted the tag[9], until a consensus is reached. Cinadon36 17:21, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

If it summarizes the body, it's probably referring to: "Before the creation of towns and cities, established authority did not exist." This refers to a source with the following quote: "For tens of thousands of years, human beings lived in societies without any formal political institutions or constituted authority. About 6,000 years ago, around the time of the so-called dawn of civilization, the first societies with formal structures of hierarchy, command, control and obedience began to develop." I guess the key word is "formal"? But then I'm not sure the current sentence gives the right impression. That is, while hierarchies existed, they just weren't "formal", because formalizing things requires states?Ornilnas (talk) 06:13, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

As I get it, being “formal” is significant. Some anarchists accept non-formal hierarchies. Their objection is with formal hierarchy, that covers every domain. Being the best player in your soccer team, will give you some leadership characteristics that might be interpreted as signs of hierarchy, when playing football. That is acceptable by some anarchists (as I get it).In any case, if the cited RS is misinterpreted, we should phase it rather than add a CN tag in the lede. Cinadon36 18:12, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

@Cinadon36: Of course, there is the definition of "formal" that anarchists give, and the definition of "formal" that is used by anthropologists, archaeologists, historians, and those who study oral histories, who I identify as the kind of experts in what pre-historic societies might have been like. If we are going to use the definition given by anarchists, I believe it should be identified as such. My sense from reading the sentence in the WP:LEDE is that it is a claim and belief of anarchists rather than a widely accepted view of power structures by experts in the key fields. That said, as I mention below, I did find academic support for the claim that the smallest hunter-gathers bands are believed to have been egalitarian, in general. But the literature I reviewed did not support the claim that a town, city, state, realm or empire was an absolute requirement to have a simple or complex hierarchy or power structure.

At this time, I would rather that sentence be attributed to an anarchist's view of history -or- be rewritten to be consistent with the experts I mention above. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:19, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I worry that the source is doing more lifting than it can handle. Given the scarcity of information on the way in which any humans interacted socially ten thousand years ago I feel like a definitive claim as to whether they had any formal hierarchies falls under WP:EXTRAORDINARY territory. XeCyranium (talk) 01:18, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

XeCyranium I agree. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:20, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

@Ornilnas: Yes, I found that text in the body after looking again more carefully and was going to comment on how accurate it appears, but felt I should do more research first. I reached out to friend who has a PhD in archeology. In Google Scholar, I did find statements along the lines of "Humans are thought to have evolved in small, egalitarian hunter-gatherer societies." [10], but I also got mixed messages on just how certain various organizational claims are, e.g. [11]. And FYI, our prehistoric article says something similar at Prehistory#Palaeolithic: "Hunter-gatherer societies tended to be very small and egalitarian, although hunter-gatherer societies with abundant resources or advanced food-storage techniques sometimes developed sedentary lifestyles with complex social structures such as chiefdoms, and social stratification." [sources omitted]. Yet, "The Chumash of the Santa Barbara Channel region were among the most economically and politically complex hunter–gatherer cultures of the New World." [12] Hopefully my friend will get back to me.

Another source [13]:

All cultures have one element in common: they somehow exercise social control over their own members. Even small foraging societies such as the Ju/’hoansi or !Kung, the Inuit (or “Eskimo”) of the Arctic north, and aboriginal Australians experience disputes that must be contained if inter-personal conflicts are to be reduced or eliminated. As societies become more complex, means of control increase accordingly. The study of these means of control are the subject of political anthropology.

Suggestion: Based on what I have learned so far, I would suggest that material in the body and, especially, the sentence in the WP:LEDE be changed to be more consistent with the kind of claims found in some of the sources mentioned in the above paragraph, e.g. "Humans are thought to have evolved in small, egalitarian hunter-gatherer societies." The most troubling aspect of the sentence in the WP:LEDE to me is the suggestion that a hierarchy of power does not show up until the development of states, realms or empires. (Or in the quote you gave, that it requires towns or cities.) That is *not* what the literature I reviewed in the above paragraph says. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:36, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree with your suggestion David Tornheim. It is an improvement. Thanks for digging at this. Cinadon36 20:17, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

@Cinadon36: Thanks. I considered trying to implement it, but I would rather another editor with either expertise in the appropriate field (which I now believe is Political anthropology) and/or more familiarity with the best WP:RS would change the text of the WP:BODY and make sure the WP:LEDE correctly summarizes it.

I'm slightly more in favor of the statement to reflect how anarchists use the information (to argue that anarchism existed in hunter-gather societies) rather than a statement of fact independent of anarchists, which would suffer from WP:SYNTH. However, the advantage of an independent statement about how egalitarian hunter-gatherers were is that it would be less biased by wishful rosy retrospective and projective thinking by anarchists who would likely want it to be more true than independent experts have found. (I'm not suggesting that experts and scientists in any field are unbiased, including science as explained by postmodernist scholars. I believe it has always been a big challenge in both anthropology and archaeology.[14]) --David Tornheim (talk) 23:40, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

parts of speech

The etymological origin of anarchism is from the Ancient Greek anarkhia (ἀναρχία), meaning "without a ruler", composed of the prefix an- ("without") and the word arkhos ("leader" or "ruler").

Here a noun is defined as an adjective. How best to make it a noun? "Rulerlessness"? "the state of having no ruler"? —Tamfang (talk) 01:55, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

absence of rulers —Tamfang (talk) 16:47, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Additions to section on Russia and Ukraine

Previously this article's history section had two sentences covering the entire history of the anarchist movement in Russia and Ukraine during the revolution and civil war. Recently, a user has repeatedly added in information about a single (relatively minor) event in this history that I personally think gives undue weight to it.[15][16] As I don't want this to become an edit war, would anyone else here care to provide a third opinion on the matter? --Grnrchst (talk) 13:28, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

splng

I still think the last ‹v› in kontrrazvednivks implausible. —Tamfang (talk) 19:48, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

@Tamfang: It was a typo, thanks for pointing out. Fixed in the original article. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:25, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Criticism of Anarchism

In my humble opinion, a separate page is needed for this topic. Hew Folly (talk) 19:02, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

@Hew Folly: Are there sources that justify a separate article? Per WP:CRITICISM, dedicated Criticism articles have a tendency to be point-of-view forks if they're not based in reliable sources that are specifically about the criticism of the subject. Do you know of significant coverage of criticism of anarchism in reliable sources? Grnrchst (talk) 08:21, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I haven't noticed particularly any significant coverage in reliable sources, but the current section may be expanded with more info, if the editors believe there is something missing, or have found have any sources that would be of use here. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 20:45, 29 July 2024 (UTC)