Talk:Individualist anarchism/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

individualism in europe and elsewere

I think the problem of this exageration of the american experience of anarchism is not only something that happens in this article but perhaps in many english wikipedia articles about anarchism. but anyway as far as this article i suggest we begin an investigation around important european individualists such as William Godwin, Max Stirner, Han Ryner, Émile Armand and Federico Urales and books such as EL ANARQUISMO INDIVIDUALISTA EN ESPAÑA (1923-1938). Something to think about is for example the fact that wikipedia in english doesnt have an article about Han Ryner (author of Le crime d'obéir (1900) and Petit manuel individualiste (1903)while german, spanish, and esperanto wikipedias do. It is also very likely that these people had more influence in europe and latin america and elsewhere than people like benjamin tucker and spooner.

And so lets consider two sentences in the current version of this article "While individualist anarchists include William Godwin and Max Stirner,[18][19] most individualist anarchists are market anarchists in the American tradition,[dubious – discuss]"

I dont think this can be proven and so this sentence should be erased since those who support it havent been able to provide support for this. but anyway lets consider three things. 1. the importance of Max Stiner in all anarchism is most likely the biggest in all anarchism from an individualist after godwin and proudhon. he has influenced pro market individualists and insurrectionary individualistas as well as Kropotkin. For example the only recent latin american individualist anarchist publication that i know of is El Unico from argentina and is it primarely stirnerist and even adheres in one article to socialism. and now lets not even talk about "anarcho"capitalism which nothing shows that it is not just an american right wing phenomenon. 2. individualism many times has expressed itself as communist insurrectionary ilegalism. 3. mutualism and market anarchism are almost unheard of in european and latin american anarchist circles (or elsewhere)today. stirnerism and similar positions in these places do have some presence in insurrectionary authors such as Alfredo Maria Bonnano. It is funny to hear "anarcho" capitalist Wendy mcelroy complain about anarchists black blocks in seattle 1999 for not being "american" Anarchism: Two KindsShe says "Left anarchism (socialist and communist) are foreign imports that flooded the country like cheap goods during the 19th century. Many of these anarchists (especially those escaping Russia) introduced lamentable traits into American radicalism. They believed in "propaganda by deed": that is, the use of violence as a political weapon and a form of political expression." What is useful from this "insight" for the english wikipedia article of anarchist individualism is that in the USA market anarchism might have more notoriety and force but that elsewhere it is much smaller and in some places it might never have existed at all.

"which advocate individual ownership of the produce of labor and a market economy where this property may be bought and sold. However, this form of individualist anarchism is not exclusive to the Americas;" I dont think anyone can support that tucker, spooner and the rest of the USA individualists had any influence south of the Rio Grande. Stirner and mostly proudhon did have some minimal influence.

" it is also found in the philosophy of other radical individualists, in places such as England and France—though almost all were influenced by the early American individualists.[citation needed]" i dont know if this can be supported either. i think this also should be considered for being erased.

A mayor conclusion to be extracted from all this is that this article might need to reduce the "american tradition" part. perhaps someone could create the separate article "anarchist individualism in the USA". --Eduen (talk) 05:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The introduction is biased towards market anarchism. Stirnerism rejects the idea of private property and so has influenced many anarcho communists and ended up influencing Benjamin Tucker and his group. --Eduen (talk) 07:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Good show old sport. Zazaban (talk) 07:19, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Skomorokh approves.

I say, capital suggestion old boy. Pip-pip, Skomorokh 10:04, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Max Stirner himself asserted that an individual with the power to control property could use it - hardly rejection of private property. But he did write obscurely. Maybe what you call "Stirnerism" is different from what Max thought. I suggest that you start an article on Stirnerism so we know what you mean. The fact that Stirner fans like Tucker believed in private property and private ownership of the means of production tells me that his take on Stirnerism was quite different from your European anarcho-commies'. Also, I question whether Stirner was more influential than Josiah Warren or Lysander Spooner. Maybe in Europe, but not in America. PhilLiberty (talk) 16:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Stirner definitely supported private property. He just didn't have a "just theory" of property. If you're strong enough to hold on to something, and take from someone else, you're the owner. What belongs to whom will be decided in the "war of all against all." To allow morality to get in the way of deciding what belongs to you is to sacrifice your self interest for illusory higher causes. The more accurate translation of his book the Ego and His Own is "The Only Individual and His Property." Jadabocho (talk) 19:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

There have been plenty of people who disagree with property who have been influenced by Stirner. Zazaban (talk) 20:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Influenced, sure, but not accepting of his whole philosophy. His philosophy is indisputably supportive of individual control, as as much as the individual has in his power to control. Certainly if any communists were "influenced" by him they reject him for the most part, because he was adamantly opposed to communism seeing communalization of things as placing the individual at the mercy of the collective. Jadabocho (talk) 20:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

"Also, I question whether Stirner was more influential than Josiah Warren or Lysander Spooner. Maybe in Europe, but not in America"

Well i hope you are not talking about the American continent which goes from alaska and canada and ends up in argentina and chile. i know it is common in the USA to call their country "america". So if you are talking about the american continent well. stirner did have some minor influence in latin america. in latin american anarchist circles sometimes you hear about him, but Tucker and his other american contemporaries theres nothing. so latin american anarchism goes in the same lines as europe and it could be said this is the case in other continents where anarchism has arrived. it is because of this that Wendy mcelroy sees as a bad thing that european "commie" anarchism arrived to the USA and almost made individualist market anarchism dissapear in the USA. so this is the reason why is article is so defective because of its excessive attention to the USA.

and speaking about Stirner and his view of property. well. stirner justified stealing and all the disrespect to property or any other such metaphysical notions and said since property only justifies itself through force and alledgiance to this metaphysical notion he says you can make anything your property, thus you can steal if ouy want. this is why stirner influenced illegalism which advocated stealing and expropiating the rich and this could be individual or collective actions. french individualist anarchism was mostly illegalism. in europe and elsewhere in anarchism theres no respect for the liberal notion of natural rights which the very few american market anarchists adhere to and looks like in the end benjamin tucker also abandoned that liberal notion and embraced egoism. illegalism as you can see in the article individual reclamation based itself on stirner and proudhon in the view that taking away the property of the rich was fine adn with proudhon and others as you can see in the Severino Di Giovanni essay El derecho al ocio y a la expropiación individual where stealing and expropiating the rich, no matter if an individual or a collective, it is justified because the bourgoisie concentrates wealth and so this redistributive measure must be taken (this is supported with the proudhon notion that "property is theft"). with stirner the case is that it depends only if you want to respect property or if the owner has good enough security (whether state or private) because if these two things dont happen you can just go ahead and fulfill your desire. natural rights belivers will only moralize about saying these people are thiefs and dont want to work. stirnerists will say that indeed this is the case, they dont follow morality.

stirner not being clear on property and not having a "just theory" is not an excuse for him not being in line with liberal natural rights beliefs.

so stirner talks all the time in the ego and his own about property and making things your property if you want. he says the world can be your property. well speaking in that language you can say that this thief saw a drunk yuppie lonely in the street and went and took the yuppies money and then made this money his property. But also you can make it more in line with kropotkin and collective expropiation and say that poor people aligned with the MST landless movement in Brazil went in high numbers to that landowners land and occupied it and then that land later wasnt that landowners property anymore and was now that property of that mst collective.

he says in one line:"so it follows from this, property can´t be, and should not be abolished; the point is to take it away from the ghosts in order to make it my property. Then this ilusion will banish that I can´t take away all that i might want." "The plebs can only be helped with egoism: this help should give it to itsfelf, and this is what it will do."

"If men arrive to losing respect to property, each individual will have their proerty, the same as all slaves make themselves freemen from the day they stop respecting their Lord as their Lord. Then these will establish alliances between individuals, asociations of egoists, that will have a multiplier effect of the means of action of each and affirm their property, that will always be menaced." this of course in working class and lumpenproletariat hands went to become illegalism o as you might call it french, swiss, and italian class struggle individualist anarchism. so if you dont believe in private property or you disrespect it you happen to be in accord with communism which wants to abolish it. --Eduen (talk) 05:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

right now the article says"Individualist anarchism is seen by many as one of two main categories or wings of anarchism – the other has been called social,[4] socialist,[5] collectivist,[6] or communitarian[7] anarchism.[α]" well, it happens that open individualist anarchism is a minority within anarchism most anarchism has been organized anarchism, most anarchist publications, books and militants anarchists are nad have been communist and socialist. seems to me this division is too essentialist, simplistic, etc. theres individualists who adhered to communism, small peasant towns with small familiar holdings have traditionally been very communal, tucker associated his ideas with socialism, even max stirner wants collective units like "associations of egoists" etc.--Eduen (talk) 05:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Tucker supported private property, i.e. private ownership of the means of production. Thus he was a capitalist in the modern sense of the word. He called himself a socialist, but he used the term in the 19th century sense. By the modern definition (supporting collective ownership of the means of production), he would not be one. Stirner wrote that egoists could grab all property they had the might to keep. He was for private property and amoralism. He saw the possibility of a union of egoists; he definitely did not endorse collective ownership. So he, too, was a capitalist. But he wrote so obscurely that all sorts have claimed him. BTW he was not an anarchist, and explicitly denied being one. PhilLiberty (talk) 05:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

"Tucker supported private property, i.e. private ownership of the means of production. Thus he was a capitalist in the modern sense of the word." well i dont knwo what you mean by "modern sense of the word" but even marxists distinguish between owners of things and individual people such as artisans or people who sell what they themselves raised in their lands from people who have salaried workers. this is the difference between small commerce and non capitalist markets and capitalist markets. this is why benjamin tucker was anticapitalist and adhered to socialism. if you didnt know theres a thing called market socialism. the reason it is not capitalist is because it is composed of cooperatives without owners and people who work for them and that are not owners. tucker was a mutualist in the line of proudhon. proudhon was no communist but he wasnt a capitalist either.--Eduen (talk) 05:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem I see with you having a section called "Europe" under Movements, is that there is no movement called European individualist anarchism. Sure there are individualist anarchists in Europe, but what movements are they a part of? If they're not then they should be in the "People" section. Jadabocho (talk) 02:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

In a technical and non-ideological lenguage, cooperatives market system is a workers or cooperative capitalism. The term "market socialism" is ussually applied to left-statism with market reforms and or to leftist state-descentralists (a descentralized state is not the same than anarchy), buth it usually implies the existence of an state. In our times, 99% times when you says socialism is understood like "socialization of "property" that implies a strong state. Neither a cooperative system is a synonimous of anarchism (even a interventionist state can promote a cooperative market, but not free-market).

I believe is more exactly define mutualism -if that is what you like- to a cooperative form of market anarchism, and market anarchism (ancap, agorist, mutualis, voluntarist, paleolib, etc) is the principal economical form of individualist anarchism. --Nihilo 01 (talk) 18:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Stirner supported private property

Eduen claims, "Stirnerism rejects the idea of private property." I say Stirner supported private property. Let the reader decide. Here are some quotes from Stirner:

The Individual and His Property, Max Stirner (also translated as "The Ego and His Own")

Are men to give you this "freedom" -- are they to permit it to you? You do not hope that from their philanthropy, because you know they all think like you: each is the nearest to himself! How, therefore, do you mean to come to the enjoyment of those foods and beds? Evidently not otherwise than in making them your property! If you think it over rightly, you do not want the freedom to have all these fine things, for with this freedom you still do not have them; you want really to have them, to call them yours and possess them as your property. - p. 203-4

I secure my freedom with regard to the world in the degree that I make the world my own, i.e. "gain it and take possession of it" for myself, by whatever might, by that of persuasion, of petition, of categorical demand, yes, even by hypocrisy, cheating, etc.; for the means that I use for it are determined by what I am. - p. 217

But am I not still unrestrained from declaring myself the entitler, the mediator, and the own self? Then it runs thus: My power is my property. My power gives me property. My power am I myself, and through it am I my property. - p. 242

Enjoy, then you are entitled to enjoyment. But, if you have labored and let the enjoyment be taken from you, then -- "it serves you right."

    If you take the enjoyment, it is your right; if, on the contrary, you only pine for it without laying hands on it, it remains as before, a, "well-earned right" of those who are privileged for enjoyment. It is their right, as by laying hands on it would become your right.
    The conflict over the "right of property" wavers in vehement commotion. The Communists affirm* that "the earth belongs rightfully to him who tills it, and its products to those who bring them out." I think it belongs to him who knows how to take it, or who does not let it be taken from him, does not let himself be deprived of it. If he appropriates it, then not only the earth, but the right to it too, belongs to him. This is egoistic right: i.e. it is right for me, therefore it is right. - p. 249

PhilLiberty (talk) 06:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

"I think it belongs to him who knows how to take it, or who does not let it be taken from him, does not let himself be deprived of it. If he appropriates it, then not only the earth, but the right to it too, belongs to him. This is egoistic right: i.e. it is right for me, therefore it is right."

Yes. the illegalists went in accord with this and stole from the rich (individual reclamation). Today in spain and some parts of latin american anarchists and other anticapitalists promote yomango in order to let everyone enjoy themselves by shoplifting.--Eduen (talk) 09:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

stirner disrespect for liberal natural rights and for private property in general is connected to the fact that post-anarchism (entirely an anticapitalist tendency) has been very interested in Stirner and so anaticapitalist Bob Black with his call for "stirnerist-marxism"--Eduen (talk) 09:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Bottom line: Stirner supported private property, but not property rights. Stirner would say that the shoplifter owns the clothes, since he had the power to shoplift it. If the shopkeeper kills the shoplifter and gets the clothes back, then the shopkeeper owns them again. Stirner is totally amoral about this. PhilLiberty (talk) 19:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

individualist anarchism as mostly anticapitalist

it is also a weakness of this article the fact that it doesnt address the reality that so called "anarcho-capitalism" is a small (but dedicated with lots of web pages)tendency of mostly (if not totally) USA origin and influence mostly on the neoliberal right wing. And so since Tucker, Spooner and all the other "boston anarchists" were anticapitalist in the mutualist tradition and considering that european individualist anarchism is entirely anticapitalist the article must say this in the introduction.--Eduen (talk) 09:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

to add this doesnt mean ignoring the existence of USA centered "anarcho" capitalism. the other self called procapitalist anarchist tendency "agorism" seems it is spread by the same people. the reality is this are very recent developments and almost all with in the USA (well wendy mcelroy aprarently is canadian). this can be observed by the fact of Wendy mcelroy american nationalism in anarchist traditions. her article that i mentioned before shows this very well. she wants an american exceptionalism and this small tendencies and their uniqueness within all anarchism considering history and a global view shows she is in fact reflecting reality. so in order to correct the USA bias of this article these issues must be adressed.--Eduen (talk) 09:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

now as i mentioned before. one must make a distinction between markets and capitalism. one user above these lines doesnt want or cannot make this distinction. in order to support this distinction i propose everyone interested to consider the existence of the webpages called mutualist.org and mutualismo.org which promotes "free market anticapitalism". these webpages are in accordance with proudhon and the american boston anarchists, in fact mutualism. in their introduction they say " Mutualism, as a variety of anarchism, goes back to P.J. Proudhon in France and Josiah Warren in the U.S."

"We believe in private property, so long as it is based on personal occupancy and use." indeed. private property isnt in itself capitalist either. and so communists (anarchist or otherwise) really arent after collectivizing your watch or your tools. in fact in cuba for example there exist small peasant propietors.

what makes capitalism is the following which is a characteristic of individualist and "social" anarchism throught history "While not all individualist anarchists agree that individuals have should have a right to private property, they all agree that practice of an employer profiting from the labor of an employee is unjustifiable"[1]. For more on this check http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secG1.html. And so lets also have in mind this anarchist FAQ was produced in the USA. it is a weakness of it to concetrate on USA individualist anarchists (USA centrism) as it fails to mention european individualist anarchists like Albert Libertad, Emile Armand and John Henry McKay. I think this justifies an important precision in the introduction and within the article. I also will undertake the expansion of the part of european individualist anarchism. this expansion will further justify this and then we will have corrected the US centrism of this article. For example, one interesting fact is how many individualist anarchists werent really too occupied with economics but prefered instead to develop libertarian education or others had a strong alledgiance to naturism. In this way a better and more just picture of the diversity of individualist anarchism through history will emerge. --Eduen (talk) 10:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Eduen this is a neutral media, the "truth" is not only what some anarcho-communists or Infoshop webmaster thinks. There is asociation between market/property and anarchism that become from many other anarchists, and in modern times mostly anarcho-individualists (schoolars, publications, groups, websites, and even institutions) are austro-libertarian anarchists, supporting free-market capitalism o similar. Anyway, your claim have been already discussed along 3 or 2 years, and there is already a consensus. --Nihilo 01 (talk) 14:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

About the US focus, the reality is that Colombian or Belgium o African anarchism is less important than US anarchism, and US anarcho-individualist is more relevant than Russian anarcho-individualism. I'm not speaking about intelectual value, but about factly global relevance. Anyway all anarchisms are small. --Nihilo 01 (talk) 14:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:FORUM

Come on people, this is not the place for these long debates. Trying to claim in the article that either the individualist or communist interpretation of Stirner is 'correct' would be POV. Both are of significance, thus both should get coverage on this website. It is not our job to tell people which is 'correct'. Nor is this talk page the place to debate it. Zazaban (talk)

Also if individualist anarchism is held as being that which supports the statements "individual conscience and the pursuit of self-interest should not be constrained by any collective body or public authority" and "the system of democracy, of majority decision" over the decision of the individual "is held null and void," then all forms of egoism, including the socialist interpretations, would qualify. Zazaban (talk) 20:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

No, socialism or communism wouldn't qualify under that definition, because self interest there is constrained by the collective body. Jadabocho (talk) 02:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Not in egoist variants. Zazaban (talk) 01:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

"There is asociation between market/property and anarchism that become from many other anarchists, and in modern times mostly anarcho-individualists (schoolars, publications, groups, websites, and even institutions) are austro-libertarian anarchists, supporting free-market capitalism o similar." Well, you are free to try to prove that. "Eduen this is a neutral media, the "truth" is not only what some anarcho-communists or Infoshop webmaster thinks." Indeed. I didnt put that banner of US centrism anyway. and to differ with zazaban this dichotomy of individualist (suposdely all pro market) and communist anrchism is wrong and simplistic. austrian economics. mmmmm i thought i was editing an anarchism article, but anyway if the point is to have a good article, then we have to get the history and current reality right. anyway i made my points above so i will just expand the world view of the page.--Eduen (talk) 00:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe in the dichotomy either, I find things to agree with on both sides and my personal philosophy is a fusion, but many people will defend it to the death and this is not the place to discuss it. Zazaban (talk) 01:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

It depends of the meanings of the words used, not of the words itself. Per example, I agree with Jadabocho, self-interest or self-fishness is constrained by a collectiv"ist" body.

I mean, it's not about we use word "socialism" or word "capitalism" to define anarcho-individualism, but is about the essence or nature of this doctrine, first, and second, is necessary to beging with a generic deffinition and continue with an explanation of most important "versions" of this doctrine in political matters. And obviously, I agree with "It is not our job to tell people which is 'correct'." --Nihilo 01 (talk) 14:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

"No, socialism or communism wouldn't qualify under that definition, because self interest there is constrained by the collective body." well thats why anarchocommunism and "associations of egoists" hold the principle of voluntary association. if you dont want inside a certain community you are free to go outside it. but an important principle that has united anarchocommunism, anarchosyndicalism and individualist anarchism and all the rest of anarchism is that there shouldnt be hierarchy in the workplace, and so capitalism is characterized by having the relation bosses/employees. the first only give orders and the others only receive them and obey them. Benjamin tucker and the other boston anarchists found that humiliating and from individualist standpoints rejected capitalism for mutualist non capitalist markets and other forms. --190.155.29.177 (talk) 23:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

If it's voluntary it's not necessary to "order" how "might be", and opposition to hierarchy is an anarcho-communist caracteristic, not for all anarchisms (please, you should consult old discussions and consensus about what is anarchism in Wikipedia). Also, it depends of what was the meaning of the words old anachists used, per example, mutualism and anarcho-capitalism are very close between them (that's market anarchism) altought they have used some different words for the same things, but ussually with a libertarian jargon. But and each of them are farest from collectivis forms of anarchism, these ones see themselves like "revolucionaries" and market ones like "pettybourgois" and even "reaccionaries", and also have a close-marxist jargon.--Nihilo 01 (talk) 04:23, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Not all of them hold this worldview. Zazaban (talk) 05:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I know it, but I'm not begining with the exceptions. Anyway I believe we could find a good definition if we try to avoid to consider a part (left-anarchism deffinitions) like the whole or relevant anarchism (a "bad example" of what not to do is the upper IP). --Nihilo 01 (talk) 12:55, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

the difference is this. theres people who sell things on the street, some are even street children. they are participating in a market and are involved in commerce. now lets think about an owner of a corporation. hes also involved in commerce but if one doesnt see the huge difference between the first situation and the second then we cant really have a debate made on rational grounds. mutualism was a position that had influence on artisans and small store owners, meaning non capitalist commerce. and of course it was an anticapitalist movement and it was the primary external influence on benjamin tucker and the other market american anarchists. "anarcho" capitalism is an oxymoron of recent invention and doesn not have any prescence outside the United States (well except aparrently Wendy Mc elroy who is canadian). its academic relevance also is small or null. i imagine Mr. robard might me mentioned sometimes in liberal economics but i think not too much since he hast really made any important contribution to economics and as far as anarchism "anarcho" capitalists (well mostly they are american) seems they dont even act within anarchist organizations.

ive been researching european individualist anarchism. from what ive read all i can say right now is that this article will have to be changed in a big way. ill be coming back to enlarge the european individualist anarchism part. understandably the call for anarchism wituout adjectives emerged. but i dont really think anarchism without adjectives includes inclusion of capitalism propagandists.--Eduen (talk) 22:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Tucker supported private ownership of the means of pruduction and use and occupancy in Land - he did not favor “occupancy and use” toward anything else and positively referred even to that as “private property”). But Spooner supported even "sticky" ownership of land). Later Tucker supported private ownership of peaple (children). Tucker supported wage labour]... He said "Yes, genuine Anarchism is consistent Manchesterism, and Communistic or pseudo-Anarchism is inconsistent Manchesterism." But guys like Konkin supported abolition of wage system (Friedman also want to abolish wage system). Eduen, you are ccouncil communist... Do you know that it is in BIG contradiction with genuine social anarchism? Do you konw that in fact, you are not an anarchist? :) --81.29.30.221 (talk) 13:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Changes in introduction

As can be seen in the european individualist anarchism section which i will continue to expand, the restriction of the definition of individualist anarchism as pro-market, non communist and worse supposdely being dominated by "anarcho"capitalism or it being pro private property should be corrected. lets try to come to an agreement on how it will look.

now the section that was being developed by Zazaban was taken out without too much explanation. i will collaborate on that since post left anarchism is individualist anarchism with precedents in european currents, strongly influenced by Max Stirner (Bob Black "stirnerist-marxism" for example) critical of organizations like labor unions, anarchosyndycalism and plataformism and in some writers and movements is neo-illegalist. in short all basic points of individualist anarchism. i found a reference in french which classifies hakim bey and bob black as individualist anarchists but that suggest perhaps they dont use in the USA the label individualist anarchist out of fear of association with their conational murray robard fans.--Eduen (talk) 10:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

But that anarchism isn't economical individualism, only rethorical, I think. I mean, in the sense that general is understood individualism (free-market and private property). It is not necessary that you use "" to attack an anarchist current. Don`t take personal. --Nihilo 01 (talk) 17:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

post left anarchy and post anarchism

It has been suggested that post left anarchy and post anarchism be mentioned here as forms of individualist anarchism. I agree with this move. Both of them put huge emphasis on the individual, and take influence from Max Stirner, among other things. Zazaban (talk) 18:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

But are you sure is individualist anarchism? I don't think so, it doesn't propose any individuslit economic, or legal system... (they usually propose the "communa" in Fourier's way, or similar, so they are collectivist or socialist) and neither they consider themselves individualist anarchists. Anyway, almost all anarchisms put emphasis in the individual, and many of them have take some ideas or retoric figures from Stirner (and both things don't make them anarcho-individualists). --Nihilo 01 (talk) 18:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposal of new intro

Individualist anarchism refers to several traditions of thought within the anarchist movement that emphasize the individual and his/her will over any kinds of external determinants such as groups, society, traditions, and ideological systems. Individualist anarchism is not a single philosophy but refers to a group of individualistic philosophies that sometimes are in conflict between them. Early influences in individualist anarchism were the thought of William Godwin, Pierre Joseph Proudhon (mutualism) and Max Stirner (egoism). From there it expanded throught Europe and the United States. --Eduen (talk) 05:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

That is very good. Zazaban (talk) 05:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

now we will have to change overview. i will keep expanding european section.--Eduen (talk) 05:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

right now im reading a big essay on individualist anarchism in spain. it mentions Henry David Thoreau as an importan early influence. He is credited as introducing environmentalist and proto-naturist themes which will be important in french and spanish individualist anarchism.

"Henry David Thoreau (1817-1862), one of the writers closest to the philosophical movement of trascendentalism, is one of the most well known. His most representative work is Walden which appeared in 1854, even though it was done in 1845 and 1847, when Thoureau decides to install hismself in seclusion in a cabin in the forest, and live in intimate contact with nature, in a live of solitude and sobriety. From this experience, his philosophy tries to communicate the idea of a neccesity of a respectful return to nature, and that hapiness es above all something that comes out of internal wealthand harmony of individuals with their natural environment. Many have seen in Thoureau a precursor of ecology and anarcho-primitivism represented today in john Zerzan. For George Woodcock, this attitude can be also motivated by certain idea of resistence to progress and a rejection of the growing materialism of american society in the middle of the 19th century. (La insumision voluntaria. El anarquismo individualista español durante la dictadura y la segunda republica (1923-1938).

Im reading this again. later we will see how they were also very concerned with free love themes. It also says that even though benjamin tucker and the other americans did have some influence there, nevertheless the primary influence in spanish individualism was max stirner and french individualist such as han ryner and emile armand.--Eduen (talk) 05:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

There is a native american individualist anarchism that dont' become form Godwin, Proudhon and Stirner, but form Warren and Spooner -with a big Spencer's influence. I believe Eduen contributions to individualist anrchism article aren't representative of the most importa factions of individuslit anarchism (but only what is important to collectivist anarchists). Also, inclusion of factions that don't claim be individualist anarchism are very ensayistic, personal or dark interpretations with irrelevant importance. --Nihilo 01 (talk) 15:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes the American individualist anarchism was native. It didn't come to be from individualist anarchism spreading to the U.S. from outside. It was born in the U.S. I also agree with what you're saying about Eduen's additions too. Jadabocho (talk) 16:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the sources show quite clearly that in the US there was a mix of European influences and North American inventions. By the time anyone actually calls themselves an individualist anarchist, in Tucker's day, the theory of individualist anarchism is a mix of (at least) Owen, Fourier, Spencer, Proudhon, Leroux, Warren, John Gray, Greene, Spooner, Andrews, Ingalls, Godwin, Stirner, Lesigne, free religionism (etc.) We also know that Warren was an influence in England by the 1850s.[2] [3] Max Nettlau's Bibliographie de l'anarchie contains lots of details about the individualist tradition, which could be used to flesh out this article. Probably, the best way to proceed is simply to flesh out the various references that are already here, and then construct an introduction that fits the facts, rather than try to impose an overview up front. All the anarchism entries suffer from the fact that works like Nettlau's bibliography have been pretty well ignored, while "definitions" have been pulled from tertiary sources and partisan accounts. Something like Martin's Men Against the State is a monumental work of scholarship, and Schuster's Native American Anarchism is of importance, but they both have shaping contexts and explicit agendas which can't be ignored (if only because we have to find ways to combine the accounts.) Libertatia (talk) 16:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Of course there were outside influences. That's not what I was denying. I was denying that there were outside ANARCHIST influences. Individualist anarchism arose in America without influence from any anarchists outside America. Even as early as the 1600's there was Anne Hutchinson. It's native to America. And it's not a matter of who "calls themselves an individualist anarchist." What someone calls themselves is not what makes them what they are. Jadabocho (talk) 17:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Umm. Anne Hutchinson was not native to America, and even the boldest sources don't claim she was an anarchist. (I had an ancestor at the Aquidneck settlement, so, trust me, if the claim could be made, I would be all over it.) As for the rest, the most the sources will allow you to claim is that Warren (and possibly Spooner) developed an individualist anarchism independent from Proudhon (and possibly Godwin), and that that tradition (or traditions) merged relatively rapidly with the various European individualist traditions in the period from 1849 (Greene's Equality and Warren's reported involvement in mutual banking agitation) through Tucker's embrace of Stirner and incorporation of Lesigne. Libertatia (talk) 17:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

No kidding Hutchinson was not native to America. You're still not understanding what I'm saying. She arrived at her anarchist beliefs IN AMERICA. Understand yet? Individualist anarchism was born in America, independent of any individualist anarchism outside America. Thoreau and Warren are a couple other individualist anarchists who had no influence from anarchism outside America. And yes by the way there are indeed sources that say Hutchinson was an anarchist, such as Frederick Baldwin Adams. Radical Literature in America. Overbrook Press. 1939. Another is Edward Stringham, Anarchy and the Law. 2007 where it says "The honor of being the first explicity anarchist in North America belongs to William's successor, a leading religious refugee from Massachusetts, Anne Hutchinson." Your claim that "even the boldest sources don't claim she was an anarchist" just shows how limited your knowledge is of the literature. Next time if I were you I'd be careful before making such claims without checking first. Jadabocho (talk) 19:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah. That will teach me: never underestimate the boldness of some folks. The quoted passage is actually from Rothbard. (It's best to get attributions right if you're going to talk smack about others' knowledge.) And it is indeed bold, like much of Rothbard's historical work, in its use of unclear, unsourced assertions. But if you apply the standards by which Hutchinson can be considered an anarchist,--and these stretch the term considerably,--then you will find plenty of religious dissenters, and not just in North America, to fit the bill. And you will find that Thoreau's influences in European and Asian philosophy may perhaps now have to fall into the category of "anarchist influences." But your approach is entirely circular anyway: You pick a "birth" of anarchism, and then make a big deal about the fact that there was no outside anarchist influence before there was, by your definitions, an anarchism to influence things. If individualist anarchism was "born" with Warren, and with Spooner, and with Proudhon, and with Godwin, and with Stirner, then perhaps you have a few decades where the individual traditions (none of which were called "individualist anarchism") are discreet, but by the late 1850s, there's already considerable cross-connection, and by the 1890s, "individualist anarchism" is a movement born all over the place, because elements from all the root traditions were synthesized by people like Greene and Tucker. Libertatia (talk) 06:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

She wasn't an anarchist because of religious dissent. She was an anarchist because she explicitly rejected government. She was against the principle of government having any authority over the individual. That's anarchism. As the anarchism article here says "Anarchism is a political philosophy encompassing theories and attitudes which consider the state, as compulsory government, to be unnecessary, harmful, and/or undesirable." You deny that that was her belief? To respond to your other point, I never said that anarchism in America wasn't influenced by anarchism outside America. I said that the birth, or appearance, of anarchism in America wasn't influenced by anarchism outside America. It was a position conceived of here without any influence by anarchism outside America. It's native to America. It wasn't imported. Understand yet? Jadabocho (talk) 17:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

If Anne Hutchinson was an anarchist, it was because she was a Christian radical, a real "antinomian" or "inner light" believer. There is not even a scholarly consensus on that. Rothbard makes a vague claim for something else, so later conversion to "explict" anarchism, but there's no source for it and no explanation of in what sense it is "explicit." Adams does not seem to be referring to anything but her supposed "antinomianism" in his off-hand comment (and it is just that.) The definition you cite might include her, and it would also include any number of others, including various kinds of minarchists and reluctant governmentalists. Let's say we adopt this approach for "individualist anarchism," and define individualist anarchists as "those who think the state is undesirable or worse, and are also individualists." This article should then contain "inner light" Quakers and various other religious radicals who emphasized conscience and self-governance according to "God's laws" (a position, after all, not much different from natural law positions). And there would be no question of excluding the European individualists you have been blithely chopping out of the entry. The "native American" argument is a product of American-exceptionalist historiography, which ignores the existence of the Atlantic community in the colonial period and the extraordinary cosmopolitanism of places like Boston and Cincinnati in the first half of the 19th century. It is fine, since the sources are there, to make specific mention of the handful of relatively isolated individualist anarchists, like Spooner and Warren, but even the North American movement, from the 1850s on, is characterized by an increasing cosmopolitanism. Again, though, the answer is to flesh out the material on those anarchists identified in the sources as individualists, and then the introduction will have to conform to the facts, not the other way around. Libertatia (talk) 18:21, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean? She's explicitly anarchist. The sources are available. She said government was unlawful, it violated natural law, "the unlawfulness of majistry government" in her words. That's anarchism. Now on to your next point. What European individualists have I been "chopping out" of the article? I'm not aware of my deleting any individualist anarchists from the article. Could you name any names? Now on to your final point. Apparently you still don't understand what I'm saying. I'm not saying anarchism in America was influenced by anarchism outside America. I'm saying it's ORIGINAL APPEARANCE wasn't influenced by anarchists outside America. For instance, what non-American anarchist had Josiah Warren read? What non-American anarchists had Thoreau read? These people came to the conclusion of anarchism on their own. It's only AFTER anarchism was conceived here that influenced from anarchism outside America came in. I'm not even saying that anarchism didn't exist outside America prior to anyone in America conceiving it. I'm just saying it was conceived here without any anarchist influences from outside America. Have I spelled it out clearly enough for you yet? 18:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jadabocho (talk • contribs)

Hutchinson is not terribly important here, but let's at least get some facts straight. Rothbard misquoted a hearsay comment from Roger Williams about Hutchinson's belief in the "unlawfulness of magistracy." If there is an explicit statement by Hutchinson herself, Rothbard doesn't seem to have produced it, and I find no confirming citations elsewhere either. The notion of the "unlawfulness of magistracy" had been kicking around for a century or so (at least) when Williams invoked it, in English radical protestant circles. We have no source that shows "explicit" anarchist sentiment, "in her words," as has been claimed. As I said, I'm descended from one of the "antinomians" expelled with Hutchinson, so I would love to learn otherwise, but so far the sources are not convincing. I think the "native American" question has been reduced to the triviality proper to it. We can place it in the article next to the "native French," "native English," etc., versions. And then we can document that "individualist anarchism" rapidly became a cosmopolitan movement transcending any of these isolated "births." Libertatia (talk) 05:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that she rejected the idea of government as having any moral authority to overrule her personal decisions. That's anarchism, philosophical anarchism. The reason I brought up the fact that the origin of anarchism in America wasn't the result of influence of anarchists outside the U.S., is because Eduen placed in the article that it began in France and other countries and then "spread" to the U.S. It's not true. It didn't spread to the U.S. It arose in America independently. I was explaining why I removed that statement from the article. I don't understand why you have such a problem absorbing this. Jadabocho (talk) 17:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, by your expanded definition of anarchism, Hutchinson and the faction around her brought their anarchism with them, and anarchism spread as European populations spread. The standard approach is to assume Warren and Spooner knew nothing of Godwin or Proudhon, although, given the coverage of both in the Boston and Cincinnati press, that's almost impossible. My only concern here really is that you have applied this sort of ridiculously broad definition of anarchism and a weak theory of its "native American birth" while making blanket statements about what individualist anarchist is and is not. Libertatia (talk) 04:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Like it or not, anarchism is "ridiculously broad." If you think the state should be abolished or simply that the state has any moral authority over you, you're an anarchist. This allows for huge diversity among anarchists, which there is obviously is. Benjamin Tucker said "Anarchism is for liberty, and neither for nor against anything else." You may want think of it as some type of exclusive club but it's not. Jadabocho (talk) 01:51, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

You know, you really need to approach this from a less confrontational angle. And you deleted Illegalism, which I've only ever heard of as being individualist. Not free-market, but individualist all the same. Zazaban (talk) 18:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I think Libertatia is being confrontational and/or obtuse. If illegalism is individualist anarchism then just find a source for it being so and put it in. What's the problem? If something's not sourced then it shouldn't be in the article. Jadabocho (talk) 18:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

[4]. Zazaban (talk) 18:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Page number? Jadabocho (talk) 18:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

This is the source used in the Illegalism article. The mention of individualism is in the second paragraph. Zazaban (talk) 18:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

the reason we changed the introduction is to correct the neoliberal bias that it has. benajmin tucker associated hismelf with socialism. illegalism was antiproperty and communist. produhon was also influential on bakinin and kropotkin and french and spanish individualist anarchism didnt have that much of an interest in economics per se. that is why i proposed that introduction which was as neutral as possible and converged with the definition of individualist anarchism from benjamin tucker and han ryner.

"I believe Eduen contributions to individualist anrchism article aren't representative of the most importa factions of individuslit anarchism (but only what is important to collectivist anarchists)."

benjamin tucker and emile armand were friends. but i dont know what are "the most important factions". as i said before all this american antistate economicistic libertarianism has prescense only in the the USA and even there it seems it doesnt really collaborate at all with the american anarchist movement. it actually seems it collaborates more with the right wing conservative major party Republican Party. emile armand and han ryner visions were as individualist as they could be. the american section i really havent touched although perhaps it is too long.--Eduen (talk) 22:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to point out I don't agree with the accusations of neoliberalism and allegiance to the republican party. I'm not here to be part of a partisan feud. Zazaban (talk) 00:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Eduen, here you can't hope we get "afraid" when you mention libertarianism or right wing, we aren't european leftists or progressives :P You don't need to say this one or this other is "heretic", it doesn't matters here, what matters is which are in fact importants. In fact contemporary US anarchisms, and their theories about individualist and libertarian anarchism, are more important or influyent -a lot- for the world than Argentinian or Spanish or French contemporary anarchism (if those exist). That is a fact, doesn't matter if that fact is "morally" wrong for some leftist anarchists.

Note: I'm not American. --Nihilo 01 (talk) 14:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

how is it more important? prove it without bringing USA references. but anyway. i want this article to avoid that bias. i dont really want the "anarcho"capitalism and agorism erased or something. it is just that this is biased towards that and thats why i proposed a new introduction but seems you dont want come to an agreement on this.--Eduen (talk) 05:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Obvius, actually exist references of individualist/libertarian anarchism in some languages. They come from libertarian and austrian economics institutions, publications and theoricians around the world. Theorical development, prestigious, and reivindication of individualist anarchism is stronger here.

You should remember that references should become from specialized publications (like an institutional magazines or investigation articles from recognized theoricals or historicians of individualism or political/philosophical and economical sciences), not from "fanzines", underground authors, or publications specialized in another issues.--Nihilo 01 (talk) 16:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

PD:Eduen, I don't revert your intro, was another wikipedian that also believes you are wrong (but I agree with the revert).--Nihilo 01 (talk) 16:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Illegalism

Illegalism should go under Egoism, since this is simply Stirnerite individualist anarchism in practice. Zazaban says it should be under French individualist anarchism because he says it's generally associated with France. Does he have a source that it's generally assocatiated with France? Jadabocho (talk) 19:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

It is obvious that it is generally French. All the names listed are french, and it is mostly a fusion of egoism and french propaganda of the deed bandits (this is coming from the Illegalism article). Also, aesthetically it looks better there than under egoism. Zazaban (talk) 19:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not obvious to me. Just because the names listed are French, doesn't mean that most illegalists were French. It could be that the person who put this entry in neglected to list the others. So you don't have a source for it. I disagree that it "looks better" then under Egoism. Under egoism is where it should be because these people are Stirnerites. Jadabocho (talk) 19:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Post left anarchism

The source being used to claim Post left anarchism is individualist anarchism is an article someone posted on a website insurgentdesireuk.org. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SPS says "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media, whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, tweets etc., are largely not acceptable. Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so." I don't think that source meets that criteria. Moreover it doesn't even say that it's individualist anarchism. It just says it has an "individualist foundation." I've seen anarcho-communists claim that of their philosophy too, but it doesn't make it individualist anarchism. If post left anarchism is going to be portrayed as individualist anarchism then it needs a reliable source. Jadabocho (talk) 20:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Page is too long

and this is clearly because of its overemphasis on "the american traditions" and the exageration on the extension on the metaphysical description of "anarcho" capitalism and agorism. i proposed before making a separate page of individualist anarchism in the USA . that will also help correcting the USA bias.--Eduen (talk) 05:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

i helped correcting this by making a smaller and less biased globalized introduction but if Nihilo doesnt want to collaborate on this?--Eduen (talk) 05:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

allright. i made Individualist anarchism in the United States. now in order to take of the banner calling for a global vision we need to change "overview" and add more links realting to european individualism.--Eduen (talk) 05:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, this started out really good, but now it's parading off into the looney bin and I'm scared it's not going to come back. The overview is just a parroting of Murray Bookchin, and the American tradition section was essentially POV-forked. I'm all for widening the focus, but I'm not for little partisan feuds, which this seems to be turning into. I do agree that the stuff on the american tradition may go too in depth for a summary article though, but not with what was essentially its complete removal. Zazaban (talk) 09:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe Eduen is not clear about POV, I don't trust his editions are enough enciclopedicals. They seems to be a little partisan agenda with ensayistic issues. Excuse me, but I feel this like a deliberated "war", and I don't like it. --Nihilo 01 (talk) 16:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

It's very POV. He opens the article with a criticism of individualism by a very large quote by Bookchin. Then he ignores, or is unaware of, the "undue weight" policy by chopping down American individualist anarchism down to only a few sentences, when it's that version of individualist anarchism that is the most talked about in the literature. Jadabocho (talk) 16:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I reverted that one. The deletion of the american tradition and the Bookchin quotes were uncalled for. Also, I'd like to ask why some of my edits were reverted as well? Zazaban (talk) 19:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I revert to last edition of Jadabocho for work again the article, before the essay attempt of Eduen. I apologize for the inconvenience. --Nihilo 01 (talk) 20:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

That's cool. I'm trying to salvage what can be salvaged. I've been looking over it, and most of Eduen's contributions could probably be kept with some rewordings and a few more sources, which shouldn't be too hard to find. It's mostly just sloppy. Zazaban (talk) 21:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

well, i lament that you got annoyed but there was this message that said the page was too long. the usa part was the cause of it and it is a usual suggestion of wikipedia to make separate and more specific pages for parts where theres a lot of information. but now if nihilo accuses me of having a political agenda well, hes trying to play innocent while hes clearly a neoliberal with a neoliberal agenda. in order to avoid this "war" we will have to come to an agreement and nihilo doesnt want it. he doesnt want to recognize anticapitalist and antiproperty individualist anarchism. he wants to keep this page USA and neoliberalism centric and when he makes editions he doesnt explain why he does that and just does it. anyway i find that people here thought i took out the USA part because i wanted to leave it like that. well what i expected is that someone will come and make small sections for it but the way it was was too much too long.

the part of italian individualism i dont knwo why nihilo erased it. individualist anarchism in italy manifested itself in magnicides. this is not my personal opinion and thats why i referenced it. why are we having this explicit attempt to censor a part of individualist anarchism? i recognize that theres neoliberals calling themselves individualists anarchists and they should recognize anticapitalist individualist anarchism. this is the agreement we should come to. and looking at the history of nihilo, he has had problems with other people in other articles because of this dogmatism of his and hes been already sanctioned for vandalism more than once.

now, the reason for putting the murray bookchin citation i found it summarized the history of individualist anarchism well. i didnt really found it offensive because it got the facts right. individualist anarchism manifested itself in bohemian and experimental lifestyles and insurrectionary illegalism . i hope we are not trying to keep the page puritan. i put it there thinking it was good until we could write a not biased and accurate overview part. the current overview part is not accurate. it makes one think individualist anarchism is mostly antistate neoliberalism and that individualist anarchists are people obssesed with economics or university teachers of economics and that they dont care about individual liberties and personal subjective exploration as well as individual resistance againts the current social system based on capitalism and state. because of that it doesnt even do justice to mutualism and the "boston anarchists" and lets not speak of european individualist anarchism. anyway nihilo is still invited to prove "anarcho"capitalism is present outside of the USA besides wendy mcelroy and obviously him since he said hes not american.

because of this the murray bookchin citation was a thousand times better even if it critizised individualist anarchism. and now whats Gustave de Molinari doing in this article? he didnt have any connection with anarchism in his life and thats why hes associated with a liberal group of economists of france.

now to end up i suggest everyone here to try to come to an agreement, if not i dont see an exit out of this.

nihilo says "I believe Eduen is not clear about POV, I don't trust his editions are enough enciclopedicals." well. we might have to accept people are not innocent beings always looking for neutrality and without a personal history and desires and passions. this doesnt mean people dont come to agreements and stop "wars".--Eduen (talk) 23:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you stop accusing people of being neoliberals, you are alienating yourself and the accusation is simply not true. Also, I thought the Bookchin quote was fine in itself, but the fact that it was the only thing there that was not so great. Zazaban (talk) 23:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

nihilo. please stop erasing the part that says mutualism is anticapitalist. it is referenced by two sources with citations . if you keep doing this i will accuse you of vandalism.--Eduen (talk) 00:25, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

we keep getting this message "This page is 53 kilobytes long." we have to reduce the USA part.--Eduen (talk) 00:27, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

also why cant we accept the smaller and not biased introduction that i proposed. someone keeps posting the biased introduction. please justify this action or else it will appear as mere whim.--Eduen (talk) 01:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Bookchin quote.

I'm not sure what's so wrong with it. It isn't really critical, it simply seems like a description of the state of individualist anarchism at the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th. I don't see how it is undue weight or POV when it is with the other stuff as well. Zazaban (talk) 04:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, that main problem is that it's too much space given to just one guy's viewpoint. That makes it undue weight. Bookchin is critical of individualist anarchism. He's trying to to make it look bad. If you doubt that he's very much opposed to it read, his article Social Anarchism or Lifestyle Anarchism http://libcom.org/library/social-anarchism--lifestyle-anarchism-murray-bookchin . And what is he talking about individualist anarchists in the U.S. committing acts of terrorism? I've never heard of such a thing. Maybe if there was some other sources to back that up. But just this one guy giving him all this weight is not justified. Jadabocho (talk) 04:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, yeah, that part needs to go, it could be shorter. But most of the other stuff actual almost seemed positive to me. But that's just me. Zazaban (talk) 05:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

it gives facts. in order to critizice something seriously you have to give facts. anyway as i said before i meant it to be a temporary solution until we can write a better overview. right now what is visible is too much concentrated on economics and american individualism. thats why it must be changed. parts of the bookchin essay could be used for references but as you could see the bookchin essay shows individualist anarchism is very intrested in personal subjective exploration and seems also they continue something Henry davi thoureau wanted. now anarchist terrorism in the USA did happen when italian anarchists moved to places like new york such as important illegalist Luigi Galleani. he and his group adhered to the italian insurrectionary currents who emphasized propaganda by the deed and critizised organization just as any of the individualist currents.

now i hope we leave the current non biased introduction. if not i dont think we could come up with an agreement. i will try to write some basic points of individualist anarchism suported on sources such as the essay on spanish individualist anarchism who also considers the influence of benjamin tucker and of course other sources. right now whats visible, as i said before, makes one think individualist anarchism is some sort of american liberal economics sect. the bookchin essay (an american by the way) shows individualist anarchism wasnt that way.--Eduen (talk) 23:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposal of new "Overview" section

Individualist anarchism of different kinds have a few things in common. These are:

1. The concentration and elevation on the individual and his/her over any kind of social or exterior reality or construction such as morality, ideology, social custom, religion, metaphysics, ideas or the will of others.

2. The rejection or reservations on the idea of revolution seeing it as a time of mass uprising which could bring about new hierarchies. Instead they favor more evolutionary methods of bringing about anarchy through alternative experiences and experiments and education which could be brought about today. This also because it is not seen desirable for individuals the fact of having to wait for revolution to start experiencing alternative experiences outside what is offered in the current social system.

3. The view that relationships with other persons or things can only be of one´s own interest and can be as transitory and without compromises as desired since in individualist anarchism sacrifice is usually rejected. In this way Max Stirner recoomended associations of egoists. Individual experience and exploration therefore is emphazised.

As such differences exist. In regards to economic questions there are adherents to mutualism (Pierre Joseph Proudhon, Emile Armand, Benjamin Tucker), egoistic disrespect for "ghosts" such as private property and markets (Max Stirner), and adherents to anarcho-communism (Albert Libertad, illegalism).

An important tendency within individualist anarchist currents emphasizes individual subjective exploration and defiance of social conventions. As such Murray Bookchin describes a lot of individualist anarchism as people who "expressed their opposition in uniquely personal forms, especially in fiery tracts, outrageous behavior, and aberrant lifestyles in the cultural ghettos of fin de sicle New York, Paris, and London. As a credo, individualist anarchism remained largely a bohemian lifestyle, most conspicuous in its demands for sexual freedom ('free love') and enamored of innovations in art, behavior, and clothing.". In this way free love currents (Emile Armand) and other radical lifestyles such as naturism had popularity among individualist anarchists.

so there i leave it for all of you to consider it and propose changes and/or additions.

--Eduen (talk) 06:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

This is quite good. I like it. Zazaban (talk) 07:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Again an Eduen's essay, I delete bad resources -geocities (!) and communists refferences like Infoshop FAQ-, "fanzine"'s inclution of an ideologgical non-individualist phenomenon (also, there is a big confussion between "violent means" with "illegalism"). I try to correct the deliberated exclusion of schoolar and especialized 'individualist' resources, and the exclussion of market anarchism like the principal form of anarcho-individualism, that exclussion made an incoherence between previous refferences with new text. I order the content, again, in grades of importance. I repeat, don't be ensayistic, and please use schoolar and specialized resources, not fanzines. --Nihilo 01 (talk) 19:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Ensayistic is not a word. Your explanations of why you delete things are often very vague. I'm not sure what you think an essay is, either. Zazaban (talk) 20:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I mean, schoolar and especialized refferences aren't compatible with amateur and non-especialized ones. Many of the parts I delete are interpetations, about not so relevant issues, and even with important errors. --Nihilo 01 (talk) 20:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I ask, where are the refferences to books about individualist anarchism? (eg. [http://www.amazon.com/Debates-Liberty-Individualist-Anarchism-1881-1908/dp/073910473X/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1241126267&sr=1-2 The Debates of Liberty: An Overview of Individualist Anarchism, 1881-1908], [http://www.amazon.com/Men-against-State-expositors-individualist/dp/B0006EBQNU/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1241126267&sr=1-30 Men against the State: The expositors of individualist anarchism in America, 1827-1908], [http://www.amazon.com/Politics-Individualism-Liberalism-Feminism-Anarchism/dp/1551642026/ref=sr_1_9?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1241126267&sr=1-9 The Politics of Individualism: Liberalism, Liberal Feminism and Anarchism], [http://www.amazon.com/Individualist-Anarchists-Anthology-Liberty-1881-1908/dp/1560001321/ref=sr_1_69?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1241126579&sr=1-69 The Individualist Anarchists: An Anthology of Liberty (1881-1908)], [http://www.amazon.com/Anarchism-Right-Green-Ulrike-Heider/dp/0872862895/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1241126738&sr=1-1 Anarchism: Left, Right and Green], [http://www.amazon.com/Anarchy-Law-Political-Economy-Independent/dp/1412805791/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1241126808&sr=1-1 Anarchy and the Law: The Political Economy of Choice]), why to prefer self-published websites?. Another thing, In the resume I list some of the mistakes I found. --Nihilo 01 (talk) 21:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

There were sources showing the illegalism was a form of individualist anarchism, your claim otherwise is your own opinion, which is contradicted by sources. Zazaban (talk) 21:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Wich schoolar, especialized and relevant source? Is it gennerally aceptted, or is an original claim of only one publication or one non-especiallized publication? --Nihilo 01 (talk) 21:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

It's generally accepted- I've never heard it called anything but individualism. Peter Kropotkin referenced it as the very stereotype of individualism. Zazaban (talk) 21:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Anarcho-individualism like a political doctrine, and anarcho-individualist society?, or only a kind of collectivist anarchist -quasi-communist- with "individual actions"? An acredited source please, illegalism seems anarcho-communism without class war strategy.

Out of that item, I continue asking why don't use especialized sources like the books I mention? Why put in an upper degree self-published websites? Why you change the importance of some currents (to most important to the bottom)? Why revert my corrections (I delete a lot of ideological, historical mistakes and POV, that other users already noted and why you putted that mistakes again)? --Nihilo 01 (talk) 21:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Nihilo 01. Please read Wikipedia’s policy on sources (specially subsections on questionable and self-published sources). -- Vision Thing -- 17:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Sources

this articles had a problem with not having a global world view of this subject. And Nihilo´s sources all happen to concentrate on the United states version(s) of individualist anarchism. Now theres a problem here if Nihilo doesnt want to accept sources in other languages and from other parts.

"schoolar and especialized refferences aren't compatible with amateur and non-especialized ones"

i understand the USA phenomenon "anarcho"capitalism as other types of neoliberalism manifests itself in university economists and think tanks. Individualist anarchism as a part of the anarchist movement expressed itself in things similar to what today is called fanzines. Now the article called La insumisión voluntaria. El anarquismo individualista español durante la dictadura y la segund arepública (1923-1938) is as academic and "scholarly" as you can ask anything to be and it exists in book form. Now if it happens not to be of the taste of economicistic american neoliberalism, thats different. The point here is to make a balanced article and as nihilo wants it, this is a USA centered article which makes one think individualist anarchists are americans neoliberal economists. How does that correspond to people like Renzo Novatore or free love propagandist Emile Armand or Max Stirner or Albert Libertad or the people of the Ateneo Naturista Ecléctico in Barcelona . Emile Armand if he resembles something today is definitely not economics professors and yuppies but perhaps hippies. Vision_Thing, i see you collaborate in WikiProject Economics. Maybe you should get acquainted with that book on spanish individualist anarchism or this list of sources on european individualist anarchism all very academic written by college proffesors [5]. Theres one thats called STEINER, Anne. Les En-dehors. Anarchistes individualistes et illégalistes à la « Belle époque which deals with french individualist anarchism as it evolved in magazines, alternative communes and groups and things like illegalism. Nihilo wants to censor illegalism. One thing is that "anarcho" capitalism loves private property and another is that all individualist anarchism is "anarcho" capitalism. In fact "anarcho" capitalism is a USA phenomenon and to most anarchists it cant be an anarchism at all. But anyway i was referencing the article/book on spanish individualist anarchism and the written works of people like Han Ryner. And so Benjamin Tucker happened to be a good friend with Emile Armand. In this way it is very likely that both will have united in denouncing something like "anarcho" capitalism as not being anarchist at all. Both Emile Armand and Tucker were mutualists and that shows the problem here is showing individualist anarchism as a whole and that there cannot be in a balanced article the preeminence of the vision of a singular version on individualist anarchism as adherents of "anarcho"-capitalism such as nihilo or Vision Thing (as can be seen in his personal wikipedia page) might want. I mean if wikipedia was "my property" i will erase the articles on fascism and "anarcho" capitalism. Since this is not the case in my editions i never erased totally the sections that mention "anarcho" capitalism.

If we cant come to an agreement on this we will not advance in writing a balanced article. We can have a decent article also if we avoid riducolous autoritarian ranting such as "I order the content, again, in grades of importance. I repeat, don't be ensayistic, and please use schoolar and specialized resources, not fanzines." Nihilo. Nihilo is sounding here like if us voluntary collaborators are his salaried employees. Since this is not the case (although something thats perfectly fine with "anarcho"capitalism) we have to come to an agreement. And as what i can see from the discussion page of Nihilo, he seems to have been blocked from editing in Wikipedia many times to really think he is someone reliable for preffering reason and agreements instead of edit wars, whim and dogmatism. From his talk page "This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits, such as those you made to Inclusive Democracy. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. This is a template warning that connects with the previously posted warnings about vandalism and content removal in Nihilo 01' page concerning the Inclusive Democracy entry."--Eduen (talk) 01:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

You keep claiming Emile Armand was a mutualist. Do you have a source for this? Jadabocho (talk) 03:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Armand's own "Anarchist Individualism as Life and Activity," accessible in English on Dana Ward's website, invokes "mutualism" as the basis of relations. The "Amis de E. Armand" repeated this in 1944, in their "Principal Tendencies and Theses of the “L’Unique” Center." Libertatia (talk) 06:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The RAForum site is the work of Ronald Creagh, among the most important French anarchist academics, and the author of a very good book on the American individualists. Creagh's inclusion of folks like Novatore and Ryner in the category of individualist anarchists ought to be good enough for Wikipedia, particularly since the primary sources are pretty unequivocal in this case. There's a whole French mutualist tradition that is also absent here, starting from people like Alfred Darimon and J. A. Langlois, who collaborated with Proudhon and stretching up through people like Joseph Perrot, who signed himself "a disciple of Proudhon" and was an orthodox interpreter, and Edmond Lagarde, author of La revanche de Proudhon: ou, l'avenir du socialisme mutuelliste. Libertatia (talk) 06:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

But that's not Proudhonian mutualism. I'm not aware of Emile Armand subscribing to a labor theory of value of any sort, as in any labor value exploitation theory. I think the source is using "mutualism" in a very loose sense. Jadabocho (talk) 07:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the "labor theory of value" requirement for mutualism is largely something cooked up by its critics. Proudhonian mutualism, like the mutualism of the Lyons weavers, was first and foremost a matter of reciprocity. Kevin Carson has demonstrated what a non-issue the LTV-STV issue really is for mutualists, and the highly subjectivized notion of labor cost in Josiah Warren's work is also well-established here. In any event, a quick search demonstrates the obvious, that Armand's sympathy for illegalism was based in a critique of labor exploitation. From "Is the Illegalist Anarchist our Comrade?:" "It is by design that the illegalist anarchist addresses himself to his comrade who is exploited by a boss..." Etc. Libertatia (talk) 14:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

There's no doubt that Proudhonian mutualists had a labor theory of value. If "mutualism" is simply reciprocity, then capitalists are mutualists too, because it's people trading amongst each other for mutual gain. It's more than that. They have a labor exploitation theory based on the belief that a capitalist can steal the "full value" of the individual's labor, which is based on Marxist the surplus value theory (not that Marx was the only one, or the original one, to have this theory). Josiah Warren had the the same belief, that person was stealing the value from another person's labor if he wasn't trading them an equivalent supply of his own labor. Unless a person has a belief like they're not adherents to the doctrine of "Mutualism." So do you have a source for Armand believing anything like this? Also there is the issue of ownership of land, that we know to be a part of Mutualism where the Mutualists believes that a person can't own land but only use it. Any source for that? Jadabocho (talk) 17:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

and now as we are accepting european individualist anarchist currents, we need links to articles by them and about them in the link section. Nihilo apparently took this off. As we are not trying here to write something nihilo likes but what reflects individualist anarchism history i will put back some good articles in this line in links.--Eduen (talk) 07:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Sources

this articles had a problem with not having a global world view of this subject. And Nihilo´s sources all happen to concentrate on the United states version(s) of individualist anarchism. Now theres a problem here if Nihilo doesnt want to accept sources in other languages and from other parts.

"schoolar and especialized refferences aren't compatible with amateur and non-especialized ones"

i understand the USA phenomenon "anarcho"capitalism as other types of neoliberalism manifests itself in university economists and think tanks. Individualist anarchism as a part of the anarchist movement expressed itself in things similar to what today is called fanzines. Now the article called La insumisión voluntaria. El anarquismo individualista español durante la dictadura y la segund arepública (1923-1938) is as academic and "scholarly" as you can ask anything to be and it exists in book form. Now if it happens not to be of the taste of economicistic american neoliberalism, thats different. The point here is to make a balanced article and as nihilo wants it, this is a USA centered article which makes one think individualist anarchists are americans neoliberal economists. How does that correspond to people like Renzo Novatore or free love propagandist Emile Armand or Max Stirner or Albert Libertad or the people of the Ateneo Naturista Ecléctico in Barcelona . Emile Armand if he resembles something today is definitely not economics professors and yuppies but perhaps hippies. Vision_Thing, i see you collaborate in WikiProject Economics. Maybe you should get acquainted with that book on spanish individualist anarchism or this list of sources on european individualist anarchism all very academic written by college proffesors [6]. Theres one thats called STEINER, Anne. Les En-dehors. Anarchistes individualistes et illégalistes à la « Belle époque which deals with french individualist anarchism as it evolved in magazines, alternative communes and groups and things like illegalism. Nihilo wants to censor illegalism. One thing is that "anarcho" capitalism loves private property and another is that all individualist anarchism is "anarcho" capitalism. In fact "anarcho" capitalism is a USA phenomenon and to most anarchists it cant be an anarchism at all. But anyway i was referencing the article/book on spanish individualist anarchism and the written works of people like Han Ryner. And so Benjamin Tucker happened to be a good friend with Emile Armand. In this way it is very likely that both will have united in denouncing something like "anarcho" capitalism as not being anarchist at all. Both Emile Armand and Tucker were mutualists and that shows the problem here is showing individualist anarchism as a whole and that there cannot be in a balanced article the preeminence of the vision of a singular version on individualist anarchism as adherents of "anarcho"-capitalism such as nihilo or Vision Thing (as can be seen in his personal wikipedia page) might want. I mean if wikipedia was "my property" i will erase the articles on fascism and "anarcho" capitalism. Since this is not the case in my editions i never erased totally the sections that mention "anarcho" capitalism.

If we cant come to an agreement on this we will not advance in writing a balanced article. We can have a decent article also if we avoid riducolous autoritarian ranting such as "I order the content, again, in grades of importance. I repeat, don't be ensayistic, and please use schoolar and specialized resources, not fanzines." Nihilo. Nihilo is sounding here like if us voluntary collaborators are his salaried employees. Since this is not the case (although something thats perfectly fine with "anarcho"capitalism) we have to come to an agreement. And as what i can see from the discussion page of Nihilo, he seems to have been blocked from editing in Wikipedia many times to really think he is someone reliable for preffering reason and agreements instead of edit wars, whim and dogmatism. From his talk page "This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits, such as those you made to Inclusive Democracy. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. This is a template warning that connects with the previously posted warnings about vandalism and content removal in Nihilo 01' page concerning the Inclusive Democracy entry."--Eduen (talk) 01:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

You keep claiming Emile Armand was a mutualist. Do you have a source for this? Jadabocho (talk) 03:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Armand's own "Anarchist Individualism as Life and Activity," accessible in English on Dana Ward's website, invokes "mutualism" as the basis of relations. The "Amis de E. Armand" repeated this in 1944, in their "Principal Tendencies and Theses of the “L’Unique” Center." Libertatia (talk) 06:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The RAForum site is the work of Ronald Creagh, among the most important French anarchist academics, and the author of a very good book on the American individualists. Creagh's inclusion of folks like Novatore and Ryner in the category of individualist anarchists ought to be good enough for Wikipedia, particularly since the primary sources are pretty unequivocal in this case. There's a whole French mutualist tradition that is also absent here, starting from people like Alfred Darimon and J. A. Langlois, who collaborated with Proudhon and stretching up through people like Joseph Perrot, who signed himself "a disciple of Proudhon" and was an orthodox interpreter, and Edmond Lagarde, author of La revanche de Proudhon: ou, l'avenir du socialisme mutuelliste. Libertatia (talk) 06:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

But that's not Proudhonian mutualism. I'm not aware of Emile Armand subscribing to a labor theory of value of any sort, as in any labor value exploitation theory. I think the source is using "mutualism" in a very loose sense. Jadabocho (talk) 07:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the "labor theory of value" requirement for mutualism is largely something cooked up by its critics. Proudhonian mutualism, like the mutualism of the Lyons weavers, was first and foremost a matter of reciprocity. Kevin Carson has demonstrated what a non-issue the LTV-STV issue really is for mutualists, and the highly subjectivized notion of labor cost in Josiah Warren's work is also well-established here. In any event, a quick search demonstrates the obvious, that Armand's sympathy for illegalism was based in a critique of labor exploitation. From "Is the Illegalist Anarchist our Comrade?:" "It is by design that the illegalist anarchist addresses himself to his comrade who is exploited by a boss..." Etc. Libertatia (talk) 14:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

There's no doubt that Proudhonian mutualists had a labor theory of value. If "mutualism" is simply reciprocity, then capitalists are mutualists too, because it's people trading amongst each other for mutual gain. It's more than that. They have a labor exploitation theory based on the belief that a capitalist can steal the "full value" of the individual's labor, which is based on Marxist the surplus value theory (not that Marx was the only one, or the original one, to have this theory). Josiah Warren had the the same belief, that person was stealing the value from another person's labor if he wasn't trading them an equivalent supply of his own labor. Unless a person has a belief like they're not adherents to the doctrine of "Mutualism." So do you have a source for Armand believing anything like this? Also there is the issue of ownership of land, that we know to be a part of Mutualism where the Mutualists believes that a person can't own land but only use it. Any source for that? Jadabocho (talk) 17:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you can really make the case for reciprocity, at least as the mutualists used the term, as a key tenet of capitalism. And your claims about "Proudhonian mutualists" sound pretty empty. Can you source any other "Proudhonian mutualists," aside from Proudhon, on the question? Since you have posted incorrect information on land ownership, something specifically affirmed by most mutualists, it's hard to take your other generalizations as particularly authoritative. In any event, I can't see any grounds for excluding Armand, Ryner, Novatore, etc. from the article. Libertatia (talk) 22:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I never said Armand wasn't a mutualist. I'm ASKING. I don't know. The reason I'm asking is because things should not be asserted at article without sources. It's as simple as that. I certainly am not suggesting that Armand be excluded from the article. There are sources for him being an individualist anarchist. Lighten up on the paranoia. What did I post incorrectly about land ownership? Jadabocho (talk) 01:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Proudhon, Greene, Warren, Tucker, Morse, and Langlois (just to get started), all believed explicitly in individual ownership of land. Look at Proudhon's Theory of Property, Morse's "Liberty and Wealth," Langlois' L'Homme et la Revolution, Josiah Warren's remarks in The Word etc. They didn't believe in it the way contemporary an-caps do, but that's not the issue or your claim. Whatever you are "ASKING," you are also asserting quite a number of things that appear to be original research, in contradiction to the primary sources. You say "that's not Proudhonian mutualism," as if Eduen had claimed that, as if that had been the original question. Eduen's claim that Armand "was a mutualist" (in the same sense, presumably, as Tucker "was a mutualist) may or may not be the best way to characterize his philosophy, but Armand's own writings make it as plausible as a lot of what's already in the article, and more plausible than defining mutualism in terms of what an-cap property conventions it does not affirm. As for my "paranoia," hey, it's not all about you... We do have an article to get on with, and the Creagh site gives us some solid scholarly reasons to include the illegalists, Ryner, Novatore. It would be good to get the latter-day French mutualists and Proudhon's collaborators in there as well. Libertatia (talk) 03:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

If you only have a right to use or occupy, that's not ownership. That's a right of USE, not ownership. If you own something you don't have to use it. If you own something you don't lose that ownership based on what you're doing or not doing to it. It's your decision, because you OWN it. You own your computer right? If you turn off for the rest of your life and put it in storage in your attic it's still yours. Not so for Proudhonian when it comes to land, unless you twist the meaning of "ownership." Proudhon didn't call it ownership, because obviously it's not. It's only a right of use, or the right to control when using but not right to control when use stops. That's not ownership. Jadabocho (talk) 06:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Check the sources. Proudhon was, from beginning to end, aware of the differences between fact (possession) and right (property), and opted, ultimately, for property in it simplest form, domain,, allodium, unencumbered by any obligations. True, he always believed that property was essentially absolutist and unjust, but he also believed that the universalization of property (in that strong sense of domain) was the only means of transcending that. Your assertion that ownership must be perpetual is simply not supported by the facts. It may be your personal preference as a system, but that's about it, and you can't impose personal preferences on the entry. Non-perpetual domain is not usufruct, and Proudhon's proprietors enjoyed domain. Libertatia (talk) 18:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

its nice we are coming to an agreement. Now of course we have to think on something. The french and italian currents of individualist anarchism are less economics oriented than the american ones. But that doesnt mean they are not connected. Emile Armand exchanged correspondance with Benajmin Tucker. Tucker influenced people like Novatore and Emile Armand. Now of course Armand is a mutualist because he´s also an anticapitalist just like Tucker. Benjamin Tucker after his bookstore burned, moved to france and died in Monaco. And from the wikipedia article on him "By 1930, Tucker had concluded that centralization and advancing technology had doomed both anarchy and civilization. "The matter of my famous 'Postscript' now sinks into insignificance; the insurmountable obstacle to the realization of Anarchy is no longer the power of the trusts, but the indisputable fact that our civilization is in its death throes. We may last a couple of centuries yet; on the other hand, a decade may precipitate our finish. ... The dark ages sure enough. The Monster, Mechanism, is devouring mankind."

Here he´s developing similar arguments as Anarcho-primitivism. It is clear that individualist anarchism had a distrust of mass industrialization and mass society in general since Henry David Thoureau and later it continued with the strong relationship naturism had with french and spanish individualist anarchism.

Check this from Anarchist Individualism as a Life and Activity

And now this from Emile Armand: "But in relation to those whose amorphism, ignorance or interest interferes with his living his life, the individualist feels himself a stranger. Moreover, inwardly he remains refractory -- fatally refractory -- morally, intellectually, economically (The capitalist economy and the directed economy, the speculators and the fabricators of single are equally repugnant to him.) The full consciousness that none of his acts can debase him inwardly is for him a sufficient criterion. Surely the essential thing is that he remains himself?"

also from the same essay:

"The socialists base society upon economics. According to them the whole of life resolves itself into a question of production and consumption. Once you solve this problem you will automatically solve the human problem, with its complexity of intellectual and moral experiences." "The anarchist bases society neither upon the law nor upon economics."

The wikipedia individualist anarchism article though looks like it wants to make one think individualist anarchism is some kind of economics centered group. this is why i will expand the parts on free love and naturism in overview. no offense to economists present here.--Eduen (talk) 07:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

To be fair, the English-language sources emphasize the economic aspects and the American tradition, so the entry has reflected the readily-accessible sources. And the connection to primitivism seems to me like a pretty serious stretch for most of the individualists whose work I know well. "Anti-civilization," perhaps, if by "civilization" we mean the particular phase of development identified by that name by Fourier (and the term does get used in that way by a number of early anarchists), but also generally progressive in orientation. The Armand quote would have to be balanced against the Proudhonians who sought to absorb the political aspects of society by the economic, and against folks like Bellegarrigue, who said that "the Revolution is purely and simply a matter of business" (2nd issue of Anarchy.) It seems to me that we need to get the details and individual figures represented, at which point we can attempt to make some generalizations. Libertatia (talk) 18:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I repeat, why don`t use specialized publication, I give a list of published and especialized books, they should be prefered to self-published articles (o not?). (A note, European anarcho-individualist have not the same importance than US anarcho-individualism, nobody says that european anarcho-individualist doesn`t exist but that have a very fewer importace). I revert to last edition before the Eduen attempt of essay, it couldn'y be reposed (because is a essay :D, and because there is a discussion here, no esential changes should be done). Waht do you think?. --Nihilo 01 (talk) 23:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

de Molinari: the only people kind of close to anarchism that sometimes mention the liberal economist de Molinari are the USA centered (because they dont existe anywhere else) "anarcho" capitalists. And so anarchists also sometimes mention and adhere to marxist authors such as Guy Debord, Theodor Adorno, Wilhelm Reich, Antonio Negri, John Holloway, etc. So indeed the situationists adhered to marxism and are very influential in anarchists like Hakim Bey or Bob Black. So the "anarcho" capitalists mention here that liberal economist but they dont let us anaticapitalist individualist mention the situationists or Karl Marx. There´s definitely bias here but it is even worse since that liberal economist gets a mention in the introduction. So in this way this article will keep on being non neutral and the edit wars will keep on. And to end up the link that someone wants to make support the "relevance" to anarchism of liberal economist de molinari is something that says "Error 404: Document Not Found" and on top is titled with an obvious description of molinari as "LIBERAL" not anarchist.

"European anarcho-individualist have not the same importance than US anarcho-individualism, nobody says that european anarcho-individualist doesn`t exist but that have a very fewer importace"

What i say is prove it. and localize where is this supposed more importance. Murray Rothbard is not an important economist as he hasnt done any important contribution to the science of economics. In anarchism worldwide Murray Rothbard´s importance is null. He might be important in the american "Libertarian" Party of neoliberal ideology but that party is not anarchist and is, well, a party, and anarchists are supposed to be againts electoral parties. Now, for the many times this economist von Mises gets named by "anarcho" capitalists one will think hes an "anarcho" capitalist but hes not, hes a minarchist.

And now a citation by an individualist anarchist from your country: "In her article on individualist anarchism in the October, 1984, New Libertarian, Wendy McElroy mistakenly claims that modern-day individualist anarchism is identical with anarchist capitalism. She ignores the fact that there are still individualist anarchists who reject capitalism as well as communism, in the tradition of Warren, Spooner, Tucker, and others.""I do not quarrel with McElroy's definition of herself as an individualist anarchist. However, I dislike the fact that she tries to equate the term with anarchist capitalism. This is simply not true. I am an individualist anarchist and I am opposed to capitalist economic relations, voluntary or otherwise." reply to Wendy McElroy by Joe Peacott.

So as "anarcho" capitalism has tried to hegemonize the individualist anarchism article in wikipedia in english (elsewhere they havent been able to do so because they only exist in the USA) seems they have also tried to do this in other places in their country. This should serve as evidence of the kind of thing that is an obstacle in producing a non biased article of individualist anarchism.

"I revert to last edition before the Eduen attempt of essay, it couldn'y be reposed (because is a essay :D, and because there is a discussion here, no esential changes should be done). Waht do you think?."

Sorry for not being able to understand everything that Nihilo is trying to say here. Obviously though hes not willing to come to agreements and so hes been blocked in wikipedia many times as can be seen in his personal page.

"To be fair, the English-language sources emphasize the economic aspects and the American tradition, so the entry has reflected the readily-accessible sources" Nice that you accept this. And as you can see in this article, individualist anarchism also has been and is present outside the USA. If i mentioned individualist anarchist connections with contemporary anarcho-primitivism i only did it in this space to show individualist anarchism cannot be reduced to a school of thought that mainly concentrates on economics (an on top with neoclassical neoliberal economics). I never put that in the article itself.

"The Armand quote would have to be balanced against the Proudhonians who sought to absorb the political aspects of society by the economic, and against folks like Bellegarrigue, who said that "the Revolution is purely and simply a matter of business" (2nd issue of Anarchy.) It seems to me that we need to get the details and individual figures represented, at which point we can attempt to make some generalizations."

the word "business" can mean something like "enterprise". "I have some business to do" someone can say and what he ends up doing is going to insult someone or going to the store in the corner to buy cigarretes. Also a large "enterprise" was the Castro guerrilla taking over Cuba from the hand of Fulgencio Batista. It might help your argument contextualizing more the Bellarrighe quote. So, "we need to get the details and individual figures represented, at which point we can attempt to make some generalizations" well, i agree. Thats what i attepted to do in the overview that i put. Even though i dont think "anarcho" capitalism is anarchism i didnt erase it from the article and if it gets mentioned in the overview its fine with me as long as things as free love, womens rights, naturism, egoism, individual subjetive exploration, anticapitalism and others things like that also get mentioned and described.

So well should we keep the edit wars? seems its up to nihilo. with other people here as can be seen from the recent dialogues that can be found here, it is clear things can be solved rationally.--Eduen (talk) 09:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Benjamin tucker picture

I took off the Lysander Spooner photo and instead i put a Benajmin Tucker photo. This because of two reasons. First Benjamin Tucker is a figure of more importance within individualist anarchism and this mainly because he was the most influential american individualist in european individualist circles (he was friends with John Henry Mckay and Emile Armand) as well as the more notorious and visible in the USA. And second. As the page is too long, to keep the two photos will make the page too heavy and the american section already has too many photos.--Eduen (talk) 09:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

since nihilo doesnt explain his reversions i will go back to the previous version. and on top he keeps putting a link to support the inclusion of liberal economist De Molinari that says "Error 404: Document Not Found Sorry, the requested document (/personal/DHart/ClassicalLiberalism/Molinari/ToC.html) could not be found." at least eh could try putting a link that works even though it says the LIBERAL tradition, and this is an anarchism article. --Eduen (talk) 22:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I already have explained it a lots of times in the resume. Your editions are big POV-biased, and I explain the reasons (and your personal heats are an example). We don't need you ideological opinions, we need reliable sources, I proposed include refereces to especialized works, to schoolar works (principaly in english, an universal language that all of us can understand, althought I believe that is not an obligation).

I proposed the most of times we should exclude self-published sources -generally I'm not against it, but in these cases, that there are conflictive users, or attempts of essays, is better to avoid any innecesary conflict.--Nihilo 01 (talk) 03:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Nihilo. you are not discussing the specific issues. You only come here and edit things. Discuss why you include the LIBERAL de Molinari. This is an anarchism article. You just come here and erase things because you want this article to be on line with your neoliberal ideology.

"self-published sources" specify.

"don't include original thinkings," sorry. things in this article are supported on exterior articles and sources.

"don't erase mentions to schoolar referenced authors," the reference you are trying to defend mentions De Molianri as a LIBERAL, not anarchist. Molianri has no connection with anarchism. Explain this or otherwise his inclusion cannot be accepted.

"and respect the discussion."

we have come to agreements with other users. you are the one that wants this page to be biased towards american neoliberalism, something that doesnt even do justice to americans like Benjamin Tucker. As a matter of fact. you dont even discuss, you just erase things.--Eduen (talk) 19:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that Molinari has been included primarily because of his influence on later movements which are accepted in the Wikipedia anarchism articles as anarchist. The case could be made, and has been made by the individualist anarchists at the Molinari Institute, that in particular Molinari's early writings were de facto anarchist writings. Libertatia (talk) 19:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

People have said that about a darn lot of people. And Molinari didn't influence anarchists until around a century after his time Wouldn't it be better to use a picture of somebody who actually identified as an anarchist, or was at least important at the time period s/he was alive in? Voltairine de Cleyre might be a good idea, being an important figure in anarchism without adjectives and the a prominent woman individualist. Zazaban (talk) 00:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I have no real preferences ob pictures, while we're still struggling to get the content worked out. I do think that the case for inclusion of Molinari in the text as an influence is fairly strong. But as I'm sure you know by now, I would prefer to err on the side of inclusion. Libertatia (talk) 01:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Is very sad, that there are still users -new users- that don't understand Wikipedia politics of neutrality. Is very sad to know that there are still wiki-warrior that believe that their personal convictions are the law for every people: deteting referenced content, reliable sources, including personal oppionions, POV-biased redactions, and breaking neutrality consensus about somes political issues, and speaking about "conspirations" when the reality is against their oppinions. I hope the community make something about, because I don't have the time and the patient for this kind of wiki-warriors (and less if there is about of old solutioned issues)--Nihilo 01 (talk) 02:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

well if the page has been blocked its because it had too many reversions and because we couldnt come to an agreement. I think this might be better since nihilo and vision thing only kept changing things without much explanation and debate.

"I hope the community make something about,"

well it did. and as far as all the vague accusations (that border on insults) that nihilo makes, i think it shows how perhaps he didnt want to discuss specific things regarding the article and so didnt want a rational discussion.--Eduen (talk) 03:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

unbalanced and USA biased article

hello. as i can see the state of this article is again biased towards the usa versions of individualist anarchism and towards a view compatible with the USA centered tendency of "anarcho" capitalism. this is why i propose trying to achieve a less biased article. my proposal is this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Individualist_anarchism&oldid=290897289 and while i have been away some people have decided to erase many parts well referenced (illegalism, italy, propaganda by the deed, "lifestyle" individualist anarchism") and some main parts which will give this article a balanced non usa centric perspective. again as you can see in my proposal, even though i dont consider "anarcho" capitalism a form of anarchism but a form of clasical liberalism of the lockean variety and of neoliberalism nevertheless i didnt erase the mention and description of it in my proposal even though it doesnt seem to have any presence outside the USA and even though it is as controversial as proposing a christian satanism to most anarchists. so i expect to discuss this issue and i will try to make the changes with discussion and changes made will have a justification whether required or not. this last thing is something that hasnt happened in the changes made since this article was blocked by an administrator and people have just made changes without justifing anything.--Eduen (talk) 07:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Shall I re-add the stuff I put in about post-left anarchy? Zazaban (talk) 19:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

And I think Egoism and Mutualism should have their own sections separate from Europe and America. Zazaban (talk) 06:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Zazaban, you have reverted this article to a contested version from 5 months ago. [7] Version that you have replaced was back by a host of scholarly sources. Would you please explain your massive revert? -- Vision Thing -- 10:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

i hope this discussion is not seen by someone here as "trying to impose an anarcho communist" view of individualist anarchism. I already spoke before about my view on "anarcho" capitalism. Just to clarify and i hope not to "inform" someone here.

1.Individualist anarchism is unthinkable without Max Stirner. 2.Max Stirner denies respect to private property and has few if any interest in "markets" and even justifies working class insurrection 3.Mutualism as exposed by both Proudhon and "BostoN Anarchists" opposes wage work and class subordination. 4.Individualist anarchism was very active in France, Italy and Spain with many theorists with many book lenght expositions of individualist anarchism and many publications specificlly individualist anarchist. Considering this European individualist anarchism at the beginning of the 20th century until the 20 might have been actually larger than USA currents only centered in Boston and perhaps New York. Also very possibly much richer in the variety of interests and of publications. I itned in the following days to provide here of a list of european individualist anarchist publications. In spain they last until just before the rise fo the FRanco dictatorship while in the USA there seems they ended up publication with benjamin tucker´s Liberty 5. Individualist anarchism is not a current of thought that can be said to be just a current of economics. Individualist anarchism is as variad as having been theorizing and active in issues and forms as varied as free love, naturism/green anarchism (since Henry David Thoreau, feminism, illegalism, alternative communes and lifestyles, opposition to religion/atheism, alternative education and pedagogy, esperanto and pacifism.

Vision thing. You can very well get more informed about these other currents and then you can come back and discuss specific things. I hope we can have an edition of this article with debate and sources and consensus and not just an edit war. Also Vision thing you can also very well show us the scholarly sources you make reference to. From the way you talk, seems you are supported by some specific treatesies on all individualist anarchism. I hope these are not just investigations by american "anarcho" capitalists on neoliberal think tanks.--Eduen (talk) 01:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Let us start with definition. Your version for defining individualist anarchism uses primary sources in which both authors describe how they personally see individualism. Other version starts with definitions from Key Concepts in Politics and The Anarchists, scholarly sources. -- Vision Thing -- 11:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

in the end the detail of the definition of "key concepts in politics" is unclear as it only names the source but no citation from inside it, while the other version cites major thinkers of individualist anarchism such as Han Ryner and Benjamin Tucker. But we could come up with an intro with consensus but you then proceed to erase too many things without explaining each one of them.--Eduen (talk) 01:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

You can find definition of individualist anarchism on page 46 of "Key concepts in politics" (Individualist anarchism is based upon the idea of the sovereign individual, the belief that individual conscience and the pursuit of self-interest should not be constrained by any collective body or public authority. Individualist anarchism overlaps with libertarianism and is usually linked to a strong belief in the market as a self-regulating mechanism, most obviously manifest in the form of anarcho-capitalsim.) As for definitions from individualist anarchists, please see our policy on sources. Primary sources like original philosophical works may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care when they have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper). Policy also says: Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about information found in a primary source. As for deletions, can you explain this edit? -- Vision Thing -- 22:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

well your source is really ignorant or very well biased towards neoliberalism since such definition of individualist anarchism leaves out most individualist anarchists who are anticapitalists. and here i mean max stirner, anselme bellarrigue, emile armand, proudhon, novatore. this is the reason why it is unnaceptable. anyway the work of Xavier Diez on spanish individualist anarchism is published and done by someone with nice superior academic degrees.--Eduen (talk) 05:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

in order to have a debate nased on evidence and not only an edit war i want to suggest some important points that need to be considered in order to have a balanced good article on this subject:

1. European individualist currents, except by proudhon, are only marginally interested in economics. Mostly there stands the influence of Max Stirner and so interests range there in things like philosophy, relation to labor unions, organizationalism or not, the issue of illegalism and the forms associated with it, education, eugenics, naturism, Neo-Malthusianism, "millieux livres", esperanto, etc.

2. american individualist currents also cannot said to be some sort of economicistic subculture. In order to support this i will put into consideration the article by "anarcho" capitalist feminist Wendy Mcelroy ["The Free Love Movement and Radical Individualism" http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle1996/le961210.html] which as usual of her only focuses on the USA. There she writes:

"The free love periodical with which Tucker was most closely associated was Ezra and Angela Heywood's The Word (1872-1890, 1892-1893)...Initially, The Word presented free love as a minor theme which was expressed within a labor reform format. But the publication later evolved into an explicitly free love periodical...Through his association with Ezra Heywood and The Word, Tucker acquired much of the background from which Liberty sprang. In April 1875, he became an associate editor of The Word, but as the paper de-emphasized economics to stress free love he grew dissatisfied."

"The most important American free love journal was Lucifer the Light Bearer (1883-1907) edited by Moses Harman first from Valley Falls, Kansas, then from Topeka (1890), and finally from Chicago (1896). Tucker's relationship with Lucifer started well...Gradually, however, the relationship between the two periodicals became strained. Tucker became increasingly hostile to civil disobedience as a strategy..."

And as we know Tucker s Liberty, besides the fact of Tucker´s economicism, it ended publication in 1908, just one year after Lucifer. As we can see here free love had journals focused on it in the USA for very long in The Word and Lucifer. Since this was an important issue also in European IndivAnarchism then i think we need a small section discussing the high importance that free love had in IndivAnarchism. This is the reason why this article cannot be too focused on economics and so the introduction and overview cannot be economicistic either.

So i will be nice to have a debate on this before editing things here. In reality Vision thing and Nihilo have just decided to revert to a version viased towards neoliberalism and so reducing this to an edit war.--Eduen (talk) 17:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

When you have a dispute you should use dispute resolution. The first step is to set up an RfC/A. An RfC/A will attract knowledgable Wikipedians to contribute. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Folks, no matter who writes what, this page needs some simple editing. Frankly for a subject that is as owned by high end scholars as this one is, the writing is shockingly bad. Less blather about "neoliberalism" and other yak yak and more basic writing. Andacar (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC).

Orphaned references in Individualist anarchism

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Individualist anarchism's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "carlson":

• From Egoist anarchism: Carlson, Andrew (1972). "Philosophical Egoism: German Antecedents". Anarchism in Germany. Metuchen: Scarecrow Press. ISBN 0810804840. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)
• From Freeganism: Carlson, Tucker (February 3, 2006). "'Freegans' choose to eat garbage". MSNBC. Retrieved 2007-06-21. These people don't eat out of dumpsters because they're poor and desperate. They do it to prove a political point. You wouldnt expect someone to choose a lifestyle that involved eating out of dumpsters. Kind of seems like something you do as a desperate last resort. But there's an entire society of people who willingly get their meals out of the garbage. They're called freegans, and they say they have a reason for doing it. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 00:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

First one. I'll add it. Zazaban (talk) 00:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Pierre-Joseph Proudhon

Pierre-Joseph Proudhon was not an individualist anarchist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individualist_Anarchism#Pierre-Joseph_Proudhon He was a Mutualist. Why is he even in this article?

See here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism#Mutualism Elodoth (talk) 00:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Elodoth, "mutualism" is an economic orientation; "individualism" is only philosophic orientation. Those are not contradictory. Neomedes (talk) 21:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Too many external links

Per WP:LINKFARM and WP:EL, we should only have a few, high quality links. Our goal is not to be an exhaustive directory. Can someone with more knowledge on the subject cull it down by at least half? I can do it myself if need be, but I'd prefer someone more familiar with the topic tackle it first. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I will reduce individual theoretical texts and change it for author´s archives. That will reduce the number of links.--Eduen (talk) 18:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Links for subtopics, i.e. individual authors and flavours of individualist anarchism such as Stirnerism and illegalism, belong in those sub-articles and should be removed from here. Skomorokh 19:26, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

articles covering all of individualist anarchism in the english language have yet to be written. the websites available in english which say want to cover individualist anarchism only cover american libertarianism and so for european coverage or non economistic individualist anarchism one has to go elsewhere. That is why i thought leaving the Article dealing with spanish individualist anarchism and the Richard PArry book which concentrates on french individualist anarchism was important. Also the site on egoism and stirnerism.--Eduen (talk) 22:22, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Individualist anarchism in (popular) culture

I think a culture section could be included, starting with a brief description of Eric Frank Russell's 1951 novella "And Then There Were None", an excellent science fiction story that features a functioning individualist-anarchist society. The story was expanded into Russell's book The Great Explosion. Anyone else here read the story, or the novel? (If so, am I right in thinking that the society it depicts is individualist-anarchist, or does it fit better with some other anarchist school of thought?) Memetics (talk) 10:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Doubts on Xavier Diez´s article "La insumisión voluntaria. El anarquismo individualista durante la Dictadura y la Segunda República (1923-1938)"

User RepublicanJacobite accepts this source Xavier Diez. El anarquismo individualista en España: 1923-1938. ISBN 978-84-96044-87-6 and so the existence of that published work should be a good sing on the reliability on Diez as a source with enough specific expertise on the subject of individualist anarchism. Now RepublicanJacobite has decided to remove the following work on Spanish Individualist anarchism written by the same Xavier Diez who wrote the previoulsy mentioned book on Spanish Individualist anarchism. The essay "La insumisión voluntaria. El anarquismo individualista durante la Dictadura y la Segunda República (1923-1938)" Xavier Díez has been reproduced even in blogs and so doubts as far as reliability if it was something published in a blog are understandable. This is not the case of this essay by Xavier Diez which happens to be a smaller version of the published book El anarquismo individualista en España: 1923-1938 written by the same author.

This essay was published first in what has to be one of the most reliable publications out there on anarchism. Germinal (revista de análisis) which includes among its scientific council the following people "Maurizio Antonioli (Università di Milano), Gianpietro Berti (Università di Padova), Richard Cleminson (University of Leeds), Joel Delhom (Université de Bretagne-Sud), Alejandro Díez Torre (Universidad de Alcalá de Henares), Luis Dorrego (New York University in Madrid), Isabel Escudero Ríos (UNED), Christian Ferrer (Universidad de Buenos Aires), Agustín García Calvo (Universidad Complutense de Madrid), Roberto Giulianelli (Università Politecnica delle Marche), José Luis Gutiérrez Molina (Universidad de Cádiz), Luigi di Lembo (Università di Firenze), Nelson Méndez (Universidad Central de Venezuela), Teresa Oñate Zubía (UNED), Philippe Pelletier (Université Lyon 2), Pablo M. Pérez (Universidad de Buenos Aires), Paul Preston (London School Economics), Giorgio Sacchetti (Università di Siena), Eugenio Trías (Universitat Pompeu Fabra), Salvo Vaccaro (Università di Palermo), Gianni Vattimo (Università di Torino), Alfredo Vallota (Universidad Simón Bolívar de Caracas)" as can be seen here. I don´t know how you can make something more reliable from an academic point of view but if there are more doubts here is the article by Diez shown in the index of the specific issue of the Magazine Germinal in which it appeared and more importantly here is the article "La insumision voluntaria" in PDF from within the magazine´s website.

So if there are no more doubts i will reinstate the link to that article and with specific quotes from within it. But i could as well also put as source the book by Xavier Diez El anarquismo individualista en España: 1923-1938. ISBN 978-84-96044-87-6 since this book just expands on what the article "La insumision voluntaria" deals with. As far as the contents of the article "La insumision voluntaria" as can be seen in the article itself it could be smummarized as follows: 1. A consideration on when and how "individualist anarchism" appeared in Spain. 2. The philosophical base of spanish individualist anarchism considering it it thus a good summarization of its influences and it includes Stirner, Proudhon, Godwin, the americans Thoreau, Warren and Tucker and french individualist anarchists like Emile Armand and Han Ryner. 3. the practice of spanish individualist anarchism 4. the main publications in it. 4. a decription of the discourse of spanish individualist anarchism --Eduen (talk) 05:22, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Bookchin abandoning anarchism

User RepublicanJacobite apparently is not well informed on this but as to clear doubts here is an article written on that issue by Bookchin´s main colaborator Janet Biehl. Janet Biehl. "Bookchin Breaks with Anarchism".--Eduen (talk) 05:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

RepublicanJacobite

User RepublicanJacobite is deleting an important number of references for this article and so I expect him to give specific reasons here on each case. I already answered him in detail about one important reference he doesn´t want to accept and after giving no response about it in the section in which I talk about it, he came here and deleted it again. What I ask him is to be specific as to why and which ones are not good and to point out if there are any mistakes. I found 2 mistakes in them and then proceeded to fix them and in some cases I provided the exact citation from each source where there is support for an affirmation. This article has been checked many times and so maybe the two mistakes I found might not have been noticed and that could be undesrtood. Also if RepublicanJacobite has doubts about some affirmations being supported only by a link to an article that could also be understood. Obviously a different problem exists if after fixing those details he comes again and erases the same things I just finished fixing without specific reasons. This is the reason why I reverted his last edition and I hope this is solved through dialogue and reason and does not end up becoming a silly edit war.--Eduen (talk) 08:44, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Many of the references, especially in regard to "anarcho-naturism," are to deadlinks. These should either be fixed or removed. At this point, the claims made simply cannot be verified. In the case of many of them, the notability and reliability of the sources, authors, and claims cannot be verified because they are in French, Spanish, Portugese, etc. I for one have a lot of doubts about many of these sources, which come from websites which I doubt meet the standard for reliable sources. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 18:26, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Well as far as the article by Diez then it is fine and so it should stay as my previous post here on where it was published and the high standards that the publication Germinal has. The Xavier Diez book and article also document about naturism within french and spanish individualist circles. As far as "notability" you can say anything said in this article could be as notable as the sources I am defending and nothing I fixed comes from blogs or anything like that but from published sources on paper with a long history of publication.

If you have an specific source you want to question then I will deal with it but your vague sentence "In the case of many of them, the notability and reliability of the sources, authors, and claims cannot be verified" doesn´t help too much.

As far as non-english sources wikipedia says the following:

"Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones, provided that English sources of equal quality and relevance are available."Non-English_sources

These sources don´t exist in the english language in the subject of european individualist anarchism and so sources like the works of Xavier Diez in both Spanish and Catalan must be brought here

"When quoting a source in a different language, provide both the original-language text and an English translation in the text or a footnote. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations by Wikipedians, but translations by Wikipedians are preferred over machine translations. When citing such a source without quoting it, the original and its translation should be provided if requested by other editors: this can be added to a footnote or the talk page. When posting original source material, editors should be careful not to violate copyright; see the fair-use guideline."

And so I can very well provide these translations as soon as I can.--Eduen (talk) 20:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

As the article stands now, there are no dead links related with anarcho-naturism.--Eduen (talk) 20:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Individualist anarchism

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Individualist anarchism's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "infoshop":

• From Katie Sierra suspension controversy: "Infoshop Interviews - Katie Sierra". Infoshop.org. Archived from the original on 2007-04-19. Retrieved 2008-03-22.
• From Anarcho-primitivism: AbdelRahim, Layla. "Avatar: An Anarcho-Primitivist Picture of the History of the World". Infoshop News. Retrieved 2011-04-14.
• From Volin: "J.3.2 What are "synthesis" federations?" in An Anarchist FAQ
• From Dyer Lum: Crass, Chris. "Voltairine de Cleyre - a biographical sketch". Infoshop.org. Archived from the original on 2007-06-30. Retrieved 2007-08-06.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 03:23, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

User Byelf2007´s proposals

"Schools of individualist anarchism"

This is completely a personal opinion as no sources are given that support the affirmation that Individualist anarchism has "3 schools of thought" and not more or less than that. But also In my view the particular choice of those 3 positions that user Byelf2007 chooses look as arbitrary as can be and not even the personal reasoning for choosing those three positions and not others is given. From my reading experience on this subject the concept itself of "schools of individualist anarchism" is something that has not been proposed by any historian of the subject. What can be seen is suggestions of individualist anarchists of a pacifist or of a violentist tendency, more involved in the issues of economics, others more involved in lifestyle anarchism and issues of free love and sex, others with a tendency towards naturism, etc. Nothing more than that and frankly as fragmentary as that or even more. In any case I suggest anyone really interested in discussing this issue to check the bibliography provided by this same article which deals with individualist anarchism.--Eduen (talk) 01:52, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

the separation between individualist anarchism and social anarchism

From a quantitative point of view such a division has important problems since individualist anarchism has been a minoritarian position as compared to what is usually called "social anarchism". this is the reason why it has been common to speak of individualist anarchism alongside other positions such as collectivist anarchism, anarchocommunism and anarchosyndicalism or else to emphasize classical important theorists such as Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin and sometimes Stirner as well as particular developments such as stirnerian egoism or US mutualist individualism (Benjamin Tucker, Josiah Warren). As far as post-classical positions the division individualist/social becomes even more problematic since there are positions such as insurrectionary anarchism and post-left anarchy which combine an individualist existentialist position inspired by Max Stirner with anarchocommunism.--Eduen (talk) 01:49, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

What is the difference between Individualist anarchism and Anarcho-captialism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.69.67 (talk) 16:16, 25 April 2016 (UTC)