 | Discussions on this talk page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read the recent comments, or look in the archives or FAQ section before contributing. New topics for discussion are always welcome.
|  | Anarchism is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive. | | | | | This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects: |  | This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative Views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion. | |  B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. | | Top | This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. | | |  | This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. | | | B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. | | Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. | | | | |  | This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. | | | B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. | | High | This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. | | |  | This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. | | | B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. | | Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. | | | |  | This subject is featured in the Outline of anarchism, which is incomplete and needs further development. That page, along with the other outlines on Wikipedia, comprise Wikipedia's Outline of Knowledge, which also serves as the table of contents or site map of Wikipedia. |
[edit] Archives A descriptive list of talkpage archives can be found at Talk:Anarchism/Archives. The archive of a mediation discussion concerning this article is available at The anarchy battlefield. As of December 14, 2008, threads on this page are automatically archived by MiszaBot I (talk · contribs) once they are 30 days old. [edit] Current discussion [edit] Changes Please stop change the article to make it favorable to your oppinions. Here are many people what want to read Wikipedia to get informed not to read the oppinions of wikipedians. I reverted to the last consensued edition, consensued in order or relevance and cronology. Please only add referenced changes, not include original investigations. I had tried to make a translation of this article to Spanish and I had consulted many of the sources. Thank you very much. --Sageo (talk) 16:39, 10 October 2009 (UTC) - What original investigation? Nobody added any original research, and this new version was in fact talked about here. Zazaban (talk) 20:32, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- Where are the basis of these changes, that I believe aren't honest. If this situation persist it should be denounced. --Sageo (talk) 22:31, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
-
- Changes in long time consensus of theorical and historial relevance, and chronological order long time accepted, should be referenced with very clear sources and reliable publications (not with wikipedian's opinions or with Internet statistics). Also, both Zarzaban and Maziotis, should respect the consensued redaction that a lot of users have built before you with an excellent explanation and redaction and with very good sources.--Sageo (talk) 22:55, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not talking about the picture discussion, I'm talking about the one above that. And if your objection is simply to the addition of post-anarchism and post-left anarchy, don't delete everything. I have no idea how on earth
any of it could be interpreted as saying in any way that post-modern anarchism is more important than libertarian anarchism, especially since nothing about libertarian anarchism was even touched. If it will make you happy, I will remove the sections on those two for now, but your argument doesn't make any sense to me, I'm not even clear on what you're objecting to. At the very least it's absurd that the section on anarcho-capitalism should be the largest in the article. Zazaban (talk) 23:09, 10 October 2009 (UTC) -
-
- Are you sure this changes are honest? In the publications that I have consulted one could certefied that anarcho-capitalism (or free-market anarchism, like a synonimous, the use of this term for another theories should be referenced) isn't historical anarchism but is one of the most important contemporay forms of anarchism. It should be first in the list of post-classical schools, and with pictures. And remember, with a neutral redaction, that is what I don't see now. If you broken long time consensus I hope you show that reliable sources what justified that radical change.
Another point, this article shouldn't be a list of all anarchist schools but a chronogical and theoretical review of most important kinds of anarchism. I mean, is suppoused that Rothbard should be mentioned first and wider than Bob Black or John Zerzan. The problem never have been that anarcho-capitalism have a bigger section, is that there aren't reliable sources for make larger the other post-clasical schools sections. --Sageo (talk) 23:38, 10 October 2009 (UTC) - I don't think anyone edits this site with that incredible level of meticulousness. If long time consensus is broken, and nobody seems to have a problem with it, then there's no point in making a big deal out of it. Besides the fact that several other established editors have edited the page and commented on the talk page since the edits were made and saw absolutely no cause for alarm. In fact some outwardly expressed support. I don't I've ever seen a process with such an extreme level of sourcing and consulting publications on this site. I don't think I've ever seen sourcing used for how sections are ordered at all. Furthermore, anarcho-capitalism has had less of an influence on anarchism than green anarchism. Anarcho-capitalism is generally isolated from the rest of the movement, and most anarchists that get on the news are greenies. If anything comes first in the section, it should be green anarchism. Zazaban (talk) 06:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Moving forward The changes in dispute are varied and dramatic. Perhaps if we separated them out and discussed them individually we could come to agreement or at least consensus over which to retain as beneficial or alter accordingly? Skomorokh, barbarian 02:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC) I agree with Sageo. Zazaban, please explain changes that you are trying to implement. -- Vision Thing -- 10:35, 11 October 2009 (UTC) -
- So Zazaban you accept that is only the opinion of two wikipedians what broken the long time accepted consensus from a lot of wikipedians, without any visible consult and without any reliable source. I agree that anarcho-capitalism is isolated from the rest of anarchism, because isn't collectivist but individualist and libertarian, but alone anarcho-capitalism have more theoretical relevance in the world of ideas and political influence that any other of the theories alone ("posties", "greenies", like you say, etc), only one have to check political publications like philosophical encyclopedias and dicctionaries and one can see that anarcho-capitalism have produce a debate only comparable with the historical anarchism, saving the differences of course. Anarcho-capitalism have influence in a third party from US, and inside institutes and academical publications around the world. Also, anarcho-capitalism have a chronological order that should be respected. Check that I'm not using my opinions, like Zazaban and Maziotis do, for support this claim, I'm using the references and bibliography used for make this article. I repeat, if this situation persist it should be denounced, specially to that ones who make the long time consesued and referenced article. --Sageo (talk) 21:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Is socialist anarchism really a school of anarchism? I mean, the concept is kind of oxymoronic. No matter how many pseudo-intellectual European philosophers from the nineteenth century you can find that disagree with me, the idea is internally consistent. I mean how can you advocate "a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole" [1] while also advocating "belief in the abolition of all government and the organization of society on a cooperative basis"[2]? It is, in itself, internally contradictory. I think at the very least such should be pointed out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Macai (talk • contribs) 08:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC) - Anarchism does not advocate abolishing "the organization of society on a cooperative basis". The vast majority of all anarchism has historically been, and is presently, socialist. To argue that is isn't really a school of anarchism deletes essentially 90% of anarchist history. I would suggest you study the subject before making wide-reaching judgement calls. Zazaban (talk) 08:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, I think I see what's happened. The definition given is belief in "the abolition of all government" and the belief in "the organization of society on a cooperative basis". It's not saying anywhere that cooperative should be abolished, it is saying the exact opposite. You read it as advocating the removal of both. Zazaban (talk) 09:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- How can you believe in abolishing government while also believing that the government should own everything? 76.15.41.182 (talk) 10:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- Anarchists are working towards a society with no "government" -- i.e. no external institution which regulates peoples' lives. This does not mean that people cannot collectively make decisions about how things are done. As long as people are directly involved in the decision making process (i.e. no "representatives"), consensus is reached for everything (so that everyone agrees with what is being done), and everyone has a say in each decision that affects their own life, then there is no government -- there is only a group of friends making a group decision. In the case of the many flavors of communist anarchism, you don't have any government, and you don't have ownership of the means of production. You just have a group of people working together who reach consensus as a group about what should be done. Does that make more sense now? Jrtayloriv (talk) 15:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- Not really, no. You're basically saying that direct democracy among a tiny group of people is anarchism, and it's not. "As long as people are directly involved in the decision making process", and "everyone has a say in each decision that affects their own life", then "there is no government"? This does not follow. What you're describing is direct democracy, not anarchism. While there may be a group of people who believe this is the way things should be, it is oxymoronic to describe it as "communist anarchism", since in order for people, even a small group of maybe ten people, to organize themselves, they are engaging in the act of governing the group. Communist anarchism seems to say that it's not a government if it's a small enough government, which just doesn't make any sense. For this reason, I think it should be noted that communist anarchism doesn't really describe anarchism since they're advocating a system where the community as a whole (i.e., the government) owns everything. Macai (talk) 20:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
- No, you're still not quite getting anarchist theory. Regardless, it is not our job to explain it to you. If you attempt to add this, you will be reverted. Communist anarchism has represented the majority of anarchists for most, if not all, of its history, and it's status within the movement is uncontroversial. Zazaban (talk) 21:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
- Well, first of all, just because most people that describe themselves as anarchists also describe themselves as communist anarchists doesn't make communist anarchism less of an oxymoron. Likewise, if I got a majority of vegetarians to come to an agreement that they are carnivorous vegetarians, it wouldn't make carnivorous vegetarianism less of an oxymoron. Saying otherwise (which is basically what you just resorted to) is an argumentum ad populum argument, and is therefore fallacious. Second of all, communist anarchism's status as anarchism is very controversial. See the controversy going on right now. That is, unless by "it is uncontroversial" you mean "it is uncontroversial among people that agree with me". Third, and finally of all, threatening to revert edits while actually saying you don't need to provide a reason amounts to the de facto adoption of an "I'm right and you're wrong" position. Doing so is a de facto concession in a debate and is appreciated by those of us with reading comprehension. I'll wait for someone else to attempt to point out how communist anarchism is not an oxymoron before actually making the edit. Macai (talk) 22:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
- I wasn't 'threatening' to revert you. I was simply stating a fact. I probably won't be the one doing it either. Also, it should be pointed out that communist anarchism does not support the community owning everything. It supports possession based ownership. Zazaban (talk) 23:23, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
- Macai -- it seems that your confusion is a result of the fact that you're getting all of your information about anarchism from a single (poorly written) dictionary entry. You are making false statements such as "communist anarchism's status as anarchism is very controversial". Certainly not all people who call themselves "anarchists" are communist anarchists, but as Zazaban mentioned above, the majority of them have been historically, so it is hardly "controversial" whether it is considered a current of anarchist thought.
- Also nobody has said anywhere that "just because most people that describe themselves as anarchists also describe themselves as communist anarchists" that this makes "communist anarchism less of an oxymoron.". The reason that people don't think that it is an "oxymoron" is because there is a large body of anarchist communist theory that has not been logically or historically refuted -- it has nothing to do with the number of people who "describe themselves as communist anarchists". Rhetoric aside, you have yet to demonstrate anything that shows that anarchist communism is logically inconsistent or an "oxymoron". You seem to be coming to this conclusion, because of your mistaken belief that anarchist communists support state ownership of everything, when in fact they oppose the idea of both the State AND of ownership. You seem to be mixing up anarchist communism with state socialism. I don't think you necessarily have flawed logic here -- it seems, rather, that you are starting out with false premises (i.e. misconceptions about what anarchist communism actually is) which are leading you to an invalid conclusion. I would recommend that you take a look at this -- it might clear up some of your misconceptions. Jrtayloriv (talk) 01:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
[edit] On anarchist sectarianism There does not exist an anarchist school of thought that has not been decried at one point or another as not true anarchism. The syndicalists are too beholden to stifling mass control, mutualism is profiteering with a human face, the communists are closet Stalinists, the capitalists are budding hierarchs, primitivism is nothing but luddite inhumanity, the post-leftists are bourgeois individualists, individualism dissolves into barbarism or government, the post-anarchists academic opportunists who wouldn't recognise an anarchist if she slapped them in the face, and the anarchists without adjectives can't make up their damn minds. In short, everyone has an opinion, and there is no faction that emerges unsoiled from inter-anarchist mudslinging. It is not our business as an encyclopaedia to engage in these disputes, only to chronicle them veraciously. We do so by adopting a neutral point of view and not misrepresenting opinions as fact. This article has no business saying such and such an anarchist philosophy is not truly anarchist, though it can and should report on notable opinions to that effect (cf. "The status of anarchist communism within anarchism is disputed, because most individualist anarchists consider communitarianism incompatible with political freedom", "Because of the historically anti-capitalist nature of much of anarchist thought, the status of anarcho-capitalism within anarchism is disputed, particularly by communist anarchists."), where they are supported by reliable sources. Our articles on anarchism were for years the most controversial on the encyclopaedia precisely for this reason of sectarian disputes, and there has been long-standing consensus consequently in favour of non-judgemental pluralism and inclusion. This article will not be kicking any school of thought out of the anarchist treehouse. For further guidance on this, please consult the Wikipedia:Anarchism referencing guidelines. Sincerely, Skomorokh, barbarian 02:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC) - Thank you for this. I definitely need some work in this area myself. I have removed the divisive, unnecessary comment I made above about syndicalists. Nice to have a few calm heads like yourself around. Skomorokh++ --- Jrtayloriv (talk) 05:44, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- This is so good, I almost think it should be put up as a warning on the top of the talk page. Half of the stuff here consists of inter-anarchist bitching. Zazaban (talk) 06:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- I think this sounds fair enough as well. Macai (talk) 09:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- To follow up on this, I'm thinking of proposing a general guideline for political articles and the like based on this under the name Wikipedia:Do Not Kick People Out of The Treehouse (WP:TREEHOUSE). Considering that almost every political, religious, and social group has some level of sectarianism like this. It would be better than the long drawn out debates all over the place that we have now, quite a few articles are bogged down by this gibberish. Does anyone else like the idea? Zazaban (talk) 06:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
-
-
- No, not really, "No Sir I don't Like It." RS and WEIGHT work fine already. This only becomes a problem when an area is underworked in terms of Academic RS, or the Academic RS are polemical instead of authoritative. Yet Another Problem is your definition of sectarianism only extends to coherent movements with aligned core goals; and, that the idea that these conflicts are sectarian is used to paper over significant differences between groups or movements with a "why can't we all just get along" appeal. I'm quite happy with RS and WEIGHT to deal with these issues. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Since consensus appears to be changing I've updated the page to fit what seems to be the emerging consensus. Let's discuss these changes here. Possible additions, or if you think it should be reverted. Zazaban (talk) 09:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC) - "It is often argued that [socialism anarchism isn't whatever]" was undue. Good work. Not interested in the page positioning issue. Better characterisation of individualism, would prefer to see reference to the thinker who typifies the opinion on that, "Foo, in the mainstream opinion, believes x about individualism". Fifelfoo (talk) 10:51, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- In retrospect, the section was far too large for a summary article. Most of that info is in the main article. Zazaban (talk) 18:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Any Long standing Anarchist communties Article did not say are they any long standing lastin Anarchist communties?Thankjs! (Dr.Edson Andre' Johnson D.D.ULC Dated Thurs.Oct 15th2009 21st Cent. afternoon)NOVABAKUNINMOI (talk) 20:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC) - List of anarchist communities. Zazaban (talk) 22:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Again, years of arguments and work for a relevant estructure of the content... and again and again and again and again try to make a frekish revitionism. Very sad. If Zazaban and Eduen wants to make a estructural reform of the content line of the article they should discusse it and expose why their lonely argument is better than years of discussion. I believe the are many users that are against their editions. --Nihilo 01 (talk) 04:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC) - Agreed. I have been reviewing the changes you just reverted and if I had been paying more attention I would have reverted too. Good catch Nihlo. - 4twenty42o (talk) 04:24, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
- Anarchism means no goverment at all = anarchy, not only Anti-Statism, because you may rule without state and this isn´t anarchy, no goverment doesn´t means no state. Revisionism of anarchocapitalist is really absurd. No rule requires equality, because if I am inequal with others there are no free will in "free contract", I am compelled to accept (not free) contract because of my inferior position. --Elm (talk) 14:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
again. the point here is not to erase "anarcho" capitalism. the point is to make justice to history and reality.--Eduen (talk) 23:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC) but the most pathetic thing is that "anarcho" neoliberalism apparently wants to gain here some more notoriety by putting individualist anarchism first and putting the history section last. If you want to change history i guess you have to build a time machine and convince all anarchist thinkers and movements since the 19th century to love capitalism instead of hating it. until you do that your economicistic USA centered mini section of neoliberalism cant expect to have too much space here as it does not have in the real world. at best it can be considered maybe as another excentricity alongside something like National-Anarchism. its like trying to get inside an all black people party and wanting to start yelling racist insults.--Eduen (talk) 00:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC) - Actually, the most pathetic thing is your hatred for anarchocapitalism. You will not be allowed to POV-push. Period. And you can call anarchocapitalism a "neoliberal" position all you like--that won't make any difference whatsoever. Your insults will not be tolerated. Your hatred will not be allowed to be in the article. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 00:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
and now as far as user Nihilo. for some good reason he was blocked forever from editing in wikipedia in spanish [1] and here also is already very near that point.--Eduen (talk) 00:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC) if you want to take the things i said as insults thats your problem. what i said are facts. this position is barely accepted at all within anarchism and it is very recent and you pretend to lie to the uninformed people who come here to try to understand anarchism and what it is and its history.--Eduen (talk) 06:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC) - No, what you said are lies, Eduen. Plain and simple. Your hatred of capitalism is quite clear. I neither know nor care why you have such a hatred. But this is Wikipedia. No Bias. Your hatred will not be allowed to be in this wiki. You want to rant against capitalism? Go start an anti-capitalist wiki or join Chuck Munson and the rest of the screaming haters. We've decided to not kick anyone out of the treehouse, so it doesn't matter about "history", since then historically the only christians would be catholics. And since I don't see you editing those pages, you must be attempting your marginalization of anarchocapitalism on bad faith.
- Now then, let's discuss the changes before they get made. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 13:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
again the issue here is not hate but facts and just treatment to each thing. im not here for erasing references to "anarcho" capitalism but that thing just as National-Anarchism are too controversial and marginally if at all conected to the history of anarchism just as they are too recent. So the issue here is Wikipedia:Fringe theories. "Coverage on Wikipedia should not make a fringe theory appear more notable than it actually is. Since Wikipedia describes significant opinions in its articles, with representation in proportion to their prominence, it is important that Wikipedia itself does not become the validating source for non-significant subjects." And also "The mention of a fringe idea in other articles may be limited, or even omited altogether, if it gives undue weight to the theory within the context of the other article.". So is not "bad faith". Also calling "anarcho" capitalism a neoliberal position is also not an insult but as one can see in the introduction to the article Neoliberalism just points out the fact that is a position that is a "redefinition of classical liberalism, influenced by the neoclassical theories of economics."--Eduen (talk) 15:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC) -
- First, Eduen should read about what is an Ad Hominen. Then, what we nedd is a political approach to anarchism, not a "subcultural" one. Also what we need for order the article is refferences about time order of schools and about relevance, present article and structure is very satisfactory in that issue and there isn`t any strong argument for change it. --Nihilo 01 (talk) 13:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC) Check some examples of political approach (also dividing in socialist anarchism and "individualist anarchism" for the two main traditions in political economy, among many others strong coincidences), and we can see current article is very near to these approaches:
That is what political and philosophical experts (from an outer look) say about anarchism, not what we (the users, probably all of us anarchist ourselves) think about it. Over any other consideration we should prefer experts analysis than ourselves thinking. --Nihilo 01 (talk) 13:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC) "socialist anarchism" is all anarchism since anarchism has been and is anticapitalist (including individualist anarchism, which also has been a minoritarian position within anarchism). anyway it will be nice to see the citations. i can´t see how you are going to support your "socialist anarchism" outside neoliberal writers.--Eduen (talk) 01:30, 14 November 2009 (UTC) the reversions made before my last edit just erasedd too many things. And so insurrectioanry anarchism, christian anarchism and post left anarchism have been erased as well as european individualist anarchism. if someone keeps doing that i dont think we can have a debate here since im not erasing "anarcho" capitalism out of the article. Again i didnt erase "anarcho"capitalism and the accusations of me hating it can be answered by me also saying you hate all of those other currents. Also i dont know but maybe if we include "anarcho" capitalism should we include "fascist" anarchism. if we are going to include bizzare things like "anarcho" capitalism we might as well be fair to all. otherwise we should not include "anarcho" capitalism. Again check Wikipedia:Fringe theories. --Eduen (talk) 01:46, 14 November 2009 (UTC) - You make wide-scale changes w/o consensus, get reverted, and then wonder what happened... Soxwon (talk) 01:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- Eduen, you might get somewhere if you didn't keep calling anything you disagree with "neoliberalism" and if you didn't make it plain your hatred of anarcho-capitalism with the quote marks. Your fringe view of trying to kick out anarcho-capitalism isn't what the consensus happens to be. So please do stop. You have some good ideas on some edits, but we should discuss wholesale changes. Yes--be bold. But seek consensus. And don't seek to kick out anything you don't like just because you, like a lot of people, conflate capitalism with fascism, mercantilism, and cronyism. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 03:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
consensus could be not erasing "anarcho" capitalism (which i have never done) and you not erasing the other currents. "Your fringe view of trying to kick out anarcho-capitalism" i dont understand what you mean here, as i said many times i have never erased "anarcho" capitalism. "conflate capitalism with fascism" i dont know if here you are talking to me since i never said such thing. all i suggested is that if we decide to include right wing positions as anarchism we might have to be fair to all of them. ":You make wide-scale changes w/o consensus, get reverted, and then wonder what happened..." well the consensus i propose is before this. now thereis of course the issue of inflating "anarcho" capitalism. on that i think adherents to it i guess might be accustomed to it but anyway i could ask you again the question "why the decision of putting individualism first since it is the minoritarian position from the point of view of historiy and current reality?" "Why put schools first?" so if you can answer this questions we might be starting a dialogue, otherwise...well my suspicions that you want to cheat on uninformed readers on anarchism by inflating your particular controversial position are going to grow. i have made many points before me which i havent seen any responses to. so just coming here to complain about me supposdely insulting and them reverting things is not the way of wikipedia. and i said. if you take the neoliberalism label as an insult thats your problem. its a widely used term in academia and politics to denote adherence to liberal neoclassical economics in contemporary contexts. its like if you call me an individualist will you expect me to get angry. well its fine. i do adhere to Stirnerist´positions.--Eduen (talk) 01:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC) - Eduen, every time you use scarce quotes for anarcho-capitalism, you further the idea that your edits are in bad faith. Please do not attempt to cheat the uninformed readers by presuming that your hatred for capitalism should be what stands. As far as individualist first: I comes before S, does it not? It's called "alphabetical order", Eduen. That tends to be a rather fair way so that no haters like yourself can claim "we're being oppressed!" Why do you think I had alphabetized the post-classical schools? - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 16:01, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Since things have calmed down some, I suggest that the *additions* Eduen made to the post-classical schools of thought be considered. The subtractions...well they do look to be just his biases. The additions, however, I think are useful. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 22:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC) - I support this notion. Zazaban (talk) 22:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- I support it was well. - 4twenty42o (talk) 23:00, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- I would like to add that the anarcho-capitalism section COULD be cut a bit, but only because it wanders a little for a summary. The second paragraph could be merged down into the first, and the stuff in last two could be a little more simply put. Zazaban (talk) 23:06, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Accurate reporting The definition of anarchism is not one that an encyclopedia like this one can settle. The only role Wikipedia can have is to say what more respected theorists and sources themselves say. However, I therefore have a problem with the introduction of this article because it assumes that there is one political philosophy called anarchism which merely has a number of "strains." The article says: Anarchism is a political philosophy... And for example: however, anarchism has for some time included an economic and legal individualist strain,[18] with that strain supporting an anarchist free-market economy and private property (like old anarcho-individualism and today's anarcho-capitalism).[19][20][21] However, this flat-out contradicts what many anarchists on the left say, which is that anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism. For example see The Anarchist FAQ, which lists numerous original sources. I'm not familiar with much of what anarcho-capitalists say about left anarchists, but I think lumping ideas that are so virulently opposed to one another under one philosophy is a distortion. Instead of defining anarchism as one philosophy, it should instead be defined as a group of philosophies that happen to all call themselves "anarchist." Then from the very beginning, when these different philosophies are delineated, it can be made clear that some explicitly reject others as being examples of anarchism. They should not be described as being "within anarchism" as this article does, but rather as merely using the title of anarchism, with it being left to the reader to decide on the true classification of any given philosophy. I think this would help a great deal in both accurate reporting of the facts and in ending editing wars. Khin2718 (talk) 19:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC) - One would think it would help but, perhaps I am cynical, it will probably make things worse. It's best not to dispute an anarchist's conception of what anarchism is, the situation will get nasty. Zazaban (talk) 08:18, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- What I'm pushing here is basically what the socialism page already does. Left anarchism and anarcho-capitalism are, according to almost all left anarchists I've talked with and sources I've seen, irreconcilably different. So this is not disputing anarchist conceptions. It's the end of such disputation.Khin2718 (talk) 19:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
|
