Talk:Anarchism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleAnarchism has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 1, 2004Featured article candidateNot promoted
March 21, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
January 22, 2010Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article


Edits[edit]

@Cinadon36 You said that the third source is outdated (1994), but two sources provided to say ancap is not real anarchism are from 1992 and 1993 respectively.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

The Oxford Handbook of Political Ideologies has some useful commentary.  Tewdar  07:59, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy 2nd Edition Volume I (isbn 978-1-4051-3653-2) pg 274 briefly discusses anarcho-capitalism, describing it as a form of anarchism.  Tewdar  08:02, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here's what it says: More generally, different types of anarchism will offer different economic theories. Those with stronger individualistic component will tend to rely not merely upon market or allied exchange arrangements, but upon capitalistic organization; thus anarcho-capitalisms, logical end-points when libertarianism and economic rationalism are really driven to state minimalization. These types of anarchism, whose small home base is the USA, propose several, often ingenious uses of private and market means to substitute for social and state functions (Friedman, 1973; Rothbard, 1977).  Tewdar  14:34, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@X-Editor It seems to me that the third source is an anthology of earlier writings. The book is titled "An Anthology of Liberty (1881–1908)". The second source is a tertiary work since it is not about anarchism but offers a broad view on ideologies. Also, I couldnt check the url since it redirects somewhere else, so may I ask, where did you find that specific url? Lastly, it seems that the edit do not add anything significant since an-cap being a form of anarchism is a fringe opinion. More relevant and mainstream, is that anarchism has strong individualistic and libertarian connotations but that is already included in the text of the article. PS-Dictionaries and Handbooks are tertiary sources by definition Cinadon36 08:08, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Heywood's Political Ideologies: An Introduction (9781352011838) describes anarchism: ANARCHISTS reject any form of economic control or management. However, while anarcho-communists endorse common ownership and small-scale self-management, anarcho-capitalists advocate an entirely unregulated market economy.  Tewdar  08:09, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Same book: Anarchists of all kinds have a preference for an economy in which free individuals manage their own affairs without the need for state ownership or regulation. However, this has allowed them to endorse a number of quite different economic systems, ranging from ‘anarcho-communism’ to ‘anarcho-capitalism’.  Tewdar  08:10, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merely using the term anarcho-capitalism, is not an argument for supporting the sentence "anarchocapitalism is a form of anarchism". We need RS discussing the forms of anarchism, including anarcho-capitalism. The term is legit, but anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism per analysis of most RS. Ok, anyone can google-search and find various mentions in various books, but that is not enough. Cinadon36 08:14, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Heywood explicity describes anarcho-capitalism as a form of anarchism. I am not "doing a Google search", and I wrote a dissertation on anarcho-capitalism once. 😁👍  Tewdar  08:20, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I cant locate were Heywood explicitly says that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism. Can you help pls?Cinadon36 08:28, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Same book again (pg 14) Anarchism, for instance, can be seen as either ultra-lef t -wing or ultra-right-wing, since it encompasses both anarcho-communist and anarcho-capitalist tendencies  Tewdar  08:18, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is not a statement supporting that an-cap is a form of Anarchism. Cinadon36 08:29, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So, that's how it's going to be, eh? Hang on, I'll try and find you a non-tertiary source entirely about anarchism that isn't from dictionaries or handbooks that literally word-for-word says an-cap is a form of Anarchism. But I don't think this is a very reasonable set of criteria.  Tewdar  14:09, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Heywood, pg 104: Anarcho-capitalism: A form of anarchism that seeks to replace government with a system of unregulated market competition. - lol 😂👍  Tewdar  14:11, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Probably fails a few of your strange requirements, though.  Tewdar  14:13, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I suppose The Oxford Handbook of Political Ideologies (pg 389) including anarcho-capitalism in the "individualist anarchism" section is not "explicit" enough for you..?  Tewdar  14:24, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Havent I mentioned that handbooks are tertiary sources? I ld prefer sources from a couple books dedicated to Anarchism, discussing in a certain extent that anarchocapitalism is a form of anarchism. Is that too much to ask? Cinadon36 17:08, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is it too strange for you to ask a RS to directly support a sentence? Weird. Cinadon36 17:04, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, but some of your other requirements do not seem to be supported by policy. Anyway, I'll try and find some non-dictionary non-handbook sources exclusively on anarchism that describe anarcho-capitalism as a form of anarchism for you...I'm presuming you don't like the Heywood source, or "A Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy", because they are not exclusively about anarchism...  Tewdar  17:31, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dont make it about me and you please. Take your time and find the sources and we can discuss later. Cinadon36 17:34, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, somehow I suspect this might become another 'never ruddy good enough' discussion. I feel the sources are already good enough to support 'a small minority of scholars describe anarcho-capitalism as a form of anarchism", or similar, and I think I'd rather waste my time doing something enjoyable, instead of finding more sources for this claim, which I'm not particularly keen on myself. All the best. 🙂  Tewdar  18:42, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

tbh this looks like a massive time sink. The three sources provided are good enough to insert the text you wanted, at least in my opinion. Heywood is certainly a reliable source. The Oxford handbook is a reliable source. Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy is also a reliable source. I'm kind of bored digging up thirty sources and then hearing bizarre arguments about 'orders of magnitude' or discussions about whether a term is a proper noun or not. But maybe I'll take a look tomorrow if I have some time.  Tewdar  21:50, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please do take a look tomorrow to see if you can find more sources. X-Editor (talk) 01:02, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I think the already-existing text in the etymology, terminology, and definition section is sufficient and accurate; saying that ...most scholars reject anarcho-capitalism obviously carries the implication that some exist who do not. I don't think there's enough who disagree to justify more than that or to include an extensive back-and-forth, especially given that most of the examples here so far are basically just passing mentions rather than full-throated disagreement. I also think that this comes up often enough that we might want to consider an RFC. (I was surprised we hadn't already had one.) --Aquillion (talk) 22:04, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    "just passing mentions rather than full-throated disagreement" That's still disagreement that's been noted in articles about anarchism in reliable sources. "most scholars reject anarcho-capitalism obviously carries the implication that some exist who do not." sounds like a false dicotomy. How do you know the opinion of the minority scholars isn't "left-wing anarchism isn't real anarchism actually" instead, without clarifying that it is actually some scholars who simply think anarcho-capitalism is real anarchism. X-Editor (talk) 01:08, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here WP:SCHOLARSHIP: " Prefer secondary sources – Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible." Hope that helps. Tertiary sources are not excluded, but weight much less than secondary ones. Cinadon36 06:42, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WP:TERTIARY - Reliable tertiary sources can help provide broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources and may help evaluate due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other - Hope that helps. Also, please point to the policy, guideline, or essay that claims tertiary sources weight much less than secondary ones.  Tewdar  08:10, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
When articles rely on secondary sources, it means that tertiary do not weight that much, it is common sense. But hey, I thought you were to search for secondary sources today? Cinadon36 08:16, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Cinadon36 I'm also curious as to whether or not @Tewdar has done any research that could prove his point. X-Editor (talk) 22:44, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I dont get your point, but in any case, please restrain from edit warring.[1]. An-cap is due covered in the article, no need for pushing more info. Cinadon36 07:14, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Cinadon36 How is it POV pushing to insert a paragraph simply explaining an ancap critque? IMO, POV pushing is horrible argument because everyone has a POV to push. "no need for pushing more info." Why should more info not be included? "please restrain from edit warring." The edit you link to clearly shows that I did not readd any content you previously reverted. Maybe we could take this to WP:NPOV/N? X-Editor (talk) 07:25, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
More info is undue weight. This article is not about ancap. It is about anarchism. Anarchism received a lot of criticism from liberals, communists, centrists etc. (There is a relevant section to criticism where secondary- not primary sources should be used) Ancap critique to anarchism does not weight that much (the fact that you cited a primary source is indicative). Also, re-adding content about AnCap, even if the words differ, is still edit warring. Dont try to game the system. Cinadon36 07:40, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Lets wait a couple of days for more users to comment and then take it to WP:NPOV/N or wherever you wish. No problem. But please restrain from editing the article regarding ancap before consensus.Cinadon36 07:42, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I thought your complaint was regarding the specific contribution I made to the "Etymology, terminology, and definition" section and not about adding ancap in general. Regardless, I'm done with this discussion. X-Editor (talk) 20:04, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

Spotted in recent research[edit]

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2022-09-30/Recent research § "Templates and Trust-o-meters: Towards a widely deployable indicator of trust in Wikipedia":

The "trust gauge" designed by the authors, including the "scoring explanations" displayed in experiment 3

czar 20:17, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well done everybody! Cinadon36 21:06, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reading list[edit]

There are some books out there that are pretty interesting and I think they can be used to improve the article and lift it to a Feature Article status.

  • Anarchism: An Art of Living Without Law (2023) Routledge, by Loizidou Elena
  • The Political Philosophy of Poststructuralist Anarchism[2] by Todd May
  • Changing anarchism Anarchist theory and practice in a global age Editors Jonathan Purkis and James Bowen
  • The Routledge Handbook of Anarchy and Anarchist Thought, Edited ByGary Chartier, Chad Van Schoelandt
  • Anarchism. Key Concepts in Political Theory. Wiley. Honeywell, C. (2021). ISBN 978-1-5095-2390-0.

So many books, so little time! Cinadon36 10:17, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]