Talk:Definition of anarchism and libertarianism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Scope[edit]

So with discussions spread across many talk pages on how we're scoping our articles on variants of anarchism/libertarianism, I think I may have a way out. There appears to be some rough consensus that some our pages are sprawling with extraneous detail and that we would be better off merging content on variants to relevant sections and letting it split back out summary style only when warranted by an overabundance of sourcing. (This is consistent with what I've said earlier, that many of these topical overview articles contain reams of cut-and-pasted introductions to other overview articles without modification for why those intros are needed in the given article. These articles attempt to do too much at once and essentially need to be pared down to what reliable, secondary sources specifically address their article scope.)

My hunch is that by hashing out the source material on the "definition of anarchism and libertarianism", as discussed by reliable, secondary sources, in one place (here), the resulting article would also be a home for content that discusses the relation between anarchism, libertarianism, "left-libertarianism", and "right-libertarianism". And through this exercise, I think that scope of the other articles should become clearer, mainly because this "definition" article would cover the "contested definitions/meanings/histories" aspects of those articles as a summary style split. I.e., other articles would not have to spend as much space on the "contested term" aspect of the topic if they could cursorily paraphrase as needed from this "definition" article and link out for the full story. (Relatedly, I think I might have a mutually agreeable solution to the article title issue, but let's resolve/untangle the Gordian Knot of definition first.)

This article essentially consolidates the looseleaf sources that have been amalgamating across many talk pages on questions of definition. I've built out the basic structure from a few sources but I still need to merge in relevant details from Issues in anarchism#Definitional concerns, Anarchism#Etymology, terminology, and definition, History of anarchism#Background, Libertarianism#Etymology, Debates within libertarianism#top, Anarchism and capitalism#Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism (and Anarcho-capitalism#Anarchism and capitalism) so wanted to ping @Davide King and Cinadon36 since you both have recently worked on those sections and their sourcing, in case you'd like to contribute your expertise here. Let me know if you think this plan makes sense and whether you have time/interest in working on this? My only recommendation would be to focus on non-partisan, reliable sources—the best selections for each claim—and to stick to the scope of the contested definition ("Overview"), the etymology/history of usage, and the definitional divide between individualist & socialist anarchism. Otherwise would be easy to get into the weeds on nuances. czar 22:41, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Czar sorry for the delayed reply. This is a very exciting article and I ll work on it as soon as history of anarchism GAN is over. I am also thinking whether this article is under the scope of philosophy project.Cinadon36 16:53, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nice! Always feel free to remove/add WikiProject banners czar 17:02, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Banner is already there! I couldnt see it on my mobile phone. Cinadon36 19:30, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Partisan sources[edit]

I'm considering an update to Wikipedia:Anarchism referencing guidelines (ARG) that I think would be relevant to workshop here first, particularly as it relates to source noteworthiness when addressing anarchism's "definitional concerns":

When paraphrasing ideology, the cardinal rule is to use sources independent of the subject. For example, how Bookchin or Rothbard define anarchism is a primary source analysis question, i.e., research that scholars (reliable, secondary sources) have already done more conclusively for us. As a tertiary source encyclopedia, we summarize secondary sources. Activists/theorists writing about their own ideologies have limited use for us, i.e., mainly useful for direct, sparing quotes. Otherwise, scholars who write on behalf of a movement (whether for or against) have a conflict of interest as partisans. The fairest sources for contentious claims will have ideological distance, such as third-party academic chapters published with editorial oversight.
[insert examples if needed such as Franks 2013, p. 388 on Bookchin, Cooper, and Kropotkin; or Gary Chartier on market anarchism, AFAQ making a point vs. a third-party academic]

Open to feedback, but leaving this here as WP editors will inevitably cite activist–theorist–scholars with insufficient distance from their claims, since that's what currently happens across most of our anarchism overview articles.

Side note: ARG is in really bad shape and its advice mostly pertains to defining anarchism. So if this "definition" article is written well, we might be able to just merge ARG's main points to this talk page and finally deprecate it. That ARG retains its "MoS content guideline" tag while being effectively moribund is a major oversight. czar 02:40, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Issues in anarchism#Left and right anarchism[edit]

full section copied from article
Left and right anarchism

The terms left anarchism, or left-wing anarchism, have been used to distinguish social anarchism from anarcho-capitalism and anti-state, right-libertarian philosophies.[1][2]

Left anarchists refer to political philosophies which posit a future society in which private property is replaced by reciprocity and non-hierarchical society.[3][4]

The term left anarchism is sometimes used synonymously with libertarian socialism,[5] left-libertarianism, or social anarchism.[6] Anarchists typically discourage the concept of left-wing theories of anarchism on grounds of redundancy and that it lends legitimacy to the notion that anarchism is compatible with capitalism[7][8] or nationalism.[9][10]

Syndicalist Ulrike Heider categorized anarchism into left anarchism, right anarchism (anarcho-capitalism) and green anarchism.[11] The terms right anarchism, or right-wing anarchism, have been used to refer to schools of thoughts which are not generally considered part of anarchism, including anarcho-capitalism[12][13] and national anarchism.[14]

Sources

  1. ^ Paul, Ellen Frankel. Miller, Fred Dycus. Paul, Jeffrey. 1993. (no title listed) Cambridge University Press. p. 115.
  2. ^ Chomsky, Noam (2003). Chomsky on Democracy & Education. Routledge. p. 398.
    Chomsky, Noam. Language and Politics. AK Press. p. 153.
  3. ^ Peacock, Adrian. 1999. Two Hundred Pharaohs, Five Billion Slaves. Ellipsis London.
  4. ^ Goodwin, Barbara (2007). Using Political Ideas. John Wiley & Sons.
  5. ^ Brooks, Thom (2002). Book Reviews. Journal of Applied Philosophy. 19 (1). 75–90. doi:10.1111/1468-5930.00206.
  6. ^ Thagard, Paul. 2002. Coherence in Thought and Action. MIT Press. p. 153.
  7. ^ McKay, Iain (2007). "Section F.7.3 - Can there be a 'right-wing' anarchism?". An Anarchist FAQ, Volume I. AK Press. ISBN 978-1-902593-90-6. Archived from the original on 28 January 2012.
  8. ^ McKay, Iain; et al. (21 January 2010). "Section F.7.3 - Can there be a 'right-wing' anarchism?". An Anarchist FAQ. Infoshop.org. Archived from the original on 17 November 2011. Retrieved 21 January 2012.
  9. ^ McKay, Iain (2007). "Section D.6 - Are anarchists against Nationalism?". An Anarchist FAQ, Volume I. AK Press. ISBN 978-1-902593-90-6. Archived from the original on 28 January 2012.
  10. ^ McKay, Iain; et al. (21 January 2010). "Section D.6 - Are anarchists against Nationalism?". An Anarchist FAQ. Infoshop.org. Archived from the original on 3 March 2012. Retrieved 22 January 2012.
  11. ^ Heider, Ulrike. Anarchism: Left, Right and Green. San Francisco: City Lights Books. 1994.
  12. ^ Marshall, Peter (1993). Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism. Oakland, California: PM Press. p. 565. ISBN 978-1-60486-064-1.: "In fact, few anarchists would accept the 'anarcho-capitalists' into the anarchist camp since they do not share a concern for economic equality and social justice, Their self-interested, calculating market men would be incapable of practising voluntary co-operation and mutual aid. Anarcho-capitalists, even if they do reject the State, might therefore best be called right-wing libertarians rather than anarchists."; Sabatini, Peter (Fall/Winter 1994–1995). "Libertarianism: Bogus Anarchy". Anarchy: A Journal of Desire Armed (41).{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link) "Within Libertarianism, Rothbard represents a minority perspective that actually argues for the total elimination of the state. However Rothbard's claim as an anarchist is quickly voided when it is shown that he only wants an end to the public state. In its place he allows countless private states, with each person supplying their own police force, army, and law, or else purchasing these services from capitalist venders. [...] [S]o what remains is shrill anti-statism conjoined to a vacuous freedom in hackneyed defense of capitalism. In sum, the "anarchy" of Libertarianism reduces to a liberal fraud."; Meltzer, Albert (1 January 2000). Anarchism: Arguments for and Against. AK Press. p. 50. ISBN 978-1-873176-57-3. "The philosophy of "anarcho-capitalism" dreamed up by the "libertarian" New Right, has nothing to do with Anarchism as known by the Anarchist movement proper."; Goodway, David (2006). Anarchist Seeds Beneath the Snow. Liverpool Press. p. 4. ISBN 978-1-84631-025-6.: "'Libertarian' and 'libertarianism' are frequently employed by anarchists as synonyms for 'anarchist' and 'anarchism', largely as an attempt to distance themselves from the negative connotations of 'anarchy' and its derivatives. The situation has been vastly complicated in recent decades with the rise of anarcho-capitalism, 'minimal statism' and an extreme right-wing laissez-faire philosophy advocated by such theorists as Murray Rothbard and Robert Nozick and their adoption of the words 'libertarian' and 'libertarianism'. It has therefore now become necessary to distinguish between their right libertarianism and the left libertarianism of the anarchist tradition."; Newman, Saul (2010). The Politics of Postanarchism. Edinburgh University Press. p. 53. ISBN 978-0-7486-3495-8.: "It is important to distinguish between anarchism and certain strands of right-wing libertarianism which at times go by the same name (for example, Murray Rothbard's anarcho-capitalism). There is a complex debate within this tradition between those like Robert Nozick, who advocate a 'minimal state', and those like Rothbard who want to do away with the state altogether and allow all transactions to be governed by the market alone. From an anarchist perspective, however, both positions—the minimal state (minarchist) and the no-state ('anarchist') positions—neglect the problem of economic domination; in other words, they neglect the hierarchies, oppressions, and forms of exploitation that would inevitably arise in a laissez-faire 'free' market. [...] Anarchism, therefore, has no truck with this right-wing libertarianism, not only because it neglects economic inequality and domination, but also because in practice (and theory) it is highly inconsistent and contradictory. The individual freedom invoked by right-wing libertarians is only a narrow economic freedom within the constraints of a capitalist market, which, as anarchists show, is no freedom at all".
  13. ^ See also the following sources:
    • Peikoff, Leonard (1991). Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand. Chapter "Government". Dutton Adult.
    • Doyle, Kevin (2002). Crypto Anarchy, Cyberstates, and Pirate Utopias. New York: Lexington Books. pp. 447–448.
    • Sheehan, Seán M. (2003). Anarchism Reaktion Books. p. 17.
    • Kelsen, Hans (1988). The Communist Theory of Law. Wm. S. Hein Publishing. p. 110.
    • Tellegen, Egbert; Wolsink, Maarten (1998). Society and Its Environment: an introduction. Routledge. p. 64.
    • Jones, James (2004). The Merry Month of May. Akashic Books. pp. 37–38.
    • Sparks, Chris. Isaacs, Stuart (2004). Political Theorists in Context. Routledge. p. 238.
    • Bookchin, Murray (2004). Post-Scarcity Anarchism. AK Press. p. 37.
    • Berkman, Alexander (2005). Life of an Anarchist. Seven Stories Press. p. 268.
  14. ^ Griffin 2003; Goodrick-Clarke 2003; Macklin 2005; Sykes 2005; Sunshine 2008; Sanchez 2009.

@Davide King, had a question about some of these sources[1][2]:

  • Paul, Ellen Frankel. Miller, Fred Dycus. Paul, Jeffrey. 1993. (no title listed) Cambridge University Press. p. 115. [ostensibly OCLC 27679971]
  • Peacock, Adrian. 1999. Two Hundred Pharaohs, Five Billion Slaves. Ellipsis London.

Do you have any more on these sources, e.g., quotes or what they had to say? (Did you find these somewhere else?) I think I can scrounge up the others. czar 03:45, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Title of the article[edit]

Czar, I noticed that your initial intent was to name the article Definition of anarchism. "[3] I think that would be better because:

  • More sources support the the term: "Definition of anarchism" rather than "Definition of anarchism and libertarianism" Actually I found no sources of "Definition of anarchism and libertarianism".
  • "Definition of anarchism and libertarianism" could be quite tricky. What are we defining? Anarchism? libertarianism? or "anarchism and libertarianism"? Is definition of anarchism different than the definition of anarchism and libertarianism?

Great work by the way, all refs citing high quality sources! Love it! Cinadon36 09:31, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Cinadon36, the general premise is that the history of the two are meshed as synonyms, hence the difficulty in disentangling them. (It's less that sources cover "definition of anarchism and libertarianism" together than that it wouldn't make sense to shoehorn one into an article about the other or to define them separately.) This said, I've found much more written on the ambiguity of "what even is anarchism" (as the term that won out) than for "libertarianism". I was waiting to go through that material before searching for more on the historical use of "libertarian" and its 21st century usage. I think the latter will realistically require delving into the historical definition of "liberalism" as well. Open to feedback, as always. czar 04:47, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that the two terms are closely related but it is still an awkward title that is not frequently met at the literature. At least I haven't met it anywhere. I suggest we go on with the article, and on the meantime, we think for a the best solution on the title. One solution could be to create a redirection page "definition of libertarianism", rename this as "definition of anarchism". But lets build the article first, and we can revisit this later. Cinadon36 23:22, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Purkis and Bowen[edit]

Jonathan Purkis and James Bowen (2005) Changing Anarchism: Anarchist Theory and Practice in a Global Age. pp 11-12 discuss definitional issues. Placing this here as a note to myself and to inform whoever is interested. Cinadon36 10:29, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Primary source definitions[edit]

Historical definitions of anarchism

Anarchist philosopher Peter Kropotkin gave one of the first definitions of anarchism, dating back to 1910, when he authored the article of Anarchism in Encyclopedia Britannica. According to Kropotkin:

[anarchim is]..."the name given to a principle or theory of life and conduct under which society is conceived without government - harmony in such a society being obtained, not by submission to law, or by obedience to any authority, but by free agreements concluded between the various groups, territorial and professional, freely constituted for the sake of production and consumption, as also for the satisfaction of the infinite variety of needs and aspirations of a civilized being..."

Moved here for discussion. Do we need a section on primary source definitions? Isn't it sufficient to paraphrase what secondary sources have said about the term and its usage over time, rather than looking to primary sources at all (see above re: #Partisan sources)? czar 00:41, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I added it, and when I did so, I wasn't very certain. Usually, I am not for adding primary sources, but here, this specific definition is historical, and it can be frequently found in the literature. Another though was that almost all article have a history section, it might be nice to add how definition of anarchism evolved through time. I understand though that this gets close to OR...Cinadon36 22:01, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In my reading, the variance between definitions is more of an individual/personal thing than an objective evolution. This said, it could be interesting to have these many definitions in one place, for reference. Would Wikiquote support a page along those lines? In the meantime, can compile on this talk page. czar 03:27, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Skepticism towards authority[edit]

I am not sure how/where to add Paul McLaughlin's definition on anarchism. A quote from Magda Egoumenides (Introduction, p1) follows:

Anarchism is “scepticism towards authority.”1 Its unifying position is that not all forms of authority are justified and we should be skeptical about any acceptance of them prior to their satisfactory justification. One form of authority that anarchists consider unjustified is the political authority of the state.2 Opposition to the state’s right to rule, although a non-definitive anarchist concern, is common to all forms of anarchism and its proponents, despite the variety and division among them. The rejection of the state’s right to rule relates to the stronger anarchist challenge to its right to exist. This challenge is the upshot of political anarchism, which maintains that the state must be resisted as an evil and a new social form must emerge that succeeds the state and constitutes an improvement on societies organized around the state. Thus, in order to pave the way for a complete evaluation of anarchism, including the project of political anarchism, it is helpful to examine first the principled rejection of political authority that philosophical anarchism proposes and to detail the positive views, if any, that it expresses. My strategy throughout this study will be to examine this challenge as formulated within the debate on political obligation

ref 1 cites Paul McLaughlin, Anarchism and Authority: A Philosophical Introduction to Classical Anarchism (Farnham: Ashgate, 2007), esp. Chapter 2, 29–36. Cinadon36 08:00, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kiesling[edit]

*"Anarchist" is a generic term used by the Greek media and police to refer to ominously dressed youth who congregate in Exarcheia and throw rocks at police. True anarchists (as opposed to children who like to paint the symbol on walls) are a minority in Exarcheia's wide spectrum of anti-establishment ideologies from libertarian socialism to murderous nihilism. Members often use the term "antiexousiastes" (anti-authoritarians).
— Who are the Conspiracy of Fire Cells? by John Brady Kiesling

Quoting for safekeeping czar 07:44, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Godefridi[edit]

Libertarianism denotes a current of thought, mainly American, rooted in classical liberal ideas and values. Its leading figures include Murray Rothbard, Randy [Barnett], and Hans-Hermann Hoppe. ... The genealogy of the term "liberal" in English, from its classical sense to its present, leftist meaning, has been retraced many times (see Hayek 1960, pp. 397-411). In the English-speaking world, the word "libertarian" is used more and more as a synonym of "liberal" in its earlier meaning. In the present paper, I follow this usage, and distinguish between "minarchist libertarians"—or classical liberals—and "anarcho-libertarians" or anarcho-liberals. p. 123
— Godefridi, Drieu (2005). "The Anarcho-Libertarian Utopia — A Critique". ORDO: Jahrbuch für die Ordnung von Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft. 56: 123–139. ISSN 0048-2129. JSTOR 23743623.

Another potential source czar 03:51, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Avrich[edit]

Anarchism, during these initial years, had not yet crystallized into a coherent doctrine, nor was the anarchist label in wide use. Yet the social revolutionaries—as they persisted in calling themselves until the mid-1880s—emerged as an unmistakably anarchistic organization, with aims and methods that sharply distinguished it from the evolutionary and politically oriented party from which it sprang. While abandoning the principles of the [Socialist Labor Party], however, the social revolutionaries continued to regard themselves as socialists—but socialists of a distinctive type, anti-statist, anti-parliamentarian, and anti-reformist, who called on the working class to abjure politics and involve itself in a direct and final confrontation with capital.
— Avrich, Paul (1984). The Haymarket Tragedy. Princeton University Press. p. 55. ISBN 978-0-691-04711-9.

On the arrival of anarchism in the United States czar 23:42, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Secular religion[edit]

... the reasons why Anarchism in Spain as able to gain so much ground ... One of the most frequent explanations traces Anarchism's mobilisation back to the movement's milleniarism [sic]. Constancio Bernaldo de Quirós was one of the first Spanish scholars to describe Anarchism as a secular religion, founded on an apocalyptic belief of an equal society.
— Bernecker, Walther L. (1982). "The Strategies of 'Direct Action' and Violence in Spanish Anarchism". In Mommsen, Wolfgang J.; Hirschfeld, Gerhard (eds.). Social Protest, Violence and Terror in Nineteenth- and Twentieth-century Europe. Palgrave Macmillan UK. p. 94. ISBN 978-1-349-16943-6. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)

Saving before I lose this again czar 07:05, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Woodcock[edit]

This is what makes American libertarianism seem strange and disconcerting to Europeans and even Canadians who regard "libertarian" as a synonym for left-wing and anti-capitalist anarchism. ... p. 90
— Woodcock, George (1980). "Anarchist Phases and Personalities". Queen's Quarterly. 87 (1): 82–96. ISSN 0033-6041.

On continental difference (the only other segment to add from this piece) czar 03:06, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More individual definitions[edit]

John Clark's "defining features of anarchism as a political theory":

  1. a view of an ideal society that is noncoercive and nonauthoritarian
  2. criticism of present conditions from the perspective of the ideal
  3. a characterization of human nature ... that justifies hope in progressing toward the ideal
  4. a strategy for political change that involves immediate use of decentralist, nonauthoritarian alternatives
    — Social Ecology After Bookchin, p. 299


Bookchin in Social Anarchism or Lifestyle Anarchism on principles of traditional anarchism:

  1. opposition to statism
  2. advocacy for confederated, deccentralized municipalities
  3. commitment to direct democracy
  4. goal of attaining a libertarian communist society
    — Social Ecology After Bookchin, p. 331

czar 07:31, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Definition_of_anarchism_and_libertarianism&oldid=1211040771"