Jump to content

Talk:Individualist anarchism

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

Anarchism Tree Diagram

[edit]
Sock, now indeffed. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 01:29, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Anarchism Tree

It helps to have a diagram of the various schools of anarchism. PhilLiberty (talk) 20:51, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BeŻet, you should discuss things rather than unilaterally deleting my edits. PhilLiberty (talk) 20:56, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@PhilLiberty: Could you please stop vandalizing pages using some diagrams you created. Per WP:BRD, you are making a bold change that warrants discussion. There is a large number of sources indicating that anarcho-capitalism has nothing to do with anarchism, let alone individualist anarchism. If you disagree, discuss this first before engaging in an edit war. BeŻet (talk) 20:58, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm pretty good at the bold, revert, and discuss cycle. By the definitions given in Wikipedia articles and this article, anarcho-capitalism qualifies as individualist anarchism. This is supported by Benjamin Tucker and Voltairine de Cleyre among others. It is true that a large number of sources, virtually all sectarian anarcho-socialists, that cite the old "true Scotsman" aka dildo fallacy. I would say that this position was refuted long ago in essays like this: http://www.ozarkia.net/bill/anarchism/library/rg-anarcho-cap.html Now I will boldly revert again. PhilLiberty (talk) 21:16, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But that's not true. Benjamin Tucker wasn't even alive when Rothbard came up with his ideology. Stop edit warring, or you will be reported. BeŻet (talk) 21:18, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:52, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is an unreadable mess

[edit]

I don't even know where to start with this. This article is so absurdly long due to its apparent commitment to throw everything but the kitchen sink in. There is no rhyme or reason to its structure, it just bounces randomly between sub-subjects, individuals and areas even remotely associated with the subject. The sources also appear to be a mix of clearly reliable sources, primary sources and random blog posts from even more random authors. I don't understand how any of this is remotely useful to anyone, whether they be unaffiliated casual readers or dyed-in-the-wool Stirner fans. Does anybody have any idea for how we could improve this article that doesn't involve just blowing it up and starting over? Grnrchst (talk) 11:22, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I don't see how it's salvagable. WP:TNT it is. czar 14:58, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many anarcho-communists regard themselves as radical individualists

[edit]

Many anarcho-communists regard themselves as radical individualists,[1] seeing anarcho-communism as the best social system for the realization of individual freedom.[2]

References

  1. ^ Baginki, Max (May 1907). "Stirner: The Ego and His Own" Archived 2017-09-07 at the Wayback Machine. Mother Earth (2: 3). "Modern Communists are more individualistic than Stirner. To them, not merely religion, morality, family and State are spooks, but property also is no more than a spook, in whose name the individual is enslaved — and how enslaved! [...] Communism thus creates a basis for the liberty and Eigenheit of the individual. I am a Communist because I am an Individualist. Fully as heartily the Communists concur with Stirner when he puts the word take in place of demand — that leads to the dissolution of property, to expropriation. Individualism and Communism go hand in hand."; Novatore, Renzo (1924). "Towards the Creative Nothing" Archived 2011-07-28 at the Wayback Machine; Gray, Christopher (1974). Leaving the Twentieth Century. p. 88; Black, Bob (2010). "Nightmares of Reason" Archived 2010-10-27 at the Wayback Machine. "[C]ommunism is the final fulfillment of individualism. [...] The apparent contradiction between individualism and communism rests on a misunderstanding of both. [...] Subjectivity is also objective: the individual really is subjective. It is nonsense to speak of "emphatically prioritizing the social over the individual," [...]. You may as well speak of prioritizing the chicken over the egg. Anarchy is a "method of individualization." It aims to combine the greatest individual development with the greatest communal unity".
  2. ^ Kropotkin, Peter (1901). "Communism and Anarchy" Archived 2021-10-23 at the Wayback Machine. "Communism is the one which guarantees the greatest amount of individual liberty — provided that the idea that begets the community be Liberty, Anarchy [...]. Communism guarantees economic freedom better than any other form of association, because it can guarantee wellbeing, even luxury, in return for a few hours of work instead of a day's work."; Truda, Dielo (1926). "Organisational Platform of the Libertarian Communists" Archived 2011-07-28 at the Wayback Machine. "This other society will be libertarian communism, in which social solidarity and free individuality find their full expression, and in which these two ideas develop in perfect harmony."; "My Perspectives" Archived 2020-04-15 at the Wayback Machine. Willful Disobedience (2: 12). "I see the dichotomies made between individualism and communism, individual revolt and class struggle, the struggle against human exploitation and the exploitation of nature as false dichotomies and feel that those who accept them are impoverishing their own critique and struggle."; Brown, L. Susan (2002). The Politics of Individualism. Black Rose Books; Brown, L. Susan (2 February 2011). "Does Work Really Work?" Archived 2012-06-13 at the Wayback Machine.

Moving this claim here for consideration as (1) it's way too heavy for the lede, and (2) is unclear whether it's original research. If this is noteworthy for the lede, this evidence should be presented in the article body and summarized in the lede. If this claim holds, it should not require any of the primary sources (or synthesis between them) and should be reduced to the reliable, secondary sources that confirm the claim. czar 14:18, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]