Get Template Talk:Anarchism Sidebar essential facts below. View Videos or join the Template Talk:Anarchism Sidebar discussion. Add Template Talk:Anarchism Sidebar to your PopFlock.com topic list for future reference or share this resource on social media.
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Anarchism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of anarchism 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.Anarchismpopflock.com Resource: WikiProject AnarchismTemplate:WikiProject Anarchismanarchism articles
Threads older than 6 months may be automatically archived by .
What's the deal with tons of countries missing from the By Region section, but on the page List of anarchist movements by region? I added back Serbia because I thought it was in the template before but got removed, what's the reasoning on which countries are included or not? Anarhisti?ka Maca (talk) 19:05, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
There is clear consensus that Anarcho-capitalism should feature in the template. I see no consensus on whether it should go under "Schools of Thought" or under "Related Issues" [emphasis mine]; according to WP:NOCONSENSUS that probably means it ought to stay in "Schools of Thought" for the moment.
I think to move it in "Issues" is a no brainer. "Schools of thought" should only list the notable schools where there is consensus among sources and scholars such as Anarcho-communism, Anarcho-syndicalism, Collectivist anarchism, Mutualism and perhaps Green anarchism, Individualist anarchism and Social anarchism whilst moving the others into "Theory" or, in the case of Anarcho-capitalism, into "Issues" as anarcho-capitalism, along with National-anarchism, is actually disputed as an anarchist schools of thought. The Palgrave Handbook of Anarchism summarises that academic analysis has followed activist currents in rejecting anarcho-capitalism and some have been accused of taking at face value that anarcho-capitalism is anarchism, including the view that it is a form of individualist anarchism. See footnote 8 in The Palgrave Handbook of Anarchism stating:
Individualist anarchism may plausibly be re regarded as a form of both socialism and anarchism. Whether the individualist anarchists were consistent anarchists (and socialists) is another question entirely. [...] McKay comments as follows: "any individualist anarchism which support wage labour is inconsistent anarchism. It can easily be made consistent anarchism by applying its own principles consistenly. In contrast 'anarcho'-capitalism rejects so many of the basic, underlying, principles of anarchism [...] that it cannot be made consistent with the ideals of anarchism."
The Palgrave Handbook of Anarchism, among others, writes:
Franks asserts without supporting evidence that most major forms of individualist anarchism have been largely anarcho-capitalist in content, and concludes from this premise that most forms of individualism are incompatible with anarchism.
In other words, even those who claim that anarcho-capitalism is a form of individualist anarchism, including some Marxists (who also tend to exclude anarchism from the socialist camp), do it to exclude both and argue that neither are types of anarchism. Iain McKay is cited as an 'authority' in The Palgrave Handbook of Anarchism and by Benjamin Franks, who "rightly points out, individualisms that defend or reinforce hierarchical forms such as the economic-power relations of anarcho-capitalism are incompatible with practices of social anarchism based on developing immanent goods which contest such as inequalities". Franks cites McKay as an 'authority' and The Palgrave Handbook of Anarchism writes:
[Iain McKay] [...] also argues quite emphatically on the very pages cited by Franks that anarcho-capitalism is by no means a type of anarchism. [...] It is important to stress that anarchist opposition to the so-called capitalist 'anarchists' does not reflect some kind of debate within anarchism, as many of these types like to pretend, but a debate between anarchism and its old enemy capitalism. [...] Equally, given that anarchists and 'anarcho'-capitalists have fundamentally different analyses and goals it is hardly 'sectarian' to point this out.
Marshall, Peter (1992). Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism. London: HarperCollins. pp. 564-565. ISBN978-0-00-217855-6. "Anarcho-capitalists are against the State simply because they are capitalists first and foremost. [...] They are not concerned with the social consequences of capitalism for the weak, powerless and ignorant. [...] As such, anarcho-capitalism overlooks the egalitarian implications of traditional individualist anarchists like Spooner and Tucker. 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."
Jennings, Jeremy (1993). "Anarchism". In Eatwell, Roger; Wright, Anthony (eds.). Contemporary Political Ideologies. London: Pinter. p. 143. ISBN978-0-86187-096-7. "[...] anarchism does not stand for the untrammelled freedom of the individual (as the 'anarcho-capitalists' appear to believe) but, as we have already seen, for the extension of individuality and community."
Gay, Kathlyn; Gay, Martin (1999). Encyclopedia of Political Anarchy. ABC-CLIO. p. 15. ISBN978-0-87436-982-3. "For many anarchists (of whatever persuasion), anarcho-capitalism is a contradictory term, since 'traditional' anarchists oppose capitalism."
Goodway, David (2006). Anarchist Seeds Beneath the Snow: Left-Libertarian Thought and British Writers from William Morris to Colin Ward. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press. p. 4. "'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 Rothbard and 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."
Morriss, Andrew (2008). "Anarcho-capitalism". In Hamowy, Ronald (ed.). The Encyclopedia of Libertarianism. SAGE; Cato Institute. pp. 13-14. doi:10.4135/9781412965811.n8. ISBN978-1-4129-6580-4. OCLC191924853. "Social anarchists, those anarchists with communitarian leanings, are critical of anarcho-capitalism because it permits individuals to accumulate substantial power through markets and private property."
Jun, Nathan (September 2009). "Anarchist Philosophy and Working Class Struggle: A Brief History and Commentary". WorkingUSA. 12 (3): 507-508. doi:10.1111/j.1743-4580.2009.00251.x. ISSN1089-7011. "[Anarchists oppose] all centralized and hierarchical forms of government (e.g., monarchy, representative democracy, state socialism, etc.), economic class systems (e.g., capitalism, Bolshevism, feudalism, slavery, etc.), autocratic religions (e.g., fundamentalist Islam, Roman Catholicism, etc.), patriarchy, heterosexism, white supremacy, and imperialism."
Newman, Saul (2010). The Politics of Postanarchism. Edinburgh University Press. p. 43. "It is important to distinguish between anarchism and certain strands of right-wing libertarianism which at times go by the same name (for example, Rothbard's anarcho-capitalism)." ISBN0748634959.
Franks, Benjamin (August 2013). Freeden, Michael; Stears, Marc (eds.). "Anarchism". The Oxford Handbook of Political Ideologies. Oxford University Press: 393-394. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199585977.013.0001. "Individualisms that defend or reinforce hierarchical forms such as the economic-power relations of anarcho-capitalism [...] are incompatible with practices of social anarchism. [...] Increasingly, academic analysis has followed activist currents in rejecting the view that anarcho-capitalism has anything to do with social anarchism."
Whatever one think about it, it cannot be denied that it is an issue unlike other anarchist schools, therefore we should follow this and move it to "Issues" as I boldly did in my edit. -- Davide King (talk) 01:13, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
It is however an anarchist school, and therefore belongs with anarchist schools, even if some other anarchist schools don't think so. Davide, I have to object rather strenuously to your treatment of this matter, at articles like individualist anarchism. I understand that you think that (say) rent, wage labor, and interest, cannot be considered truly voluntary relationships, but that is your opinion, and that of the schools you follow. It's as though you were to exclude the Jehovah's Witnesses from branches of Christianity, simply because some other Christian churches think that if you don't believe Jesus is co-equal with God the Father then you're not a Christian.
You are clearly picking from left-anarchist sources above, with the exception of Cato, which makes a distinction with "social anarchists" and does not exclude anarcho-capitalists from anarchism more broadly. (Neither does the Franks, Freeden, and Stears cite; I don't know their position.) --Trovatore (talk) 04:50, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Trovatore, thanks for your comment, but I have to respectful disagree. It is an anarchist school based on what and which sources? There is clearly an issue on whether it really is an anarchist school or part of anarchist at all, so at the very least it should go under Issues. I also have to disagree with you accusations and it is not me that think rent, wage labor, and interest, cannot be considered truly voluntary relationships, it is what sources say. The Cato Institute is just as biased and you are acting like left anarchism is really a thing. Again, your claim that It's as though you were to exclude the Jehovah's Witnesses from branches of Christianity, simply because some other Christian churches think that if you don't believe Jesus is co-equal with God the Father then you're not a Christian. is not dismissed by my but by the Palgrave Handbook of Anarchism ("It is important to stress that anarchist opposition to the so-called capitalist 'anarchists' does not reflect some kind of debate within anarchism, as many of these types like to pretend, but a debate between anarchism and its old enemy capitalism."). As shown above, it is disputed whether anarcho-capitalism is even a form of individualist anarchism which is based on a misunderstanding of individualist anarchism (per source) as it opposes interest, profit, rent, usury, etc. whereas anarcho-capitalism does not seem to have any problem; just because individualist anarchists supported 'free markets' and 'property' (again, you have to understand Proudhon as they followed his use of 'property'), it does not mean they were some proto anarcho-capitalists or that they even meant the same thing by those terms. The 'take at face value' of anarcho-capitalism as part of anarchism and even of individualist anarchism has been criticised and is an issue. Also, Jennings and others say anarchism, not social anarchism; others (Franks) dispute that individualist anarchism is part of anarchism; and The Palgrave Handbook of Anarchist casts doubt to a social-individualist divide because anarchism itself already stands "for the extension of individuality and community." Davide King (talk) 11:41, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Davide, I'm sure I can find lots of Christian sources that say that the Witnesses are not Christian. And I agree, it's "disputed" whether they're Christian. It's "disputed" whether Protestants or Catholics are, for that matter. That's an "issue".
To dismiss whether "left anarchism is a thing" is simply petitio principii, assuming what you're trying to prove.
There are even left-anarchist sources that count anarcho-capitalism as a form of anarchism. I recall last time we discussed this that one of them was saying he accepted that Wendy McElroy was an individualist anarchist; he only insisted that so was he. I can probably find it if needed. --Trovatore (talk) 17:39, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Trovatore, you have not actually addressed my points and I do not understand why you keep comparing this situation to Christianity. I asked you to provide sources to back up your claim, but you did not do that. Also remember that even if there are sources who count anarcho-capitalism as a form of anarchism, we need to establish weight because we can find many sources excluding and including anarcho-capitalism.
I think The Palgrave Handbook of Anarchism can be used as a source to establish weight and it disputes anarcho-capitalism, so at the very least we should move it to "Issues" and perhaps remove National-anarchism as it is not even mentioned in the book and scholars see it as a development of the radical right rather than anarchism. If you are referring to Joe Peacott, not notable to have an article, that is just one individualist anarchist in the mutualist tradition, one source; and I do not see how reliable it can be for the claim that so-called left anarchists recognise anarcho-capitalism as a form of anarchism, although it is one more source about how individualist anarchists have been mischaracterised as proto anarcho-capitalists.
Anyway, this is not going anywhere, so I hope more users such as Be?et, Cinadon36 and Czar, among others too long to list, who have been involved at both Anarchism and Anarcho-capitalism, can come in to share their thoughts. Let me also remind you that the previous RfC did not find a consensus to have it under "Schools", just to have it in the template and I think it is warranted to be in the sidebar (just not in "Schools") because it is mentioned in books such as The Palgrave Handbook of Anarchism which are good sources to establish weight and whether something is due or not. Davide King (talk) 19:22, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
A few things at play here:
If the above sources above are insufficient for the claim under discussion, I'd be curious to see more authoritative and neutral sources that say otherwise. In my read of the subject, these are among the best sources on this topic.
I have never understood the need for this sidebar template. At best, the existing navbox is more than sufficient. At worst, they should simply duplicate each other.
"Schools of thought" has many problems in its usage here, in that it confers legitimacy. Even the Anarchist schools of thought article is a hodgepodge of original research. The idea any ideology that in any way confronts anarchism should be listed there (or here) is unencyclopedic. The point of nav templates is not to enumerate (or cull) some great list of potentially related topics but to provide overview links that stem from the main article to assist as a navigational aid (if it's even useful for that purpose). The schools of thought article should be merged back into the main article, as there was no need for the summary style split, which has now devolved into a coat rack.
czar 19:44, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
To me the situation is pretty clear: anarcho-capitalism is not a school of anarchist thought, nor a form of anarchism, it's an ideology that references anarchism. It's definitely justified to list anarcho-capitalism as a thing related to anarchism, but not as a part of anarchism itself. This is supported by countless sources. Be?et (talk) 20:08, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
I think if you are going to accept the sources so far mentioned, you also need to consider Anarchy, State, and Utopia and For a New Liberty as sources. Otherwise you are simply picking sides. --Trovatore (talk) 20:16, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
The sources originally cited above are history (secondary and tertiary sources). Those Nozick and Rothbard works of political philosophy are known for establishing original arguments, not summarizing existing consensus. I'd strike the Newman source since he too is a theorist but otherwise the original set of quotes are solid. Again, if you have more authoritative or "neutral" sources, we'd all like to see them. Otherwise these are the best on the subject. czar 20:48, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Trovatore, I think this an example of the false balance fallacy, for none of the sources I provided, which Czar described as the best sources on this topic, are written by anarchist theorists like is the case for this two books you cited. Mine are books and sources about anarchism, yours are books written by the theorists themselves. It would be like using books by Proudhon, Bakunin, Tucker and Kropotkin to claim that anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron because all those anarchists were opposed to capitalism and declared themselves socialists. Said this, I will leave space for Be?et to reply back. Davide King (talk) 20:54, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
I havent seen any major scholar on Anarchism to discuss or list Anarchocapitalism as a school of thought or even as a major branch of anarchism. Latest book I have read is Ruth Kinna 2019, nothing there as well.Cinadon36 02:03, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
But we are considering those sources Trovatore, but we are considering them appropriately. Rothbard's For a New Liberty is describing his very own political ideas, and we talk about them in detail; but they are just that - his own ideas. The countless sources I've mentioned prove a couple things: that anarcho-capitalism is nearly uniquely rejected by the whole anarchist movement, and that the ideas of the movement are completely incompatible with anarchism, and has completely different goals, with barely any overlap, other than rejection of the modern liberal democratic state. If the name of the movement was enough to include it in a list of anarchist schools of thought, we could then easily list the Democratic People's Republic of Korea alongside "other" democratic countries - it holds elections, so what's the problem? Be?et (talk) 09:04, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Surely maximizing individual liberty is a goal in common? --Trovatore (talk) 16:29, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Trovatore, I do not see the relevance of this comment. Anarchists, whether 'social' or 'individualists', do not consider capitalism to be maximising freedom and indeed they consider it as anathema to that. Anarchists and anarcho-capitalists do not even agree on what they mean by 'individual liberty' or 'freedom'. Having capitalists and employers dictating workers what to do is not 'liberty' for anarchists. Anarchists want the workers to be the producers themselves and be in free association; and those individualists anarchists, by no means all, who supported wage labour, did so on the premise that the workers would receive the full fruit of their labour and where the effects of capital would be socialised, not privatised. Anarcho-capitalism did not even come out of, or from, the anarchist movement, it came out from the Old Right American tradition. Claiming to be influenced by individualist anarchists, while removing all their anti-capitalist and socialist norms they derive from it, does not make one an individualist anarchist, much less an anarchist. So moving the goalposts, without providing those supposedly more 'neutral' sources, is useless and will not move us forward. Davide King (talk) 21:02, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
But individual liberty is something that is understood completely differently by right-libertarians and anarchocapitalists. Even Benjamin Tucker, who anarchocapitalists often bring up, was against private ownership of land and non-labor income in the form of profit, interest and rent. Even egoists reject capitalism, because they understand that it limits the individual. Anarcho-capitalists, on the contrary, see capitalism (which is not just the "free market", but mainly wage labour, a hierarchical mode of production involving profit, interest and rent, which anarchists see as a source of coercion sourced from ownership of capital) as something expanding individual liberty. This is why the overlap is so minimal, compared to any other ideology with "anarcho" in its name. Be?et (talk) 21:53, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Surely these are not differences in goals, though. Left-anarchists consider (e.g.) wage labor to be coercive, whereas anarcho-capitalists consider it a voluntary arrangement, but both wish to minimize coercion.
Out of curiosity, where do you put Spooner in this analysis? Or Auberon Herbert? --Trovatore (talk) 22:06, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Trovatore, this is not the place to discuss this, but whether anarcho-capitalism is supposed to be listed in the sidebar. You have yet to reply with more 'neutral' sources. By the way, Spooner was opposed to wage labour and was an anarchist whereas Herbert was a right-wing liberal and this highlights exactly the difference between anarchists and right-wing liberals/libertarians. Anarchism is not about 'voluntarism', which can be exploitative (see 'voluntary' slavery and wage slavery), but about free association and putting capital at the service of labour, not vice versa. Davide King (talk) 22:26, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Like Davide King said, Lysander was anti-capitalist, and Herbert a classical liberal. In terms of goals, if you step back far enough and look at a very loosely defined goal like "reduce coercion", you could lump together anarchists, socialists, communists, syndicalists and liberals, right-libertarians and so on. So once again, anarcho-capitalism is definitely a concept related to anarchism, even if just superfically, but is not generally considered an anarchist school of thought, as the sources brought up earlier in the discussion prove. Sources are the only thing that matters here really, so unless you can present some secondary sources showing that anarcho-capitalism is generally accepted as a form of anarchism, we can talk about keeping it on that list. Be?et (talk) 15:36, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
It's been a few weeks and it seems that the consensus is that "capitalist" should be removed, with one person opposed, but the rest supporting the idea. Be?et (talk) 13:30, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
So we just ignore reality for consensus? We IGNORE sources? Is that what popflock.com resource has come to? Ignore reality to POV push? No. Just no. Put it back, POV-pushers! - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 01:14, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Which sources are we ignoring? Many editors have asked for sources, and no good source was provided. On the other hand, a plethora of sources which exclude anarchocapitalism from anarchism have been presented. It's unclear to me how this is ignoring reality if it is actually an attempt to represent reality. If you have some non-primary sources (in particular not Rothbard's writings about his own views), please share them with us and we can happily revisit this discussion. Be?et (talk) 23:14, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Would be worth looking in Anarchy, State, and Utopia, I think. Nozick was reasonably radical as a libertarian but distinguished himself from anarchists. I don't have a copy but maybe Knight of BAAWA does? --Trovatore (talk) 02:46, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
But AFAIK that's another primary source talking about someone's own specific ideology, not a source talking about anarchism in general. For instance sources like The Oxford Handbook of Political Ideologies are not written by an anarchist describing their own views, but by people independently analysing the anarchist movement. Be?et (talk) 10:49, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Be?et is right. The Oxford Handbook of Political Ideologies is a secondary source that can be used to establish weight and it says scholars follow anarchists in rejecting anarcho-capitalism as part of the movement; same thing for national-anarchism. This is really no different from fascism and Nazism. They may have taken a few things from anarchism, but they came outside the movement (the first from the Old Right, the second from the German conservative revolutionary movement and far-right circles) and are fundamentally in disagreement with anarchist philosophy as understood by most anarchists, whether collectivists or individualists. Davide King (talk) 00:35, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
I can't really come up with a similar source at the moment. That's an absurd comparison, though. Fascism and Nazism are both radically statist philosophies, that exalt the state above all else. Anarcho-capitalism is not that at all; it wants to abolish the state, and coercive relations generally. It disagrees with left-anarchism on whether such things as rent, wage labor, and interest are coercive; it sees them as voluntary arrangements among individuals. --Trovatore (talk) 06:13, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Wow. I just stumbled upon this. It's absurd to me that so many half-baked flavors of anarchism are included in this template, but anarcho-capitalism and agorism aren't. After reading the nonsense lumping anarcho-capitalism in with whatever the hell anarcho-nationalism is over at the anarchism page, it all makes sense. There's a deeper problem on wikipedia. Pelirojopajaro (talk) 09:35, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
The "deeper problem" seems to be that nobody can produce any sources that would support adding anarcho-capitalism to a list of anarchist schools of thought. I have asked for some multiple times, to no avail. Even Rothbard himself questioned the "anarchism" label: "We must therefore conclude that we are not anarchists, and that those who call us anarchists are not on firm etymological ground, and are being completely unhistorical." - Murray Rothbard. If you can provide a source, we can discuss it. Be?et (talk) 18:06, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
You ask for secondary sources, yet none of the sources you provide refer to primary sources about anarcho-capitalism. An example is Iain McKay's Anarchist FAQ, which shows the author's clear bias on the issue, and does not analyze anarcho-capitalist theory, but rather criticizes it. You can't just remove sources talking about anarcho-capitalism with the excuse that it's just another primary source, that's not how it works. Besides, Rothbard wasn't surrendering the anarchist label to the leftists more than he was trying to make a distinction between his ideology and what was was known as anarchism at the time, otherwise he would not have proposed a different label after that passage ("calling ancaps nonarchist, the part that you conveniently cut out). Regardless, Rothbard, like left-anarchists, do not get to decide who calls themselves anarchists.pest (talk) 06:43, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
That's exactly how it works, because it's not enough to call yourself anarchist to be considered an anarchist. There are plenty of sources mentioned above that analyze anarcho-capitalist theory and point out that it rejects most of anarchist principles and therefore it's difficult to justify its inclusion amonst anarchist schools of thought. Ian Mckay is not even mentioned in the sources listed. The part that you suggest I "conveniently" cut out supports my argument even further, so not sure why you think it was convenient for me to leave it out. Using only primary sources is not appropriate here, because in that case we should consider the Democratic People's Republic of Korea a democracy, because that's what the "primary sources" say. Finally, "left-anarchism" is a tautology, a pleonasm - even in its most indivudalist forms anarchism is still a very left-wing ideology. It's like saying "right-fascism". Be?et (talk) 12:29, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
"That's exactly how it works, because it's not enough to call yourself anarchist to be considered an anarchist."
Anarcho-capitalists ARE anarchists though. When secondary sources analyze primary sources about anarcho-capitalism, they are analyzing an anarchist school of thought
"There are plenty of sources mentioned above that analyze anarcho-capitalist theory and point out that it rejects most of anarchist principles and therefore it's difficult to justify its inclusion amonst anarchist schools of thought"
Those sources refer to someone's opinion (i.e. another primary source), which in itself is not enough to exclude anarcho-capitalism as an anarchist theory (read WP:SKYBLUE).
Finally, "left-anarchism" is a tautology, a pleonasm"
'Right-anarchism' is a tautology as well, because it also refers to anarchists. -- Preceding unsigned comment added by Pestyboy (talk o contribs) 23:43, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
Pestyboy, have you even read the actual discussion? Most of this has already been addressed. Again, you claim that "Anarcho-capitalists ARE anarchists" as fact, without proving any reliable sources that establish weight and support that. That anarcho-capitalism is anarchism is not not a fact and WP:SKYBLUE does not apply; if it were, we would not even need to discuss this, but here we are. Why? Because reliable sources, especially scholarly ones, do not actually support anarcho-capitalism as an anarchist school of thought and end up agreeing with those in the anarchist movement do not consider it part of anarchism as summarised by the Palgrave Handbook of Anarchism, a non-primary sources which establishes weight.
That "they are analyzing an anarchist school of thought" seems to be your own original research. I believe the above sources listed makes clear that anarcho-capitalism is actually not an anarchist school of thought and those are not someone's opinion or primary sources; ironically, it has been who wants to list anarcho-capitalism that have listed primary sources which have no weight in establishing this. As for left anarchism and right anarchism, those are invented terms by anarcho-capitalists themselves to justify anarcho-capitalism as part of anarchism; only Ulrike Heider has categorized anarchism into left anarchism, right anarchism and green anarchism and she has been criticised for it. Anarchism is generally considered a left-wing movement and on the left of the political spectrum, although there is a movement within anarchism (post-left anarchy) that may reject this, even though many of them are anarcho-communists.
The bottom line is that you have provided nothing to back up your arguments and actually wrote falsehoods such as all the sources listed above being primary sources or that sources are actually analysing anarcho-capitalism as anarchist school of thought, when both of those statements are simply not true. Davide King (talk) 01:24, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
That anarcho-capitalism is part of anarchism is absolutely not a fact such as WP:SKYBLUE. That the article is "obscure" (I beg to differ since it has been reported in non-primary sources) or "never published" does not change its relevancy. Rothbard himself boasted of having stolen libertarian from the left and tried to do the same with anarchism but he has not succeeded as anarchism is still seen as the left-wing movement he complained about and as he himself noted. I see nothing hilarious about it. Davide King (talk) 01:37, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Trovatore, "I can't really come up with a similar source at the moment." This just sums up all this. By the way, "Fascism and Nazism are both radically statist philosophies, that exalt the state above all else" is a bit of a simplification. Fascist Italy had no problem adopting economically liberal policies and Nazi Germany actually underwent a mass program of privatisation (the term itself came from there), when most of capitalist countries at the time strove for more state intervention. Fascist economics can not be reduced to statism either; they are pragmatic and will go with whatever is more practical. In the case of Nazi Germany, they merely followed their predecessors' policies and took them as ours; they really only went for state intervention for preparation of war. Either way, being right-wing does not necessarily mean fascism; there is the so-called libertarian right, which is essentially economic liberalism and which anarcho-capitalism is part of, rather than anarchism. As noted by Czar, the sources I listed above "are among the best sources on this topic" and "[no] more authoritative and neutral sources that say otherwise" have been provided.
From what I can see, you, Pelirojopajaro and others seem to see anarchism as anti-state but scholarly analysis shows that it is not enough. That anarcho-capitalists, or agorists and national-anarchists, claim to be anarchists and that they are anti-state does not mean they are anarchists because scholarly analysis shows that it is more complicated than that. In addition, neither of them came out from the anarchist movement and are not routinely mentioned in books about anarchism. As noted by Cinadon36, "I havent seen any major scholar on Anarchism to discuss or list Anarchocapitalism as a school of thought or even as a major branch of anarchism. Latest book I have read is Ruth Kinna 2019, nothing there as well."
By the way, I do think other anarcho-isms that we currently list should not be listed either, but as part of Theory and Schools should list the big four of Anarcho-communism, Anarcho-syndicalism, Collectivist anarchism and Mutualism. Individualist anarchism and social anarchism are not exactly schools either and are better listed elsewhere under Theory. However, Anarcho-capitalism, National-anarchism, etc. do not belong at all in the sidebar other than under Issues as it is currently done. See also this possible restructuring at Template:Anarchism sidebar/sandbox. Davide King (talk) 20:41, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
I was thinking about it and I'm really not convinced that this Oxford Handbook is a better source than, say, Nozick; it sounds like a tertiary source, whereas Nozick would be secondary. Your musings on "right-wing" seem beside the point, given that "right-wing" and "anarchist" are not necessarily contradictory. --Trovatore (talk) 20:51, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
They are contradictory as defined by political science. I agree with Be?et that "'left-anarchism' is a tautology, a pleonasm - even in its most indivudalist forms anarchism is still a very left-wing ideology. It's like saying 'right-fascism'." How would a secondary source, written by an expert on the anarchist movement and published by the British academic Palgrave Macmillan, that actually establishes weight be no better than Nozick? That source is closer to being a secondary source while Nozick is closer to a primary one. Those are exactly the kind of sources we should be looking for to establish weight and anarcho-capitalism is rarely mentioned and in some cases only discussed to explain the issues. Davide King (talk) 21:18, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
"As defined by political science" is pretty meaningless. Nozick is a primary source for his own views, but not for anarcho-capitalism, which he describes rather than endorses. I don't have the Handbook to hand, but things called Handbook are usually tertiary sources. --Trovatore (talk) 21:21, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
How it is meaningless? It may be if one holds fringe views regarding the left-right political spectrum. From what I have read, the right is defined as being for authority and hierarchy, which are at odds with the history of anarchism. By the way, I do not understand why you are fixating only on that source; it is a good source to establish weight and there are a plethora of secondary sources I mentioned above and which are among the best on the subject. Davide King (talk) 21:29, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
But which quote from Nozick's book even supports the inclusion of anarcho-capitalism amongst anarchist schools of thought? As far as I know, his book is mostly a defense of minarchism, and is entirely about right libertarianism. Be?et (talk) 21:53, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
In addition to what Be?et has written above, I do not see how Nozick somehow negates or invalidates the pletehora of sources listed above. We would need a large majority of sources saying anarcho-capitalism is an anarchist school of thought, but the reverse is true. Davide King (talk) 22:10, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 26 October 2020
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Forget it. As much as it does belong, An-Coms are very protective of their "property". Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 21:13, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
I just moved Christian anarchism from "Schools of thought" to "Issues". Christianity isn't completely compatible with anarchist thought, it's similar situation as with ancap. --Wojs?aw Bro?yna (talk) 13:39, 7 February 2021 (UTC)