Talk:Anarchist economics

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

'Theoretical'[edit]

Do we really need to have it be 'theoretical economic systems' instead of just 'economics systems'? I guess this is a reference to these economic systems not having been done on a large scale, but (most? all?) have been conducted to a certain extent, and all 'economic systems' are theoretical, so this seems unnecessary to me and cumbersome. I think we should drop the 'theoretical'. Byelf2007 (talk) 17 November 2012

Scope[edit]

What is the actual scope of this article? It currently contains a mishmash of concepts loosely connected to how anarchists think about money, goods, and trades, and mostly copied from the ledes of other articles. It ultimately reads like a retread of Anarchism, introducing a bunch of different schools of thought and then barely touching upon its "economic" functions. czar 16:22, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wow aye, scope creep has done a number on this article hasn't it. Seems like this is another one of those "everything but the kitchen sink" articles where anything with even a marginal relation to the subject has been thrown in. The lead summary thing is quite bad, including information that has already failed verification and been removed from their main articles.
There's definitely a version of an anarchist economics article that could be helpful. The Accumulation of Freedom alone would provide a better skeleton than... whatever this article currently is.
I may get around to culling this article at some point in the future. Right now it's basically unreadable. -- Grnrchst (talk) 15:31, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

“Anarcho Distributism”[edit]

Are we able to polish, or perhaps strike, the section on anarchist distributism? It is completely unsourced, and full of grammar and spelling mistakes.

I would find the original contributor(s) and ask for clarification but I’m not terribly experienced as a wiki editor 8.19.56.179 (talk) 19:14, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and removed this, didn't see any reason worth keeping it. -- Grnrchst (talk) 17:52, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]