Talk:Anarchism/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Since I did a major rehaul of this part of Wikipedia, I also archived previous discussion. See Talk:Anarchism/Archive2 for older discussion and Talk:Anarchism/Archive1 for even older discussion. -- Faré 00:05 Apr 29, 2003 (UTC)

major rehaul was done on this page. Do the other editors agree about it ?

It looks like the article was deleted. In addition, the majority of anarchists do not oppose rules, but rather rulers. I have doubts that Fare actually read the article before he deleted it. The previous article said that anarchy was not anomie, this says that it is anomie. (anon)

I admire your ability to, without reading through the two archives, assess Faré's actions regarding this article. Kingturtle 06:20 Apr 29, 2003 (UTC)

I admire your ability to determine what (anon) did or did not read without her telling you. In any case, this new version suffers from severe problems, not least is that it balkanizes the text into a dozen different articles. This always makes articles harder to edit, introduces redundant text, and is generally much harder to read (constantly having to switch back and forth). Since Faré has not really justified the new form of the article, would s/he like to do so? Alternatively, if s/he wants to work on this version, it could be moved to Anarchism/Temp. As it stands I am opposed to the article in its current form. Graft

The new version needs a lot of work, but, after an intial reaction of "what the fuck have you done?", I think this could be a step in the right direction. Let's review:

For some time, there has been a consensus that the anarchism page (this one) should disambiguate between the various forms of anarchism -- libertarian socialism or "traditional anarchism", anarcho-capitalism, anarcho-primitivism, green anarchism, etc. However, I don't think any of us wanted this page to just point to the others: we wanted this page to discuss the primary similarities and differences between the ideas and the ways in which they relate. So we didn't want a disambiguation page that just listed the various theories that were called "anarchism". We wanted an in depth disambiguation that pointed out the differences between all the theories and ideas.

Before this "major rehaul", we had an article that mainly dealt with different theories, explaining (quite well) the differences and similarities. There was also some history and a brief description of what anarchism is not. I felt the structure was getting a bit out of hand, though: there was so much to say, and with many different people adding bits here and there, it was becoming slightly bulky, the history caught up between descriptions of libertarian socialism and the others, the section on philosophy shoved in the middle.

Our problem with this article is not the content, but the structure of the content. This is the one problem we have not yet resolved. Currently, we seem to be writing a book, and it looks like it will take the form of a series of essays. Is that what we want?

Seperate articles

This new version has made a start at a 'contents' listing and seperate articles on seperate subjects. But how do these seperate topics deal with the problem of what we mean by "anarchism"? For example, Spanish anarchism will no doubt refer to anarchist communism (libertarian socialism) and anarcho-syndicalism as "anarchism", ignoring the fact that some people think anarchism is a capitalist thing, which could easily confuse. Normally, someone writing on Spanish anarchism would be writing for an audience familiar with anarchism as a socialist theory, not a capitalist one. But here we are writing for a general audience, which is something which is not often tackled by anarchists, at least not when discussing anarchism itself in such depth and from a neutral point of view.

Another problem with these article is the question of titling, particularly the Anarchism/etymology page: I understand that this naming format is not advised for various reasons. Someone said, quite rightly, that it makes perfect sense in computing, but not in an encyclopedia. On its own, that article title would suggest an article on the relationship between anarchism and etymology or something along those lines, which is quite bizarre to say the least.

However, I do think that, despite these problems, the seperate pages may well be the best way to go about developing this subject on wikipedia. I think the first thing we should be doing, though, is deciding exactly what the structure of the anarchism articles should be. A bit of research and comparison may be in order: perhaps if we look at encyclopedic structures and at how similar topics/problems have been handled on wikipedia before. If a similar problem hasn't been encountered, and we can sort this out, we may be able to set a useful precedent on wikipedia.

So how about we brainstorm a structure for these articles? --Sam. Sam I am. and i don't eat green eggs and ham. 19:00 May 4, 2003 (UTC)

---

Libertarian Socialism might propose collective management, but "collective management" links to Collectivism. This is confusing since Collectivism is the name of the economic system that Bakunin advocated; Bakuninist collectivism is related to but different from libertarian socialism. What is more, Collectivism does not describe Bakuninist collectivism at all; it only describes corporatism and state capitalism. Most libertarian socialists want decentralized planning, not central control (and none want corporatism or state capitalism). Perhaps instead it should say "libertarian socialism proposes self-management" (or "decentralized planning"). -- bpt 02:15 May 3, 2003 (UTC)

I think that the problem is with Collectivism, that should be disambiguated between the general meaning of collectivism (any theory proposing compulsory collective management) and the particular theories that have gone under that name (i.e. movements like Bakunin's that were collectivist but opposed the Marxist movement). -- Faré 08:47 May 3, 2003 (UTC)

The description of libertarian socialism now links to self-management, since this is perhaps the most important thing about a libertarian socialist economy, and because Collectivism currently has little to do with collective management or with Bakuninist collectivism (which is only one kind of libertarian socialism). -- bpt 23:12 May 3, 2003 (UTC)

I nevertheless think that (1) Collectivism should be rewritten, and (2) there should be a link from the blurb about left-anarchism to collectivism. -- Faré 16:33 May 5, 2003 (UTC)

As for the structure of the article, I don't have anything better to propose than what I did currently, but and don't want to ever see again the mess of information grown over information "anarchically" (haha) where readers are lost in biased destructured information. Considering the diversity of anarchist movements, the reader should be able to distinguish who thinks what, or else, he will see a lot of contradictory claims and conclude that anarchists are just incoherent loonies who hold all these claims simultaneously. Short introductory material plus focused articles is the way to go. -- Faré 16:33 May 5, 2003 (UTC)

---

I'd like to suggest the rewording of this paragraph ... -> "On the contrary, the anarchy sought by anarchists is the absence of hierarchy, power and authority, which the anarchists consider as immoral, oppressive, detrimental, and sources of violence, disorder and misery. Anarchists claim that human relations should be based on voluntary associations only."

I don't think it is accurate enough. Power is not inherently immoral. For example, workers on general strike is a practise of power. Anarchists oppose the abuse of power, which is always the result of heirarchies of authority and control.

I'm proposing the quoted section be replaced with this ... -> On the contrary, Anarchism is the ideal that society should be organised without social, economic or political structures or relationships that have been constructed on hierarchy and cohersive authority, domination or exploitation. The anarchist believes that these types of structures and relationships always results in some form of suffering, repression and fear. For this reason they are fundamentally unethical and destructive, and need to be abolished.

So what's the feeling about it? -- asger 14 May, 2003

Do you feel like an anarchist? I think that anarchist literature should be consulted as to whether the term "power" is adequate - but it seems to summarize the concept well to me. Now, even Murray Rothbard makes a distinction between "Power over Man" vs "Power over Nature", opposing the former, promoting the latter. In any case, your paragraph seems much too convoluted to me, and doesn't tell as much. The ideal is to keep things simple. (sp: it's "coercive") -- Faré 22:15 16 May 2003 (UTC)

Oh, and if really a discussion on this topic was necessary, it should be moved to a different page, for instance named Anarchism and Power. -- Faré 07:08 17 May 2003 (UTC)

Where did all the text get moved to? Surely some of it was relevant to this page. Pizza Puzzle

Which text are you talking about? The text in the current Talk? Well, it's right here above you. I was talking about not adding any stuff to the current article, and moving any stuff putatively added to the article from there to a different page. If you want to start a page on Anarchism and Power -- go ahead!

---

It should be noted that anarcho-capitalists argue for, rather than against, capitalism; such anarchists oppose the regulation of corporations.

Is that last emphasised comment correct? I thought anarcho-capitalists opposed the limited liability shareholders enjoy as owners of corporations?

• That is correct. Anarcho-capitalists believe in a vary darwinist notion of capitalism, if u invest in a capitalist structure, the anarcho-capitalists want to be able to take you completely out of the game. Limited liability is a means of protecting people from corporations - it is a regulation that prevents other corporations from holding you personally liable for the overall failings of your corporation. The anarcho-capitalist has no need for such protections as he intends to succeed.
• Other such regulations, which the anarcho-capitalists want to remove, are those governing the mininum wage, environmental protections, worker safety regulations, health care regulations, anti-discrimination regulation, etc etc - granted most of them don't believe that such deregulation will create an "evil corporate empire" - but certainly other anarchists feel that is exactly the result which anarcho-capitalism will create. Pizza Puzzle

---

Anarchism and 'anarchist-capitalism'

I think that the overhaul is a very good idea, and it says something very nice about Wikipedia that anarchism is so widely discussed. I personally see Wikipedia as a project that embodies a lot of anarchist values.

However, I am still quite uncomfortable with the fact that the current article presents capitalist and individualist anarchism on equal footing with libertarian socialism, in terms of the attention they are given. Again: historically, not a single one of the people associated with individualist or capitalist 'anarchism' ever referred to themselves as anarchists, nor were they refered to as anarchists by anyone except those who wanted to discredit them. This is true of Benjamin Tucker, Walt Whitman, Max Stirner, Ayn Rand, Robert Nozick or anyone else in this vein that you'd care to name. I also think it's pretty clear that the anarchist movement - historical and contemporary - also has absolutely nothing to do with these ideas. Maybe these realities, which I think are relatively uncontroversial, need to be reflected in the way we construct the article, i.e. at least mentioning the dubiousness of calling these trends 'anarchist'?

p.s. - coming soon from me: anarchism and democracy

Uri

Nozick was not an anarchist, though he wrote about anarchism. It is a common misconceotion that because the most famous book of Nozick was called "Anarchy, State and Utopia", that he was an anarchist. But actually in the first part of the book (Anarchy) he criticised anarchy, and showed how the state could rise from the state of nature (anarchy) without coercion. In the second part of the book (State) he explainded, why not a larger state than a minimal state (night watchman state) was justified. In the third part (Utopia) he introduced his own ideal society.--213.243.156.126 01:12, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

As it stands I think it would be possible to accuse this page of inaccuracy, certainly if we look at the actual historical Anarchist movement. The main division within the anarchist movement has always been between the Syndicalist and Anarcho-Communist trends within Anarchism, which is not represented at all within the page, rather than between individualist and collectivist traditions. In some senses the Indivdualist tradition can, and perhaps should, be seen as an entirely separate, certainly when it comes to anarcho-capitalism (as the page on it acknowledges to some extent).

I also think there should be something on the external differentation of Anarchism - namely is rejection of Statism which separates its from other Left traditions i.e. Marxism and Social Democracy (encapsulated in the slogan Against Capital & State.) I don't think you can have a real understanding of what Anarchism is (or at least has been historically) with out referrring to this. Its certainly been far more important to the historical Anarchist movement than a division between Individualism and Collectivism - mostly individualism has been viewed as a minor philisophical trend confined largely to a few individuals.

Tallus

Here is the evidence you requested on Caplan's economic views VV, from his autobiography, as currently posted on his own website: "Rand’s politics was also largely on target: laissez-faire capitalism is indeed the only just social system, socialism is institutionalized slavery, and the welfare state’s attempt to reconcile these poles is a travesty."

The claim that anarchism is mere anti-statism is a limiting claim, it is to claim that the anti-capitalist views of all the original anarchists (proudhon, bakunin, kropotkin, tucker, spooner, stirner, etc) were non-essential to anarchism regardless of their own claims to the contrary and the logic of those claims which has never been challenged in any compelling fashion by so-called "anarcho-capitalists." Given that, it is a narrow conception of anarchism that confines it to 'mere' anti-statism, and a more broad conception that accounts for the full history of anarchism as, in part, an anti-capitalist movement.

More importantly, Caplan's FAQ is highly biased toward so-called "anarcho-capitalism." It selectively quotes Proudhon and Tucker in a few lines to give the impression that they were supportative of capitalist relations, totally ignoring the direct evidence that each rejected capitalism explicitly. Furthermore, in several passages the FAQ conflates anarcho-capitalism with individualism, giving the subtle impression that because most of the early collectivist anarchists embraced individualism this means they somehow endorsed capitalism. Not only is there the aforementioned explicit evidence against this, but individualists themselves rejected capitalism and most considered themselves socialists, so this is a very dishonest presentation. This heavily biased article written from the perspective of a controversial fringe group claiming to be anarchists only belongs on this page by the greatest stretch of what could be considered a related subject, but if it is going to be linked from here then it ought to at least have a sincere and straightforward description. - Kev 11/19/03

"Controversially narrow" is transparent idiocy. He is clearly using the term in a broad sense, encompassing both views (I even yielded to your complaints about this broad usage (as per this very page) by using "controversially"). You may not feel he gives enough weight to one view, but that does not mean he is using a narrow definition. "So-called" is equally pointless and daft. What next? The "so-called" Democratic party? I will accept that Caplan is a capitalist, but your other edits are dishonest and part of a continuing trend. -- VV 09:22, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)

VV, you seem to have a real personal problem with me. And I really mean with me, as many others have made the exact same edits that I have and you have done nothing to change them. Call me all the names that you want, you have yet to explain why limiting anarchism to mere anti-statism is necessarily a "broad" definition instead of a "narrow" one. You simply repeat that this must be the case and continue to edit as though you are speaking from some position of authority, which I find strange given your apparent lack of knowledge concerning the history of anarchism itself. So be it, lets remove the distinction altogether and leave it as controversial. And please, tone down the rhetoric and the insults, they aren't helping anyone. - Kev 11/19/03

Believe I have a personal problem if you wish, but all I see of you is an IP address which makes bad edits. I reduced my counter-editing during the course of discussion, and also because the other edits are less flagrantly obnoxious than yours. Do you not know that broad means inclusive? Narrow means it limits the term to a more specific meaning. No knowledge of anarchy is needed to understand these words. -- VV 06:46, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Cripes, as if there is only one way to view everything and your way must be the ultimate truth. Of course that view is more inclusive from one perspective, it is also more narrow from another. Should I get all arrogant now and ask you if you don't know that narrow means limited in scope, and that to limit anarchism to mere anti-statism would indeed narrow its definition? You call it "inclusive" because it allows more ideologies into the label, I call it "exclusive" because it restricts a great deal of the ideology itself from the label. Neither view is "wrong" VV, they are both coming from a different viewpoint. That is why wikipedia values NPOV so much, and that is why neither modifier belongs to a neutral page.

And yes, you desperately need some basic knowledge of anarchism, your assertions beg for a little bit of knowledge of the history of this movement to back them up. You have already incorrectly labeled one FAQ as "coming from a libertarian socialist perspective." You don't even realise that this completely ignores individualists, who are themselves libertarian socialists but would disagree with a lot of the points in the FAQ. But then you suddenly hee and haw about a simple disclaimer that parallels your own concerning the blatantly capitalist bias of the link that you yourself imported to this page, a bias you don't even recognise because you have obviously not read any of the authors that FAQ intentionally misrepresents.

Caplan is in fact a capitalist, therefore the FAQ that Caplan wrote does in fact come from the perspective of a capitalist. Are you disagreeing with either of these statements? If not, then your only recourse would be to assert that it is irrelevant that his FAQ comes from the perspective of a capitalist, but then you would have to go back on your own edits and admit that it is irrelevant that the FAQ which was linked to previously comes from the perspective of collectivists (not libertarian socialists, as it does not). Get over yourself already VV, and stop pretending you have the only valid viewpoint on wikipedia. And VV, if you find the exact same edits made by others to be less "flagrantly obnoxious," then it only lends to the assertion that you have a personal grudge here. - Kev 11/20/03

---

I came across a gramatically mangled paragraph on anarchism, freedom as unconstrained desire, anarchy of the market, and Marxism's views on Anarchism. I untangled the grammar and the thread of the idea. In part I had to change it: dialectical materialism is /not/ practiced by all marxists (many critique it as Engel's peversion, and "diamat" is associated with the worst sort of Stalin/Mao dialectic.) Whereas many anarchists practice historical materialism as a methodology and are just as critical of freedom as unconstrained desire. I really doubt that the paragraph needs to exist there at all, since its talking about a minor view of freedom which is a partisan sub issue. If anyone wants to delete the para, that's fine with me. If anything that kind of debate should go into a page on anarchist debates on freedom and seperately Marxism's relationship with anarchism.

 --Fifelfoo

You're probably right -- it seems a bit in depth for a general introductory/disambiguation page. Also, you've made it seems as if Marxism is a form of anarchism: "Marxism and other forms of anarchism.." -- Sam

I've edited that section to disambiguate anarchism being historical materialist, marxism being historical materialist, but marxism not being anarchist. Thanks for observing that! If a third person comments that the section in question is irrelevant (2nd para of Anarchism: the basics) I'll start new articles on Anarchism and Marxism, the methodologies of anarchist theory. I think the section on anarchism being identity politics is trite and irrelevant. Its not npov. Its not substantiated outside of the USA. etc. etc. --Fifelfoo

Now that you mention it, Anarchism and Marxism is an essential page. There are two interwoven aspects to consider:

1. the historical interplay between the two, from Marx and Bakunin to historical alliances and conflicts in the Spanish Civil War and in Russia and the Ukraine (Nestor Makhno) in particular; and
2. the ideological and methodological differences and similarities between Maxist or class-struggle anarchism and traditional statist Marxism.

Sam

I concurr. Additionally Anarchism and Marxism is the best place to put information about a few movements. ie: Johnston-Forrest tendency in Trotskism and the American workerist Marxisms; Socialisme ou Barbarie and Solidarity (UK) in the 1950s-60s; The Hungarian Revolution; Councilism; Poterie Operaia and Autonomia Operaia. These movements emerge out of traditional Marxism (not Leninism) and emerge with anarchist platforms. They don't really fit in Libertarian Socialism because they don't emerge from that theoretical / historical background. --Fifelfoo

I've started the article with a start to the historical conflict -- do you think you could begin the discussion of the methodological similarities and differences? Let me know what you think--Sam 11:36, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)

---

Which anarchists don't hold the sovereignty of the individual as a central principle? --Sam

Quite a number. I'd suggest any anarchism which doesn't derive from the liberal political tradition of the individual for themself. Any ontological trandition which sees the person as a reflection of the community. Historical materialism is one such example. Green anarchism and primitivism is another (both which also follow doctrines of sovereignty of the biological habitat.) "Individualism," strangely enough, isn't a dominant ontological doctrine for a politics of personal liberty :). --Fifelfoo

---

This might not be the place where it will receive the most attention, but I don't think the following comment (formally hidden at the top of the anarchism page so that it was the first thing editors saw) is all that useful. I think it may be discouraging edits, which is a bad thing. We can adhere to the idea, if we like, without having it so intrusively displayed. --Sam

Anarchism is a very controversial topic. Before drastically changing anything on this page, you might want to consult the talk page:

http://www.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Anarchism

Please do.

Also, the previous contents of the page were preserved here:

http://www.wiki.x.io/wiki/Anarchism/old

Here are the main principles that are being followed by the current page:

• THIS PAGE IS FOR DISAMBIGUATION ONLY.
• It should be as brief and as to the point as possible.
• Any lengthy description, controversy, enumeration should be moved to other pages, if not already done.
• Our ideal of perfection is as per this quote:

Perfection is reached, not when there is no longer anything to add,

but when there is no longer anything to take away.

-- Antoine de Saint-Exupery

Enough said!

I disagree; I think that comment should be there. The risk of discouraging useful edits is minimal compared to the gain of discouraging potential edit-war scale edits. I don't think, for instance, someone wanting to make a minor fix or add a link would be dissuaded by that text. -- VV 23:08, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I think we've lost a lot of what we had on anarchism. I think there's a lot of stuff that belongs here that won't be here under the policy defined above: like discussions of the differences between the views of, say, Proudhon, Bakunin and Kropotkin; the use and misuse of the term "anarchist" from the French Revolution to the May Day protests in London. Perhaps we're scared this page will get too long! At that point, we break off discussion into sub-pages, in the way it is done on country pages. But too much of what we're putting on subpages belongs here -- and too much of it is getting ignored where it is. --Sam

I might start a page at User:Sam_Francis/Anarchism and see what I can come up with as an alternative. That might be the easiest way.. -- Sam 00:05, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

---

Anarchism is a generic name given to theories and movements which call for the abolition of government and other forms of authority - the simplest possible civics. In the view of anarchists, the complexity of civics is inversely related to its potential for fairness - thus simpler is better.

In all that I have read about anarchism, I've never seen it framed in terms of civics, at least not using that terminology. To me, this doesn't seem to be a particularly useful way of describing it: first of all, it requires the reader to know what "civics" is. Second, this terminology makes the introduction seem overly academic, as I see it; it is not the most accesible of language. I think we can achieve the same end with less complex language, as per George Orwell's rules in his essay "Politics and the English Language".

Also, I don't think this is the way most anarchists would describe their ideas. -- Sam

---

So, what, in particular, was really wrong with this revision? --Sam 21:00, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Missing counter (n)pov

This article is nice in itself, and Anarchism is discribed relatively npovly, but I do feel that a counter-pov should be described here. Why so many people, from high philosophers to the man of the street, don't share anarchist ideas and ideals? As it's written here, one might wonder why so few countries ever tried anarchism and why so few people would say they are anarchists themselves. Maybe I missed a link somewhere explaining all those things. If not so, the editors of this article have made a really god job, but may have missed one important part of this job: write for the enemy. I may try to fill this weakness, but I'll need some help. gbog 09:31, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Being one of the many contributors to this page, thanks for the appreciation! I understand what you're saying; I'll try to help show the arguments against anarchism. Hopefully we can fit it into a newly structured article. I'll give it some thought. --Sam 13:54, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)

In fact, I plan on making quite a few additions and changes, so make any contributions you're thinking of and I'll then incorporate them into the changes I intend to make. They should fit nicely! --Sam

I am thinking about it but it's not easy to explain. I guess there are some thinkers that would argue that order imply hierarchy in itself, that a fully "flat" order is not working. There is also the Hobbes theory for "authorization" where citizens decide to "authorize" someone to rule them in order to avoid civil war. Another argument against anarchism could be stated with the need for protocolar customs. If you invite many different persons for a dinner, say a Bishop, an old Duchesse, a defense minister, an ambassador and a big boss of some big corporate. If every body sit where s/he wants at the table, underlined conflits will probably transform a happy time in a nightmare for most of the guests... So, thats why protocol is so important in diplomatic meetings, and state before the dinner, where you should place each guest so that everybody feels s/he is at the right place, according to his/her respectability. This example, even if a little bit stupid because only few persons are facing such protocolar problems, is the way I could explain an argument against "pure freedom to sit where you want" (what is not anarchism, I know). I have only few knowledge about "anarchy" but I have seen some meetings involving people who would share those ideas, and I noted that, even if they were very nice to each other, they needed such things as "central committee", "first secretary", "discussion manager", that are other names for the same function: "representants of the group" and "decisioners". So, even if I personnally share the ideals of anarchism, I'm afraid that it's remains utopia, maybe because when you throw the "power" by the door, it is always coming back through the window, or something like that. I'm sorry that I don't have enough English readings about the subject to give real meat to this (counter)side of the article. Some theoricians may have written on the topic: Paul Ricoeur, John Rawls, and so on. gbog 06:45, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)

---

User:Lir: please answer me this: which anarchists don't oppose government? --Sam 21:56, 26 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Comments left on article talk pages are not likely to be read or responded to by a specific recipient; try using my talk page... Most anarchists do not oppose government, as the wikipedia npov'ly defines it; this article, already clearly states that anarchists do not support "chaos or anomie" -- they support laws, rules, regulations, etc (with the possibile exception of "anarchi-capitalists")

Anarchists support a form of democracy known as "true democracy"; they oppose hierarchical and oppressive governments (such as republican/totalitarian governments); anarchists oppose the government, and all traditional notions of government; but, not all government. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Please provide some references for your arguments; in particular, an example of an anarchist who doesn't oppose government. -- Sam