Talk:Anarchism/Archive 16

message: : * The submovement, must be linked to other parts of the larger movement, even if it not linked to all (syndicalism and primitivism don't really link for example, but there is a link between syndicalism and anarcho-communism and primitivism and ecoanarchism). When the particular trend of anarchism existed (or began) should make no difference, neither should the number of "followers" (term is used loosely). Beta m (talk)
: * The faction must be linked intrinsically, even if on a shaky relationship, to the entire movement. There are disagreements between different factions in Anarchism, but generally they are still considered disagreements between Anarchists. The same cannot be said about "Anarcho"-Capitalism or National-"Anarchism". Which are trends that consider themselves Anarchists, but are universally rejected within the movement. It is also important to look at where these trends come from and what kind of support they have, a "movement" that consists of one site and a dozen members is simply not noteworthy.--Che y Marijuana 00:36, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
: * If the criteria to be included is in question as to whether it is anarchist or not, it should be known that it must be non-hierarchal and meet the other basic requirements already outlined in the article.  If something is to be decided as to whether it is relevant or part of the larger movement, population does actually matter.  For example, there are an extremely small number of people (possibly only the guy that made one small website on it) that believe anarchism should be melded with monarchism.  If we pretend for a moment that this actually was non-hierarchal, then it would still not be relevant to include in the article because the number of followers is so rediculously small.  For the sake of space, since this is wikipedia, all that should be included in the article are things, people, and movements which had something significantly to do with anarchism in the past or does in the present.  --Fatal 04:35, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: * The bounds of the article should start out as historical, not ideological.  Anarchism consists of a history that started somewhere around Proudhon and Bakunin, and included diverse movements and individual activists and writers, associated in various ways, cooperating and competing in various ways, but all claiming parts of the same shared history and all calling themselves anarchists.  The various movements and ideologies included in this history (up to present times) should be represented in proportion to their historical weight---whether that is measured in terms simply of number, of historical impact, of success in promulgating their ideas, whatever.  This doesn't answer all questions, but give us the framework that should be argued within---there is no need to decide what is The Correct Anarchist Line. There is only need to figure out how 'popular' or how high an impact various ideologies or movements have had.  If the answer is 'a tiny one', then they should get only a tiny mention.  --Nil 07:53, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: * This is an encyclopedia. To best attempt an "objective" stance, there needs to be a clear guideline or model for inclusion. The criteria must be universal (can apply for all cases), independantly testable(anyone can research and apply them--no secret knowledge), and have fecundity (the criteria can apply now and in the future, plus leave room for more questions/distinctions). This is no different than whan makes for a good scientific theory. String Theory and quantum gravity are completely different, competing theories but to the average reader, many nuances must be explained. To make the difference between an anarchist ideological/historical event and other social movements clear to the average reader, the article should provide explicit criteria. --albamuth 20:32, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: * The only criteria for inclusion is quality, (think featured article) verifiability, Citability, and the 32k size concern. The definition of anarchism is not the single organic movement beginning with Proudhon and Bakunin (which should be discussed), nor is it syndicalism alone, nor any one thing. Rather anarchism is a natural concept based on anarchy (the temporary absence of governmental authority), rather than any one of the movements, incidents, uprisings or states (like say Somalia) that represent it.  22:26, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: * Anything that's closely relevant to the concept of anarchism. I would't worry about it too much. If something strays too far off topic, someone will delete it. Or if it's not mentioned or elaborated on enough, someone will put it in. All these arguments will be rehashed over and over. Anything we write will be erased many times over through the course of time anyway. I don't think Wikipedia is designed to allow for finality but incessant "warfare." RJII 16:48, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: * Anything notable should be mentioned. Nationalist anarchism, for example, is non-notable, with no historical or political significance other than disrupting this article. Anarcho-capitalism is more notable. But, we should make it clear that these contrived submovements do not come out of the same historical trajectory that produced the others and are not linked movements. I mean, if you go to an anarchist bookshop you could probably find syndicalist and primitivist stuff (depending on the scope of their inventory) but anarcho-capitalism is an independent, unrelated movement that happens to have a related prefix and is generally not even taken seriously by any other anarchist "submovement"(as for nationalist anarchism, few have ever even heard of it as is seen by the confused reaction by regular editors of this article). Such subcategories should not be treated as equal in importance, nor should they be contrasted throughout the article as if they have equal merit or that such debates occur often (anarchists generally ignore or brush off anarcho-capitalists, anarcho-capitalists do the same to anarchists. Or wait. "Left" anarchists.) To present these subcategories in any other way is to distort the landscape of the anarchist movement and ignore trends in the history of anarchist thought. I support a seperate section for any of these questionable schools of thought, where their ideas are surveyed and compared to the rest of the article, so that their views do not distort the rest of the article and create misunderstandings about their role in the greater anarchist movement. [Sorry, that was a jumble of only partially coherent thought, I have a headache and I'm tired :P] --Tothebarricades.tk 20:33, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: * As above, anything notable (to be specific, that which is beyond the internet, beyond single-person advocacy, beyond secret societies with no evidence) should be mentioned in some form, but proper emphasis placed on controversial and minor movements (i.e. their mention should be brief and include links to their own articles if such exist).  Anarchism, as a political ideology, is distinct from anarchy, mere anti-state ideology, mere isolationism, or mere anti-capitalism.  As such, inclusion on this page should be based on loose adherence to the most basic of anarchist values, including total abolition of the state, and a never-ending push to eliminate human domination in whatever forms it arises including: prisons, judiciary, politicians, human bondage in contractual or physical form, etc.  Ideologies which advocate such institutions as compatible with human freedom are subverting the very definitions of the words used by anarchists to promote their ideology.  Thus, the determination of what is and is not part of anarchism is not formulaic, it is subjective and organic in accordance with the values of those following in the tradition of anarchism.  As such, there is no simple rule to follow, and judgements based on inclusion and extent of coverage in this article should include its significance (in numbers of subscribers and real-world events), its degree of adherence to past anarchist values, its continuing rejection of institutional status-quo (regardless of what the status-quo happens to be), its acceptance by other anarchist movements involved in the tradition, its compatibility with the underlying theory, its coherence with the basic meaning(s) of the word itself.  Kev 00:58, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: * Anything notable, yes... and don't let one slanted group define in a monopolistic way what's "notable".  Dtobias 00:49, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: * The criteria for inclusion into this article is simple: if said inclusion is anti-hierarchy, anti-capitalism, anti-oppression, and anti-authority, then it should be considered to be included. Or, if it is related to anarchist history or information about the movements, collectives, communes, etc. that are anarchistic in nature. --Jazz Remington 02:08, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: * The more I think about it, the clearer it becomes that anarcho-capitalists  and sui dissant traditional anarchists are simply using the same word in different senses. When a (pro-capitalist) libertarian asks another libertarian "Are you an anarchist?", he would never give a reply like "Yes, because I agree with Bryan Caplan that Spooner and Tucker were fundamentally on our side," or "No, Bakunin was way off." That would be irrelevant from their perspective. He would simply answer based on whether he favored abolishing the state. For left-wing anarchists, on the other hand, location within the historical anarchist movement is crucial. This is why we need to have a disambiguation page. Personally, as I have said before, I think it would be clearer to have the disambiguation page here, under anarchism, because the anarchism of the anarchist movement is far from the most common usage, and then put the contents of this article somewhere else (maybe under anarchist movement); but it works either way, so long as we have a note at the top of the article saying This article is about the philosophy of anarchism associated with thinkers such as Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and Mikhail Bakunin. For other senses of the word anarchism, see anarchism (word). - Nat Krause 19:58, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: What criteria should be used for inclusion in this article?

message: I think the problem lies in what people believe anarchism and the definition of anarchism is.  An ararchist may claim he is practicing anarchism, but not necessarily in the true sense of the actual definition.  I think the inclusion of the different view points of what people believe is anarchism should be included, however the basic definition should not be changed. -- AllyUnion (talk) 10:39, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Lingusitics is the cause of many a problem, because people redefine words for themselves or use words in different senses or use words to gain attention when it fact they are not associating at all with the defintion of that word.  People in the media use "anarchy" to get attention, brainless pop punks falsely claim to be anarchists just because they like using a stylized version of the circumscribed A.  What we have here in this talk page are fascists and power mongers that have mislabeled themselves to put accross a more "positive" image that is false.  --Fatal 23:07, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem with Anarchism 

message: Personally, I think it would be nice if there were a "High English" and "Low English".  The language has a well-enough established place in the world that there isn't any reason why it couldn't be done, as it has been in many other languages.  Or perhaps "Formal English" and "Colloquial English" (so as not to imply a value judgement, as both forms would be held in equal esteem -- such that it would be considered "vulgar" to speak Formal English in a casual setting, for instance).
In Colloquial English, "irregardless" would be a legitimate term.  Slang and non-standard definitions would be as valid as standard.  "Anarchy" could be used to refer either to anti-authoritarianism or to chaos and confusion.  The ironic use of "fulsome" would remain standard.  "Ain't" and "altright" could still be non-standard.  Et cetera.
In Formal English, "fulsome" would never be synonymous with "insincere", "anarchy" would only refer to anti-authoritarianism or the lack of rulership, and "irregardless" would not be a word.  "Ain't" and "altright", being as etymologically defensible as similar words (isn't, aren't, almighty, almost, already, altogether), would be considered perfectly standard in Formal English -- or, alternately, if we reject "alright" in favor of "all right", then we'd have to use "all together", "all mighty", "all most", and "an other", rather than "altogether", "almighty", "almost", or "another".  Basically, Formal English would require consistency, rather than what we have now:  a completely arbitrary system of accepting or rejecting words based on the whims of English "authorities" deciding how the rest of us should speak based solely on what sounds best to their own ears.
In such a system, Formal English would be based in etymology, whilst Colloquial English would be based on cannotations.  "Epithet", for example, would refer to descriptive bynames or ekenames in Formal English, but in Colloquial English could still mean "a derogatory name".  Likewise, "orange" in Colloquial English would refer to the whole spectrum between red and yellow just as it does now, but in Formal English could only refer to a specific shade of yellowred (from Old English geoluhread), just as "violet" is a specific shade of purple, or "lime" a specific shade of green.  Also, the singular they, as in "I saw someone, and they were pushing a shopping cart" might be acceptable in Colloquial English, whereas in Formal English, you'd have to say "I saw someone, and it was pushing a shopping cart", which is grammatically correct but considered extremely impolite (Formal English would not concern itself with what is "polite", only with what is technically and grammatically proper).  Formal English would also retain all four second person pronouns, thou, thee, ye, and you, instead of simply (and confusingly) using you in all four cases.
Of course, this isn't likely to happen any time soon, but a guy can dream. --Corvun 01:28, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology vs. Usage 

message: Do we really need this to be so long, considering the inclusion of most of it in Template:Anarchism sidebar? --Tothebarricades.tk 19:34, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A question that is definitely at issue.  But one also has to consider that if one wants to bring extra attention to something, it should be out in the open and easily accessed rather than buried in a sea of links.  More organized, yes, but less attention to aspects of interest, also yes.  As it is, many of the things in the article could probably be further reduced and referred to on other pages from the template, but this will also mean less users will further pursue more keystroking and clicking to reach what it is they're interested in.  --Fatal 01:00, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The See-also section 

message: My attempts to add a link to the Anarchist Theory FAQ keep getting reverted because that site doesn't meet the political-correctness litmus test of the dominant leftists here; that site presents a balanced account of "left" (socialist) and "right" (capitalist) anarchists, which is considered to be "right-wing bias" by the left.  The highly left-wing-biased Anarchist FAQ that's linked to now, of course, is "fair and balanced" as far as the socialists are concerned. Dtobias 03:20, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is most certainly -not- a balanced view that is being presented.  The individual who made it is an anarcho-capitalist who bends over backwards and blatantly distorts several facts in order to give the impression that anarcho-capitalism is a legitimate theory arising from anarcho-individualism, when in fact the individualists rejected capitalism as contrary to the free-market.  Further, as anarcho-capitalist claims to this page are at best a tangential side movement and at worst actively subversive of the anarchist message I see nothing wrong with keeping the link on the anarcho-capitalism page where it belongs.  At the very least, it if has to be here, a description of its bias should be added to the link.  Kev 04:36, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's keep it and add a description of its angle. - Nat Krause 04:52, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't see why it should be on the Anarchism page.  Why not put it where it fits more, on the anarcho-capitalism page which is already linked to?  --Fatal 21:51, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It discusses anarchism of all varieties, and is more favorable to left-anarchism than the other "Anarchist FAQ" is to anarcho-capitalism. Dtobias 22:54, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:   There are several varieties of anarchism it does not describe, and it focuses on anarcho-capitalism far beyond its merit.  In fact, it gives the impression that anarcho-capitalism is a huge part of anarchism when it is at best a small side-movement.  Again, this makes it far more appropriate for the anarcho-capitalist page than for this one.  As to its being "more favorable to left-anarchism", that is simply not true.  It comes up with every argument it can, several of them straw-men, to critique "left-anarchism".  It is simply a lot more difficult to claim that the very people who first described themselves as anarchists are not, than it is to claim that a minor movement with an entirely different definition of what it is to be an anarchist are not anarchists.  Kev 02:14, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Kev; an even balance between "right" and "left" anarchism is false neutrality, since anti-capitalist anarchism strecthes back centuries and has had far more influence and proponents. As for the actual link, whatever. I don't think the thing's TOO atrocious but there are better FAQs out there. --Tothebarricades.tk 05:23, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links