Talk:Anarchism/Archive 50

message: I seriously think that this page is far too long.  I think it should be split into smaller pages.  (I did try and start this once, but a nasty edit war meant my work was undone and I couldn't finish it.)
For example, the different schools could be cut down to a few sentences. 
And the "issues" that have their own pages could be cut back as well.
This page should be providing a general overview.  Not all the information.  
Thoughts? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AFA (talk • contribs) 16:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I stumbled onto this article at random and my first thought was pruning it down some. I know it is tricky as this is one of those topics that you can easily write books on, but do we need an entire page on Mutualism when it has its own article? The "Schools of anarchist thought" section could easily be made into just a list... Nitwit005 05:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split the topic! 

message: I'm not that familiar with CGT history, but I know that the IWW did not align itself with the Comintern. Indeed, the IWW's refusal to do so prompted many of the pro-Bolshevik members to leave. Jacob Haller 06:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct. --Tothebarricades 08:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: '''After the Russian revolution'''

message: The present intro starts:
Anarchism is a political philosophy or group of philosophies and attitudes centered on rejection of any form of compulsory authorityBakunin, Mikhail, God and the State, pt. 2.; Tucker, Benjamin, State Socialism and Anarchism.; Kropotkin, Piotr, Anarchism: its Philosophy and Ideal; Malatesta, Errico, Towards Anarchism; Bookchin, Murray, Anarchism: Past and Present, pt. 4; An Introduction to Anarchism by Liz A. Highleyman and governmentMalatesta, Errico, Towards Anarchism. (cf. "state"), and supporting its elimination.Anarchism. Encyclopædia Britannica. 2006. Encyclopædia Britannica Premium Service. 29 August 2006 <http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9117285>. Anarchism is "a cluster of doctrines and attitudes centred on the belief that government is both harmful and unnecessary."Anarchism. The Shorter Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2005. P. 14 "Anarchism is the view that a society without the state, or government, is both possible and desirable."Carl Slevin "anarchism" The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics. Ed. Iain McLean and Alistair McMillan. Oxford University Press, 2003. The term "anarchism" derives from the Greek αναρχία ("without archons" or "without rulers"Anarchy Merriam-Webster's Online dictionary). Thus "anarchism", in its most general meaning, is the belief that all forms of rulership (and thus also involuntary servitude) are undesirable and should be abolished.
Now many anarchists (including myself) "center" their political philosophy on the rejection of hierarchical/compulsory authority, and oppose the state because they (we) oppose hierarchical/compulsory authority in general. How about starting with:
Anarchism is a political philosophy or group of philosophies and attitudes which reject any form of compulsory governmentMalatesta, Errico, Towards Anarchism. (cf. "state"), and support its elimination,Anarchism. Encyclopædia Britannica. 2006. Encyclopædia Britannica Premium Service. 29 August 2006 <http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9117285>. Anarchism is "a cluster of doctrines and attitudes centred on the belief that government is both harmful and unnecessary."Anarchism. The Shorter Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2005. P. 14 "Anarchism is the view that a society without the state, or government, is both possible and desirable."Carl Slevin "anarchism" The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics. Ed. Iain McLean and Alistair McMillan. Oxford University Press, 2003. most often because of a wider rejection of any form of hierarchical authority.Bakunin, Mikhail, God and the State, pt. 2.; Tucker, Benjamin, State Socialism and Anarchism.; Kropotkin, Piotr, Anarchism: its Philosophy and Ideal; Malatesta, Errico, Towards Anarchism; Bookchin, Murray, Anarchism: Past and Present, pt. 4; An Introduction to Anarchism by Liz A. Highleyman The term "anarchism" derives from the Greek αναρχία ("without archons" or "without rulers"Anarchy Merriam-Webster's Online dictionary).
I also removed the last sentence in this draft. I can see why people might not want the ref. to hierarchical authority in the definition, it might exclude S.P. Andrews, among others, and it could amount to the same sort of narrowing some Marxists do in the Socialism article, but it is at the center of many if not most anarchist philosophies, and many if not most anarchists' personal-philosophical reasons for being anarchists. Jacob Haller 20:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, we spent so much time arguing over this; does this address everyone's concerns? Jacob Haller 16:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem with using "hierarchical authority" or "compulsory hierarchy" or some such. My only concern was with unspecified unmodified "hierarchy" by itself, since for many readers hierarchy doesn't automatically imply coersion. (mentor/student; driver/passenger; cook/helper) PhilLiberty 18:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

text: An implication which the primary sources clearly state. Jacob Haller 18:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Alternatives

message: Sources are being misrepresented. The sentence implies non-individualist anarchism is looked at in the same way by all the authors; this is not true. -- infinity0 21:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  misrepresentation of sources 

message: I think most of the material inside "Property is theft" and "property is freedom" can go.
* I think that Proudhon's partial condemnation, and the individualists' partial defense, or private property needs more explanation.
* However, Proudhon's and Warren's statements about prices are not that informative and may be misleading without context. Greene's quote already covers the most important claims.
* I'm not sure what to do with Warren's Owenite background or Dana's and Greene's roles. Is it just too much for the section?
* I think that the intro to the American tradition can go. We only name a few people for each of the other traditions, and readers can check the other article for more information.
* I'm not sure what to do with Thoreau either.
* We may want a better heading for "market law," or we may just cut the internal headings.
* Can we trim the Four monopolies?
:I agree. The Ind-anarchism section has good stuff, but much of it belongs in the Individualist Anarchism article rather than in the main anarchism article. I think we should pare it down to a "teaser" for the Ind Anarchist article, and get rid of all subheadings as suggested. PhilLiberty 22:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They helped me arrange stuff during the edit and point to stuff above. But once we're done with the cleanup, we can remove them like any other scaffolding. Jacob Haller 22:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ind-anarchism cleanup

message: Okay, people have raised the issue of length before. Besides eliminating whole sections, we can eliminate extra words. I suggest that people go through the sections they are most familiar with, to avoid accusations of POV deletion, and try to trim them. Jacob Haller 21:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great work so far. I think individualist anarchism and left-libertarianism have been devoted undue weight in this article as a result of the recent concerted effort on related articles. These section should be trimmed back significantly, with anything valuable being moved to the sub-articles. I suggest splitting as the best means to shorten this article dramatically. Skomorokh incite 18:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Is there anything we can cut?

message: The Makhnovism article is a mess. I have suggested merging some content into two other pages; see Talk:Makhnovism. I would include nice merge tags, but there aren't suitable tags, so here's your heads-up. Jacob Haller 21:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Makhnovism

message: Should we merge these? If so, into which section? Jacob Haller 02:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Anarcho-syndicalism" and "anarchism and the labor movement" sections

message: Should we move common ground anarchism into anarchism without adjectives, etc., etc.? Jacob Haller 02:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm strongly against this. Post-left, insurrectionary, post-an, small a etc. are distinctly contemporary developments and should be situated in the context of 20th-century developments e.g. postmodernism and situationism rather than perennial differences in anarchist thought e.g. individualism vs collectivism, pro-vs.anti-market. The section is a paradigm of summary style with brief descriptions linking to main articles. Skomorokh incite 18:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Can we dismantle "recent developments"?

message: This is referenced without an author. I did a websearch and only saw the pamplet by what looks like  Kropotkin - The Place of Anarchism in the Evolution of Socialist Evolution' , 1890, (HX617)  . Can someone clarify where and who authored the pamphlet. Is it online? --maxrspct ping me  10:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is by Kropotkin. See, for example, The Place of Anarchism in Socialistic Evolution: An Address Delivered in Paris (1890). The title has obviously be translated in a number of ways. Libertatia 17:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pamphlet 'The Place of Anarchism in the Evolution of Socialist Thought'

message: I think that it shold include a general description of anarchism, not the concept that only a sect that pretends be anarchist wants to put or not. Describe mainstream not a sect. Horizontalism and direct democracy, per example, are concept often accepted and used from anarchists around the world. Only wikipedia in english has this problem. --190.154.17.234 19:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is is there is no general description of anarchism. For every anarchist belief there is another anarchist to disagree with him. Anarchism is not a single philosophy, by any means. It's a plethora of diverse doctrines, philosophies, and attitudes. Operation Spooner 19:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The first lines

message: Earlier we had mutualist and individualist sections in the schools section. I had, thinking we had consensus, reorganized this into (1) mutualism and 19th-century individualism and (2) 20th-century individualism. Now we have three sections.
I want people's opinions on what to do here. I also think that 19th-century individualism is seriously bloated compared to the coverage of the other schools. Jacob Haller 23:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Much of this could be left to the sub-articles. The 19th/20th-century division is pretty awful, however. Retrospectively defined, mutualism goes back to the late 1820s and forward, as a minor current, to the present. Tuckerite individualism extends as an important school from the early 1870s until at least the 1940s, so it's hardly "19th century." Libertatia 16:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

text: 19th century individualist anarchism may be a little bloated but I don't think by much. Maybe Stirner can do consolidated a bit. The left-libertarian section seems bloated to me. Agorism is extremely obscure, but it should probably have a sentence or two. And I think Kevin Carson is given too much space. I think the quote should be removed. Carson's only claim to fame is having his book (published by a vanity press) criticized in the Journal of Libertarian studies. Operation Spooner 00:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Carson just appeared in The Freeman as well, and is one of the most-cited contemporary anarchists around. He should obviously be mentioned; I'm indifferent on the question of including the quote. Libertatia 16:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I couldn't find Warren describing himself as a mutualist, and pulled back on that claim (though Shawn might have something...), but cited the anonymous Mutualist of 1826. Jacob Haller 00:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Warren didn't describe himself as a mutualist. He never called himself an anarchist either, though he was one as sources indicate. Operation Spooner 03:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Warren had a real horror of all labels, except the ones he made up himself. But his position in the tradition that others were calling "mutualism" was firmly established by the 1870s, as his position and that of folks like Greene and Heywood converged in The Word and in the various "labor reform leagues." And it is a present historical commonplace that mutualism emerged from Proudhon, Greene and Warren. Libertatia 16:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Warren was an individualist, not a mutualist. Operation Spooner 21:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, you are more than welcome to your opinion, but published sources (starting with Swartz and Rexroth) say otherwise, and there simply isn't any question that the mutualism of the Tucker era was derived in roughly equal parts from Warren, Proudhon and Greene. There are much more precise taxonomies that we could use here, but they would, alas, be OR. Libertatia 19:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You may be able to find one source that says Warren was a mutualist. You can pretty much find a source for anything. But I'm sure that nearly all sources say he was an individualist. Operation Spooner 22:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mutualism, 19th-century Individualism, and 20th-century Individualism

message: I suggest moving this into anarchism and organized labor in the social movement section. Jacob Haller 23:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If we move social movement into its own article, or into history of anarchism, and delete it here, then we should keep the anarcho-syndicalism section here and move part of the anarchism and organized labor section into it. Jacob Haller 00:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anarcho-syndicalism is probably one of the dominant schools of thought in anarchist history. As such, I'm in favour of summarizing the entire anarchism as a social movement section, or at the very least the anarchism and organized labour section, and keeping anarcho-syndicalism as a school of thought. I'd like consensus from a few more editors before going ahead with this sort of thing as this article is historically one of the most disputed on Wikipedia. Skomorokh incite 18:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, but the common involvement in the labor movement, rather than any fixed platform, has distinguished anarchosyndicalism from other schools. Jacob Haller 23:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reading over the section here again anarcho-syndicalism does seem more of a tactic/means to an end rather than an ideology/value system. I support assimilating it into anarchism and organized labour. Any objections? Skomorokh incite 22:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I think it belongs on the front page, one way or another. I think there is some ambiguity about how it is used: "anarchosyndicalism" as one system or "anarchosyndicalism" as "anarchist forms of syndicalism/revolutionary unionism" (where, for example, Joe Labadie's and Dyer Lum's positions fit the latter description). Jacob Haller 00:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a source for Joseph Labadie being an anarcho-syndicalist? Operation Spooner 00:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not that I'm aware of, but anarchist, yes, and (nonviolent) revolutionary unionist (he was in the IWW), yes. See the ambiguity inherent in the term? I don't think it makes much sense to treat "anarchosyndicalism" in the narrow sense in one place, and other anarchist involvement in revolutionary unionism in another place. Jacob Haller 01:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Anarcho-syndicalism

message: How can we discuss the history of anarchism and organized labor without discussing Haymarket, or the anarchist role in labor unionism in the United States in general? Jacob Haller 20:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Haymarket