Talk:Anarchism/Archive 11

message: The subsection entitled "Spanish revolution (1936-1939)" is supposed to be about an historical example of "successful anarchies". Yet almost all of the information addresses not the revolution and the achievements of anarchism during this period, but the civil war instead.
:True. I replaced it with what I wrote for the revolution in Anarchism in Spain. I'm sorry if that seems shady, but what was there was mediocre, as you said :P --Tothebarricades.tk 03:50, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spanish rev 

message: Falsification/oversimplification of surrealism.  Fascism and surrealism are incompatible; his right-wing politics were instrumental Dali's separation from the movement.  Falsely implies surrealism is an artistic movement.  --Daniel C. Boyer 17:06, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Surrealism and Dali 

message: Reference to this internet hoax ought to be removed from this page altogether.  There is no evidence of the actual existence of such a movement outside of the internet, there has never been a real-life event involving these shadow figures, the evidence that the individuals involved are simply fascists attempting to subvert yet another ideology is overwhelming, and the very definition of nationalism is contrary to all definition of anarchism including the water-down ones used in this very article.  The main reason that the anarcho-fascism page went up for VfD was the absurdity and insincerity involved, and national-anarchism is certainly no better in either regard.  Kev 12:54, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I wholeheartedly agree. -- Spleeman 00:56, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: Very well then. I'm deleting the info about "national anarchism" as it seems to be treated sufficiently on the ITP page. Spleeman 04:06, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  National Anarchism 

message: The heading "Examples of anarchistic societies" has been changed to "Examples of societies historically relevant to anarchism" in order to avoid ambiguity about its meaning. -- Spleeman 06:46, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Examples of societies historically relevant to anarchism 

message: Is the second really necessary? The Zapatistas, it is true, are not "anarchists" in the strict sense of the word, but neither is Linus Torvalds. --Tothebarricades.tk 15:49, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: As regards the Zapatistas, I feel it is a case of cultural imperialism in the worst degree to attempt to co-opt their struggle into Western anarchism, especially when they have specifically pointed out that they are not anarchists. -- Spleeman 23:06, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we're not saying they are, we're saying their society has certain anarchist qualities. But you have a point, and perhaps we should split it up into "self-described anarchist societies" and "societies with anarchist qualities," or something along those lines. --Tothebarricades.tk 23:14, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Historical examples of societies successfully organized according to anarchist principles" vs. "Examples of organizations with anarchist qualities" 

message: It's fairly modern and associated more with the punk movement than with "anarchism" as it is discussed in this article. Thoughts? --Tothebarricades.tk 02:58, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The symbol is historically associated primarily with anarchism as discussed in this article. But you're right, it does have other connotations, now. As I said in my comment below, it would be very nice to have a lead image. Hopefully someone will be able to come up with a better alternative. • Benc • 03:11, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The circle-A symbol predated the punk movement.  See the Anarchist FAQ, it has a section dealing with the history of anarchist symbols.  I however, dislike the way in which the symbol is drawn (drawn as a 14 year old punk kid would draw it), since I think it gives the wrong impression about anarchism.  Not all anarchists are punks, although Terry Morgan the author of "I was a Working Class Anarchist" would have you believe otherwise...  Just think about Noam Chomsky or Howard Zinn next time you feel like putting something like this in this type of article.  If you feel like putting the anarchist symbol into the text, I would be more supportive if it were drawn with the A enclosed in and just touching the circle, and not leaping hap-hazzardly out of it. millerc 05:13, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: Move Add it to anarcho-punk? Guanaco 03:05, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, anarcho-punk would be a perfect place. • Benc • 03:11, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: Thank you everyone for your comments and help. I've added an image to the article (which I renamed Anarchist symbolism), a neat, no-frills circumscribed "A" (not drawn by a 13 year old ;-)). This might be a good image for the lead in this article — or perhaps it might not. Again, I'll let you all decide whether these might be a good fit for the main article. • Benc • 07:43, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Good to see you have a sense of humor about what I said...  I like the "traditional" black circle-A on the page you created, and I think it would be a good pic for this article if no one else disagrees. millerc 19:24, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: Update: I asked for and recieved permission to use three other images of anarchy symbols from . Any one the following three images might work here on the main page: :Image:Anarchy symbol neat.png, :Image:Black flag.jpg, and :Image:Circle A red.jpg. Like I said, y'all can pick any or neither; I'm fine either way. • Benc • 10:59, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anarchy symbol 

message: I should start by noting that this is a very minor quibble.  In the section titled "Arguments concerning the method of historical materialism", the author very carefully constructed a sentence that avoided gender specific pronouns.  Although I appreciate the intent, the resulting sentence reads poorly and includes an internally oxymoronic word, "themself".
I highly recommend either of the following options.
*Reconstruct the sentence so that the subject is pluralized, allowing the use of the word "Themselves", which has the benefit of being a recognized english word.
*Replace the pronouns with male pronouns, which would agree with the rules of english grammar in situations of gender ambiguity.
I personally would prefer the first option, as it preserves the intentional avoidance of gender specific pronouns, which itself agrees with the general tone of the article.  I would have directly edited, but didn't want to step on the author's toes.
KuriosD 04:52, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd prefer the first, also; the second wouldn't go along very well with anarchist ideas ;) --Tothebarricades.tk 06:10, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: Go ahead and make the changes KuriosD, that is what wikipedia is all about.  If someone disagrees they will edit it, revert it, or discuss it on the talk page.  I would also prefer the first alternative btw.  Kev 07:35, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: Thanks...  Still getting used to the format here, as this is my first day.  :) KuriosD 07:40, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: I was the original author of the Historical Materialism section (woo woo).  I naturally write in a gender-neutral pro-noun way, its modern, no? :).  However, you might be interested to know that "them, themself, they, their, theirs" are a gender neutral pronoun set for singular gender-neutral humans.  The Australian Government Style Manual authorised this usage, and it is (as such) an increasing element of Australian English.  However, I'm glad that you decided to go for gender neutral collective, instead of masculine-as-genderless ('cause it isn't :).  No need to worry about stepping on my toes, your version reads better /because/ Historical Materialism is all about /collective/ social experience :). Fifelfoo 00:23, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem with gender inspecific pronouns. 

message: From the German version of this article: Bisweilen wird das Adjektiv libertär synonym für "anarchistisch" verwendet.
(says libertarian is another word for anarchist)
From the German version of anarcho-capitalism:
Der Anarchokapitalismus betrachtet sich selbst als reinste Form des Anarchismus, ist aber tatsächlich die radikalste Form des Liberalismus.
(says anarcho-capitalism is more accurately described as the most radical form of Libertarianism, rather than as a form of anarchism)
:It says "a radical form of liberalism" (liberal), not "libertarianism" (libertär), where liberal is understood in the European sense of laissez faire as opposed to the North American sense of progressive. — Miguel 22:33, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops you're correct.  I don't know why I didn't catch that (although my German is far from perfect); I translated "libertär" correctly.  I guess I just wasn't being careful.  Many people in the U.S. use the term "classical liberalism" to mean what "liberalism" means in most European countries.  millerc 22:38, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: I venture that British English speakers would agree with the Germans, especially on the meaning of liberalism. Think about the contradiction between the American meaning of "liberal" and the meaning of "neoliberal" in the context of globalization. — Miguel 22:33, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: By the way, the OED meaning of libertarian is a simple approving or advocating liberty, while the article on liberal goes on for several pages, distinguishing the usage in the US, UK and continental Europe, both in political and religious meanings, but not attempting to summarize what most of the meanings are. Ugh. — Miguel 22:40, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to point out that the German article doesn't say anything libertarianism, anarchism, etc.  It talks about "libertär" and "Anarchismus".  It's normal for words with the same etymology to have slightly different meanings in different languages; see list of false friends.  On the other hand, with respect to the English speaking world, one might point out there is a Libertarian Party in Canada, a Libertarianz party in New Zealand, and a Libertarian Alliance in the United Kingdom -- none of which are socialist groups.  And also the British Liberal Democrats are fairly leftish. - Nat Krause 11:05, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct about the different meanings.  But its also important to ask why words so recently coined to describe political philosophies (these words may have ancient origins, but their modern use as political terms is relatively recent in all languages), have wildly different meanings to people in different areas.  What I'm saying is that the German words have had their meanings conserved for a longer period of time, as did the usage of the words in England as Miguel has pointed out.  Its NPOV for the article not to take a position on the "real" meaning of the words, but its also enlightening (and would be enlightening to readers) to note that the meaning of the terms have evolved quite rapidly in the political climate present in the United States in particular.  The only reason I brought it up anyway, is because it reminded me of previous discussions involving the issue where some people acted as though the historical context of the terms did not matter. millerc 04:36, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: Also, from what I can tell most of the German words in the list of false friends are false cognates (I may be wrong on this since I didn't go through the trouble of looking up the etymology of every one -- I would think the German word "Car" is a cognate of "car", in my experience people who use Texas German say "Car" instead of "Auto").  But the words as I have translated them above are terms that were used in one language to describe a political philosophy and then translated into the other language using the closest possible pre-existing word (so they're not really cognates, but at one time they were used to describe the same political philosophy). millerc 04:50, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: What others think

message: Amongst the instances in which anarchism arose there are many examples that share some of the qualities of anarchist organizations.
Doesn't parse right for me. Might be just a redundancy, but I'm not sure. If it's an instance in which anarchism arose, surely it should have some of the qualities of anarchist organizations, right? And what's an instance in that context?
cesarb 22:34, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poor phrasing at Examples of organizations with anarchist qualities? 

message: Due process assumes law.  This is highly arguable.  The access to wealth stuff and discussion of violence are poorly worded summaries of better summaries below.  The other two basic principles are poorly worded (one included "Democracy," which is a debatably anarchist method for resolving differences in goals).  I suggest the other two should get the chop too.Fifelfoo 06:17, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleting some of the so-called Basic Principles 

message: A name which ought to be presented in the music vs anarchism is John Cage.
:Why? --Fatal 18:40, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  music 

message: Another way of explaining this occured to me recently.  Anti-statism is purely against the state.  Anarchy is against all hierarchy.  Capitalism is hierarchal and therefore could not coexist in a non-hierarchal society.  "Anarco-capitalists" in my opinion just want to sound cool by calling themselves "anarchist."  They are anti-statist capitalists, and THAT is what they should call themselves.  It's really very simple, this is a black and white argument.  What I have just explained is all that should be said about this in the article. --Fatal 01:05, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Not everyone agrees with that analysis.  Some take anarchy to mean no government, not no hierarchy.  Also, not all consider capitalism hierarchical.  See archives of this Talk page for the previous 238 times this issue was discussed. VeryVerily 05:54, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Some take Greenland to be bigger than Africa on some maps, but that doesn't make them right does it?  Anyone who takes anarchy to mean ONLY "no government" is wrong.  Anti-statism is strictly no government.  Anarchy emcompasses all rule, the very entymology of the word is "without rule" which includes all hierarchy and always has.  As far as capitalism not being hierarchal, I'm sure this has been said before but that's just rediculous.  In countless examples in recent history is it proven that the more capitalistic a country becomes, the more restrictions taken off of capitalism (by the government) the more hierarchal it becomes, the poorer the poor get and the richer the rich gets.  Anti-statist capitalism is the ultimate goal for capitalists, it can clearly be seen that with no government capitalism by itself at least would be more hierarchal than it is now.  Anarchy has always been more than no government, anarchy being a synonym with anti-statism is common misconception.  Capitalism by its very nature is hierarchal, the people who created the ideas of it had hierarchy in mind, capitalism was promoted with the use of crap like "social darwinism" that claimed some people were better than others and that they should succeed and the poor should be trampled on.  You can this non-hierarchal?  The Harmarket tradgedy was not suffered by capitalists, the spanish revolution was not fought by capitalists, the paris 68 events were not started by capitalists, and it's obvious that modern day anarchists are anti-capitalists.  All of the zines listed at the bottom are anti-capitalist, all the books are anti-capitalist.  ANARCHY IS NON-HIERARCHAL.  Anarchy is and always has been against hierarchy, against inequality, and has NEVER been a way for a a few individuals to enhance their profits.  Capitalism is hierarchal, period.  And to say that anarchy is just no government is to take the position of the average commoner who knows nothing of anarchism. -Fatal 19:56, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: New "anarcho-capitalist" argument, the final abolition

message: Fatal's latest edits mention Participatory Economics -- is ParEcon really anarchist?  It sounds more like state socialism to me. - Nat Krause 05:35, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: ParEcon is an economic system accepted by some anarchists, and Michael Albert himself is an anarchist last time I've checked.  The section isn't really meant to advertise ParEcon, but to talk about the monetary system issue.  This may not be a well known issue but anarchists do have differing opinions on it.  ParEcon, however, is notorious for showing itself off as something that would "work better with a state."  So remove it if you wish, that's just the only differing argument I could think of...didn't want the whole section to be denouncing money since some anarchists aren't totally against it.  Example:  it's clear that the authors of the Anarchist FAQ are not against money. -Fatal 15:40, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: ParEcon

message: I looked up Nozick and sorry but he is not an anarchist, which is why I edited out his book as being listed as an "anarchist classic" because it isn't.  Nozick believed in a minimal state, he was no anti-state.  Furthermore, it does not seem as though he was against hierarchy.  A guy who is not only not against hierarchy, but not against the state, is definitely not an anarchist.  If anyone can give a good argument to the contrary, then that would be a different story. -Fatal 00:20, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Good call -- by any standard, a critical work rather than a classic. - Nat Krause 03:37, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Robert Nozick was rightfully removed

message: I have no strong opinions one way or another on anarchism.  I have, however, tried to tighten up the prose and bring this unweildy article down to an acceptable length.  It is very frustrating when someone reverts many of my changes just because there was another change made before mine with which the individual disagreed.  Please, when you wish to revert, revert only the changes you disagree with.  Sometimes this cannot be done easily, but in the spirit of Wikipedia goodwill, you owe it to your fellow contributors. Deleting Unnecessary Words 23:10, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, please review Wikipedia:Revert. Sam [Spade] 23:25, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I have restored your edits after a short delay.  I apologize for that delay, but it was my intent from the start to restore your edits when I got the various revisions figured out. VeryVerily 23:50, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: OH, I had no idea they were to be restored. Carry on then :) Sam [Spade] 00:32, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverting Edits 

message: With regard to the current edit war.  It seems to me that it has been agreed to on several occasions in the past by myself, Kevehs, and other parties that this article should be completely rewritten in order to focus primarily on a discussion of the various ways the word term "anarchism" is used in English.  It is also the case that I do not want to execute this rewrite myself right now.  Therefore, I can't criticize anybody else for not doing it themselves, but I do think it would resolve the conflict if somebody did.  Under the circumstances, then, I can't muster up much enthusiasm for either side of the dispute (although I do, of course, agree with VV's edits).  Let's scrap the whole thing. - Nat Krause 05:55, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: A rewrite would be great, but is likely to engender as much conflict as we have now.  Fatal's position that the article should reflect a particular POV is of course untenable, and independent of the article's format.  For those that don't know, I started Anarchism/sandbox as a proposal for creating a hollowed-out version.  Needless to say, Kevehs, who is near impossible to work with, began attacking it relentlessly with (lame) criticisms.  So though I find it a decent launching point I don't see it as a magic bullet to end the anarchism wars. VeryVerily 06:18, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:   That is funny VV.  You seem to be involved in a new edit war every week, in fact you have one going on right now, not to mention having been able to get this page protected again so soon after your return.  The only person I've ever been in a prolonged edit war with is you, yet I'm the one who is impossible to work with?  I gave my reasons why your sandbox was inadequate, feel free to respond to them rather than to engage in this silly slander you are obsessed with.  A rewrite of this page is definately called for, but the whole definition of anarchism reversion you are engaged in is so obviously not NPOV it really baffles me that you continue to claim it.  You want to give the most "broad" definition of anarchism by limiting it to mere anti-statism, ignoring its entire tradition in the process?  You want to be NPOV by pushing the peculiar definitions of the anarcho-capitalists right in the opening paragraph?  Then please explain to me why you are not being NPOV by allowing for those national anarchist definitions that do not entail anarchism as anti-state?  Perhaps because, low and behold, you DO have a POV you are pushing here, and you just aren't honest enough to admit it?  The definition being suggested by others atm is far more prevalent amongst anarchists today, is in keeping with most of its historical meanings, and follows straight from the etymology of the word itself.  What reasons do you have to trump all these advantages?  Kev 09:28, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  In a word, accuracy.  And clearly you're not difficult to work with at all. VeryVerily 11:58, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:   Anarchism as "anti-state" is not accurate.  It does not conform exactly to the truth, given that anarchism is and always has been more than mere anti-statism.  The only reason it is being pushed is to give the appearance that anarcho-capitalist claims to anarchist tradition are legitimate.  Wikipedia should neither endorse nor reject these claims, which is exactly why it should not be used to stump for anarcho-capitalism by putting its peculiar definitions at the forefront.  Again, why do you push a definition that happens to allow anarcho-capitalism within the category of anarchism, but would specificly deny other subversions like anarcho-nationalism?  Certainly not because anarcho-nationalist definitions are less accurate, they are also at times seen as more "broad" and allowing for a greater diversity of viewpoints within anarchism.  What is it that makes anarcho-capitalism legitimate but anarcho-fascism illegitimate, what POV are you expressing in this process?  If you really want to attempt NPOV, then the first sentence has to go altogether, because anarcho-capitalists -do not- hold the same definition of anarchism that traditional anarchists do, that much should be clear even to the most ill-informed individual right from the outset.  So no, as it is being used in this article, anarchism is not a single generic term used to describe X.  Rather it is a series of slightly or largely different terms being used by one or another party to describe X, Y, and Z.  THAT is being neutral, in the sense that it is not a description that favors any particular viewpoint, but rather expresses the fact that each of these viewpoints holds a fundamentally distinct perspective on anarchism.  Kev 14:37, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Observations about the current edit war