Talk:Anarchism/Archive 40

message: This has been discussed many times before, I'm sure, but I could find nothing on the most recent talk page about the organization of the article. Here is the current layout.
    * 1 Origins
          o 1.1 Pierre-Joseph Proudhon
    * 2 Anarchism and workers' revolution
          o 2.1 Anarchist communism
                + 2.1.1 Kropotkin
          o 2.2 Anarchism and organized labor
          o 2.3 The Russian Revolution
          o 2.4 The fight against fascism
    * 3 Anarchism and the individual
          o 3.1 Max Stirner's egoism
          o 3.2 Individualist anarchism
    * 4 Issues in anarchism
          o 4.1 Ends and means
          o 4.2 Capitalism
                + 4.2.1 Anarcho-capitalism
                + 4.2.2 Neocolonialism and globalization
          o 4.3 Post-left and poststructuralism
          o 4.4 Feminism and anti-racism
          o 4.5 The environment
          o 4.6 Religion
    * 5 Criticisms of anarchism
    * 6 Cultural phenomena
    * 7 See also
          o 7.1 Historical events
          o 7.2 Anarchism by region/culture
          o 7.3 Books
    * 8 Notes and references
    * 9 External links
The article lacks a coheesive organizational structure in my opinion. I can't determine if this is an article about the history of anarchism, an introduction to anarchism, or both. I'm leaning toward both, but if that is the case, it needs to be more clear. This article may need two sections, one on anarchism as an ideal, and another on anarchism through history. Or perhaps each historical section needs a short aside regarding the ideals of each historical figure or organization. Thoughts? CJames745 07:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At first glance, your draft looks quite good. --AaronS 13:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Although we can trace many schools back into the 1830s and 1840s, the influences of mutualism, collectivism and individualism peaked in the late 19th century, while those of syndicalism and communism grew in the early 20th century. So we can say that 'classic' syndicalism incorporates many ideas from mutualism and collectivism (and sometimes individualism) while 'classic' mutualism doesn't incorporate as many ideas from syndicalism and communism. The later sections (in the article) like the later developments (in our history) can refer to the earlier ones, but not vice-versa. Godwin could be 2.1, Proudhon, Warren and Stirner 2.2-2.4. Mixing systems and mixed systems (i.e. panarchism) could be 3.1 as an intro, then the details of each system starting with mutualism in 3.2, then individualism and collectivism in 3.3 and 3.4, and syndicalism and communism in 3.5 and 3.6 (though whether communism should focus on Kropotkin's or Platformism is beyond me), with post-stuff in 3.7 and beyond. Possession and Property could go between 5.1 and 5.2. Jacob Haller 05:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Kropotkin seems more important than platformism. Maybe a bit of both though. I personally like both of the layouts so I have no real objection. The Ungovernable Force 06:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Instead of your talk page, just create a sandbox. Start a page titled User:CJames745/Sandbox. Actually, just click on the link and start typing. That way it doesn't take up a bunch of room on your talk page, screw up the formatting etc. Just a thought. The Ungovernable Force 06:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I think it would be ok. I'll go put it up now. The Ungovernable Force 06:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: That layout seems well organized.  Good work.  Blahblahblahblahblahblah 09:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm currently too busy to do it, but if someone can actually cut and paste the current text into that order on you're test page, that would be nice. Anything that needs to be written can be done there. Once we have decided on a version we like, just cut and paste into this page. The Ungovernable Force 09:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: It lacks talk about Jeffersonian democracy, which is important to understand philosophical anarchism. Intangible 16:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Organization

message: While I certainly admire the man, I'm not sure such a large quotation from him in this article is appropriate. The content is good, the placement is not. I'm going to move it to Anarchism in the United States, a sentence on Jeffersons point of view might be worth having somewhere in the article. - FrancisTyers · 15:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seriously. The amount of original research that is being injected into this article is strange, to say the least. --AaronS 16:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be pointless to talk about anarchism without Jefferson. It's like starting at end of the novel, only reading the last 2 pages and be done with it. Instead, one starts of course at the beginning. Intangible 16:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as this is just your original research, it has no place in the article. --AaronS 16:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am only citing scholars...I could even have cited the 1889 article, if I wanted to. Intangible 16:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you read True Civilization by Josiah Warren he cites Jefferson's Declaration of Independence.  Also, Voltairine de Cleyre cites Jefferson in Anarchism and American Traditions  TheIndividualist 18:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good.  It would be appropriate to put a sentence about Jefferson's influence on the individualists in the American individualists section.  Bacchiad 14:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thankyou, TheIndividualist and Intangible. Shannonduck talk 06:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Thomas Jefferson

message: A possible layout, mostly fleshed out, for the anarchism article can be seen here. Some of the information is from the libertarian socialism article. CJames745 12:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Layout

message: This article has the same problems with citations that I've noted on the individualist anarchist and anarcho-capitalism article.  Namely, theindividualist has been reinserting dubious and miscited sources originally imported to the article by now banned users RJII and Hogeye.  The issue of theindividualist probably being a sockpuppet of these users aside, the citations he continues to insert into several articles regardless of how often they are removed contain referances to entire books without any mention of page numbers or even chapters, referances to sources that do not back the claim being made in the wikipedia text, and improper attribution of sources to editors of collections of essays without referance to individual essays/authors being cited.  As with the other articles, I'm calling for a citecheck until these sources can be independently verified or theindividualist ceases to reinsert them.  Blahblahblahblahblahblah 12:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I'll check the sources. My library has a big section on anarchism. TheIndividualist 16:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:   Great, though it would be nice if someone who wasn't obviously a sockpuppet of RJ/Hogeye could check.  Blahblahblahblahblahblah 17:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improper Citations 

message: Why is the wiki article Anarcho-monarchists not listed under the Anarchism portal?  The only ones listed are: 
"Anarcha-feminism
Anarchist communism
Anarcho-primitivism
Anarcho-syndicalism
Christian anarchism
Collectivist anarchism
Eco-anarchism
Green anarchism
Individualist anarchism
Anarcho-capitalism
(disputed)"
Mind you, I will admit the current article is definately in need of some clean-up, but not recognizing it is definately not going to get any attention.  Zadanian
:Hahahaha... Oh, I beg to differ. "It should be noted that anarcho-monarchism is met with vitriolic condemnation by all other anarchists, with the exception of anarcho-capitalists..." [Stang & Gunderson, 1994] There you have it. --Aelffin 18:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Until people linked the article today I didn't even know this was real. I always thought the term "anarcho-monarchism" was a joke. The Ungovernable Force 05:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When I made it up I thought I was being funny :s Are we sure this isn't a hoax ? - FrancisTyers · 09:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For more information on anarcho-monarchism go to http://www.anarchism.gov . Blockader 15:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ROTFL! Am I the only one who sees the irony in the URL "anarchism.gov"? WTF?! Oh, wait, I just went to that site, it doesn't exist. I get it, that was a joke too. Nice one. The Ungovernable Force 23:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, yes it was. Blockader 15:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Anarcho-Monarchists

message: Just for the sake of an exercise (and the sort that is sometimes helpful for an editor), I've tried to imagine what kind of beliefs I'd have to adopt in order for the phrase "anarcho-monarchism" to make sense to me. All I can come up with in this connection is the "blessing for the Czar" from the old Broadway musical Fiddler on the Roof.
"Rabbi, is there a proper blessing for the Czar?"
"A blessing for the Czar? of course. May God bless and keep the Czar ... far away from us."
It's a joke but ... maybe that's it. A monarchy that deliberately cultivates the impression of aloofness -- of being far away -- might end by being "blessed" by people who don't want to be the victims of a Cossack-guided pogram, i.e. who don't want to be governed. That's still a delusion, as the final scenes of that play help dramatize. But I guess I can see how somebody might buy into it. 
At any rate, nobody has yet AFDed the anarcho-monarchism article. I sort of hope somebody does, because I think the resulting argument might be illuminating. --Christofurio 00:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  An Exercise in Empathy 

message: Can the poster of the Masonic trivia please cite sources and establish relevance? Many other editors are busy cutting extraneous material; please do not add extraneous material without first clearing it on this talk page. Jacob Haller 07:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Masonry

message: I've just listed Anarcho-monarchism for AFD. Go here to comment. The Ungovernable Force 08:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anarcho-monarchism up for deletion 

message: Stop with that differences of the XIX century, the anarchists are in the exploration and development of more advanced theories. That differences about the level of property are not a big limitation between anarchists.
Only "anarcho"-capitalist" believe that we continue with the differences of 150 years ago, so please stop pseudo anachists (capitalist)!.
Another thing, something tahat is "disputed" should`t be at the principal definition--201.234.213.2 22:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What are the "advanced theories" that you speak of? Have you reviewed the talk archives? --albamuth 07:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Please, stop

message: From the lead:
:The word "anarchy", as most anarchists use it, does not imply chaos, nihilism, anomie, or the total absence of rules, but rather an anti-authoritarian society that is based on voluntary association of free individuals in autonomous communities operating on principles of mutual aid and self-governance.
Can we get a citation for this? Until we get one, this is being moved to the talk page. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe Berkman's ABC of Anarchism has something to that effect. My copy is at home but i will consult it this weekend and find a citation to support at least a similar statement. Piece, Blockader 19:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Or Kropotkin's Mutual Aid. Septentrionalis 01:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved from main article body 

message: While I agree that Jeffeson's inclusion in this section is inappropriate, no one has given a valid reason why this entire section should be excluded. As a matter of fact, to exclude this section is to omit an important part of the development, history and ideology of anarchism, and therefore biased and pointed pov pushing. LibertyFirst 18:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think anyone objects to discussing anarchism in the United States, in all its various forms. The problem with the section as it stands (or stood - I've just removed it) is that it doesn't make sense in the context of the article. As I wrote above, it collects a disparate collection of individuals without making clear their relationships to one another and the broader anarchist movement. By including each figure in the relevant conceptual section, we can discuss the American anarchists in relation to Anarchism in general, which strikes me as more useful. It seems to me that an "Anarchism in the United States" section would only make sense if US anarchism had little or no relation with anarchism elsewhere; that's clearly not the case. VoluntarySlave 18:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The broader anarchist movement? Individualist anarchists are not part of some abstract movemement. They are people for Pete's sake, not members of an organic or collectivist whole! Intangible 19:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "movement" does not imply collectivism. - FrancisTyers · 19:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Therefore the organic clause... Intangible 22:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  I don't see why individualists would have a problem with the idea of an anarchist movement, as long as the movement is seen as nothing more than an aggregation of individuals. There's no organicism of collectivism in such a conception of a movement, AFAIKS. The point I wanted to make by mentioning "the broader anarchist movement" is that it would be useful to mention not only how those anarchists mentioned influenced one another, but also how they influenced other anarchists, who we haven't mentioned. I don't think this  should be problematic for an individualist (unless you're advocating some form of anarcho-solipsism). VoluntarySlave 23:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Anarchism in the United States

message: Jefferson, Thoreau, Nock and Sacco and Vanzetti do not merit their own sections in an article on anarchism, especially not at the beginning under the heading "origins". Even if the prescence of these sections were justifiable placing them under 'origins' does not fit in with the chronological layout of the article, as people like Nock and Sacco and Vanzetti lived long after anarchism had already been established as a social movement and political philosophy by the likes of Bakunin, Proudhon, Stirner, Godwin, Kropotkin et al. Jefferson and Thoreau may be cited as influences by certain American (mainly individualist) anarchists but devoting as large a section to each of them as has been given to Proudhon is tantamount to rewriting history, which is what I see these edits as an attempt at doing. Whoever keeps making these edits is misleading readers into thinking that anarchism was historicaly a largely American individualist movement when this was obviously not the case. I think the vast majority of anarchists would consider these sections innapropriate to this page and that they would be better off in an article on anarchism in the US, or the origins of Libertarianism. 81.79.139.53 10:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ethnocentric, definately. I would be very happy to collaborate with you on a new layout for the article. 81.79.139.53 11:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just read your proposed layout CJames and it looks like it would be a vast improvement. The only thing I suggest would be a section on precursors to anarchism, like Lao Tzu, Zeno, the ranters and the diggers etc. (and maybe even Thomas Jefferson!) before launching straight into Godwin, Proudhon etc.81.79.139.53 11:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, I agree. I think it's just a question of finding references that back up the claim that many anarchists see such people as their precursors. 81.79.139.53 11:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Innapropriately large and poorly placed section on American '"anarchists" 

message: I'm wondering about where the Individualist anarchists belong in this article. The current layout has them listed after the Spanish Civil war, which is odd considering that Josiah Warren experimented with mutualism even before Proudhon. Being that Proudhon is an individualist as well, this complicates matters futher. I'm also dissatisfied with the fact that the entire section regarding individualist anarchists is about the US, as Proudhon does belong in that section to an extent. But I'm not quite sure how to reconcile this. Clearly the anarcho capitalism section does belong after the Spanish Civil war. Any ideas? CJames745 06:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've created an anarchist schools of thought heading (inspired by your layout plans) and think individualism should go in this section. I agree the individualist section is too long and concentrates too much on american thinkers.84.66.70.49 09:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, I'm writing small sections on mutualism, collectivism and syndicalism to go in the schhols of thought section. Any editing or additions would be appreciated.84.66.70.49 09:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I like the new sections/layout thus far. Blockader 18:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure but I don't think Proudhon is considered an individualist anarchist. The Anarchist FAQ on Infoshop, though it's not the most reliable of sources, says he's a social anarchist. It says Proudhon's version of mutualism is social anarchist and the Americans' version is individualist. They think the individualist version will lead to capitalism, and that's why the social anarchist writers of the FAQ oppose it. So it may be original research if you include him with the individualists. Also keep in mind that not all individualist anarchists are mutualists. About anarcho-capitalist, it belongs in the individualist section. Obviously not everyone thinks it's "true anarchism", whatever that is, but those sources who do think it's individualist anarchism. DTC 01:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Proudhon fits well where he he under 'origins'. 84.68.81.56 08:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I moved the section on anarcho-capitalism to the 'Issues in Anarchism' section, under the sub-heading 'capitalism'.84.68.81.56 12:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Location of Individualists

message: Vsthesquares, who commented in a few places above, is likely a sock puppet, although the identity of the underlying arm eludes me for now. All of Vs activity took place between 14:04 and 15:24 on August 11, and all of it involved either this talk page (not the article) or Vs own user/talk page. --Christofurio 19:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sock Puppet Alert

message: My and DTC's small rewordings of the an-cap section has lead to this question: if one of the defining characteristics of an-cap which disqualifies it from being "truly" anarchist is it gnot forming part of the greater anarchist tradition, how about the individualists? They are not a group I know a lot about, but they didn't exactly stage strikes, occupations, protests or led revolutionary movements. They certainly struck a chord in their time, but the same is true of the an-caps. I'm not saying that the individualists were not anarchists, but this is something worth considering. --Marinus 13:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the difference between philosophical anarchism and social anarchism. Anarchism is comprised of social movements and philosophical movements. Individualist anarchism, actually, was also historically called by the name "philosophical anarchism." Their goal is to effect gradual change through education. They aren't revolutionaries. Ancap is in the same tradition, as a form of individualist anarchism. DTC 13:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Every type of anarchism attempts to change the world through education - see the programme (and effects) of the CNT/FAI in Anarchist Spain. And individualism is no more "philosophic" than Bakunin, or Kropotkin, etc. Even mainly literal movements (like Goldman and Berkman's Mother Earth newspaper) can have a social effect. A split between "philosophic" and social simply isn't cogent, and to posit a set of politics that isn't a social movement is farcical. Politics is by definition social. --Marinus 13:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

text: How can you judge whether social movement anarchism or philosophical anarchism is more effective? Just because you're organizing out in the streets and making a lot of noise protesting does it really mean that you're changing anything long term? Individualist (philosophical)anarchism may very well have had more influence on the way the world has been, and is being, shaped than social movements like communist anarchism. It is *psychology* the individualists are interested in changing, expecting the rest to follow from that naturally. Given the trend toward global capitalism in the real world, it makes you wonder who has been more effective. DTC 13:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, this is no different from any other form of anarchism. And I'm not comparing the effectiveness of the two strains (though individualism certainly has had less effect - even in the US the largest anarchist events have been social anarchist ones, Haymarket, Emma Goldman, etc - but this might simply be because it's a smaller strain) merely asking about what effect the one strain has had. And we can do without the snide comments, especially if you have to edit them in afterwards. --Marinus 13:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't make any "snide comments." Individualist anarchists don't have "events." They are content to use their philosophy as a mean of non-revolutionary change. Like I said, the term for individualist anarchism actually used to be "philosophical anarchism." Individualist anarchist Victor Yarros says it nicely: "The abolition of the external State must be preceded by the decay of the notions which breathe life and vigour into that clumsy monster: in other words, it is only when the people learn to value liberty, and to understand the truths of the anarchistic philosophy, that the question of practically abolishing the State looms up and acquires significance." DTC 13:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "protesting on the street and making a lot noise"? "Given the trend toward global capitalism in the real world, it makes you wonder who has been more effective"? Is that necessary? No. Also, learn the difference between a phenomenon and a movement. And again the argument you raise (Yarros quote) is in no way particular to individualism as a form of anarchy. --Marinus 13:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it was necessary what I said. That is what I wanted to communicate. I wasn't trying to be insulting. If you don't like what I said, that's too bad. And yes being confined to philosophy is particular to individualist anarchism. Individualist anarchism is not a social movement. It exists solely in texts. Individualist anarchists are not revolutionaries. That's particular to individualist anarchists. DTC 13:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's plainly false. There are many social anarchistic trends that are not revolutionary, mutualism being one and Tolstoy's another. Proudhon, however, had a noticable social effect - his part in 1848, the Communes, et al --Marinus 14:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. DTC 14:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Effects of individualist anarchism in society?