Talk:Anarchism/Archive 5

message: Couple of reverts from Jack's slew of edits.  First, refering to political violence as terrorism is POV.  Wether or not a given action is a "terrorist" one action all depends on what viewpoint you are coming from, and usually on what viewpoint some prominent politician wants to espouse.  A freedom fighter to one is a terrorist to another, but neither label is appropriate for a neutral discussion.  So that will be reverted back to political violence and the reader can decide for themselves whether or not it amounts to terrorism.  This is especially relevant because the anarchists of the time felt they were acting in self-defense and many of them specifically wanted to inspire others to fight against their oppression, rather than to sew terror in that same populace.
Also this,
However, there is debate over the anthropological evidence to support this. 
was changed to this,
 However, there is little acceptance of the anthropological evidence to support this 
Not only was the former version completely accurate and convienently side-stepped the problem of POV that the later brings up, but furthermore the change is simply inaccurate.  Few anthropologists question the evidence primtivists use, but rather the interpretation of it.  Anyway, if someone wants to give some evidence of the degree of acceptance this has within a specific community (rather than just a vague indication that it has little acceptance in general, a claim so vague it would be nearly impossible to verify), then that evidence would be welcomed. - Kev 01/02/04
:If political violence is a valid term, somebody write the article that that links to. I agree that I don't have the documentation, and I further more agree that such documentation would be pleasing. I agree with what you have done, and similarly request greater specification (thru citation, documentation, etc..) on these less than thoroughly covered areas (Political violence and Primitivism. Jack 07:11, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Reverts

message: The following paragraph needs to be rewritten for this entry to retain any credibility:
"In the latter half of the twentieth century, two new schools of thought developed in North America: namely, anarcho-capitalism and primitivism."
This is very inaccurate, because more than two schools of anarchist thought developed in the latter half of the twentieth century, and anarcho-capitalism was not one of them. The so-called "anarcho-capitalism" has been discredited as being oxymoronic and a silly idea advocated by cranks with little understanding of anarchism, or political theory for that matter. By saying that anarcho-capitalism is one of two main schools of thought, you totally misrepresent contemporary anarchism which has nothing to do with this crank theory. Perhaps a cross reference could be established somewhere on this page, but including here as an important "school of thought" isn't just wrong, but it makes a mockery out of this entire entry.
Chuck Munson
Infoshop.org
----
The above is diametrically opposed to my POV, that Communism and anarchism are incompatable (since communism necessarilly involves subordination of self to the group). Capitalism on the other hand embraces the rights of the individual, the right to arms, the right to pursuit of property, the right to defense against unjust taxation. I think w the sort of hooey that is being tossed about on this page, you might want to consider merging much of the content w communism, and let this article be for anarchism alone ;) What ever happened to "truth in labeling" laws? I suppose you commu... anarchists disregard those too? Sam Spade 21:06, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing "anarcho-capitalism" 

message: I removed the sic from "the affairs of men [sic]"? This is just silly ;-) -- Miguel 22:00, 2004 Mar 1 (UTC)
You could change it to "the affairs of [people]" -- translating from 19th century English to 21st century English. ^_^
The link to Sic is probably silly in any case.
-- Toby Bartels 23:57, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro 

message: "How anarchists propose that an anarchist society will achieve these goals in the absence of government varies widely."
This is problematic.  Government or law mistakenly indicates an either/or choice.  Government and law would be false, as certain groups claiming to be anarchists endorse the application of law.  I'll put up a tentative alteration, "how anarchists propose that an anarchist society will achieve these goals varies widely."
:say and/or. When I wrote or I meant inclusive not exclusive or. — Miguel 19:45, 2004 Mar 2 (UTC)
"All societies, and anarchist ones are no exception, need to organize the production of goods, including food and shelter, to satisfy the needs of the individuals."
To avoid potential primitivist debate over the necessity of institutions which organize rather than institutions which are organized I will alter this statement to the following:  "All societies, and anarchist ones are no exception, have methods to produce goods, including food and shelter, to satisfy the needs of the individuals.
: how about "need organized production of"? — Miguel 19:45, 2004 Mar 2 (UTC)
:Hmm, now that I think of it, that would not fix anything. — Miguel 04:01, 2004 Mar 3 (UTC)
"In so far as an anarchist society is more than the sum of the individuals living in it, some form of social choice or collective decision-making mechanism needs to be in place. Different anarchist philosophies deal with this problem in widely different ways."
As it exists now this indicates a singluar form of social choice or collective decision making, but adding little (s)s to form and mechanism futzes the "needs," so I'm trying to think of a good rewrite. 
: Be bold in updating pages, I'm not going to get upset, as those sections were created pretty much as placeholders, meaning "we need discussion of these organizational issues, not just of violence/nonviolence". — Miguel 19:45, 2004 Mar 2 (UTC)
"Drawing much from classical laissez-faire liberalism as well as from traditional anarchist thought, it is disowned by many anarchists."
: I think that I wrote this -- or in any case, I wrote that link -- and it should probably begin "Drawing as much". (Leaving it neutral as to whether we mean "at least as much" or "at most as much" -_^.) -- Toby Bartels 21:53, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I didn't write that -- but I added "as" nevertheless. -- Toby Bartels 21:56, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: While I think it suffers from misplaced emphasis I can't complain about the current text because it refers to "inspiration" specifically, rather than a general claim to borrow or synthesize or draw from the ideology of anarcho-individualists.  The ways in which things can inspire are vague and diverse, so there is nothing to argue against.  Kev 04:29, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: Indeed, the idea that a section of one article is the stubs of a related article is a very fruitful idea on Wikipedia. -- Toby Bartels 01:36, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: The following events are nor anarchist, at least according to the respective wikipedia pages.
* Paris Commune (1871) 
** This is described as a socialist state.
* Mexican Revolution (1910)
** No mention of anarchism, or even anarchy, in the article.
* Russian Revolution (1917)
** Also no mention of anarchism.
** During the civil war, Ukraine was taken over by anarchists. We should link to them instead. But darned if I can't remember the right name! -- Toby Bartels 19:23, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, the idea that a section of one article is the stubs of a related article is a very fruitful idea on Wikipedia. -- Toby Bartels 01:36, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical events