Talk:Anarchism/Archive 17

message: I highly recommend An Anarchist FAQ  for use as a resource. It is incredibly comprehensive and clarifying. - Ben 07:21, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: An Anarchist FAQ

message: Clearly there's been a lot of discussion here by folks who have taken a regular interest in this article, and I'm just a newbie jumping into the middle of the conversation. But I read this para and did a double take:
Beginning in the later part of the 20th century anarchist primitivists like John Zerzan began to proclaim that civilization — not just the state — would need to fall for anarchy to be achieved. A rejection of industrial technology is also prominent in the views of many primitivists, such as Theodore Kaczynski. This primitivist worldview was also associated with the growth of the anti-roads movement in the UK, and also the Earth First! movement in the US.
Am I crazy, or does the above text cite the Unabomber as an influential thinker in this branch of anarchism? I'm obviously not as conversant with anarchism as others here (and from what little I know of Kaczynski the label "anarchist primitivist" is not an unfair description of his worldview), but to me that just screams POV. It's like saying that Tim McVeigh is one of the leading thinkers of libertarianism because McVeigh was influenced by the anti-government militia movement. He's just a murderer who also happens to share certain philosophical ideas about government. Ditto Kaczynski and anarchism. The fact that Kaczynski blackmailed a major paper into publishing some of this stuff should have no bearing on this. Schmeitgeist 19:11, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
:I wouldn't say he's an "influential thinker" but his ideas are clearly related to the primitivists and I think Zerzan had something to do with his trial. Don't know enough about it to say whether or not they actually sympathize with him or his deeds. I doubt any anarchists outside Zerzan's circle would claim him as one of their own (I hope not anyway). --Tothebarricades.tk 04:02, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In his speaking tour that I attended, John Zerzan declared that he did not consider himself a primitivist and in fact he said, "I'm not even sure what a primitivist is". The two other panelists certainly proclaimed themselves as primitivists (after all, this was a Green Anarchy Mag speaking tour) After the talk, I was standing there talking to him and he borrowed and used my friend's cell phone to make a long-distance call. If anything, Zerzan is a theorist and a writer--he's quick to point out civilization's evils but is not very active in destroying civilization. However, he did go on to back Kaczynski's ideas if not deeds. The above section is a little misleading, though, because I doubt anybody read Kaczynski's rambling 30,000 word manifesto except the FBI. --albamuth 17:57, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: This is incorrect and should be changed. Kaczynski is not a primitivist. His beef is with "techno-industrial society" - something that is a far more recent development than civilization (which is commonly linked to agriculture). That being said, he is influential in primitivist and anti-civ circles and deserves mention. -Nihila 22:35, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Theodore Kaczynski

message: Anarchism advocates what its opponents wish it didn't advocate.  To say that "their proponents maintain that they claim to....advocate" is rediculous.  That is anarchism.  If one does not advocate what anarchism does, then they're not anarchists.  It is rediculous to make it look like anarchism claims it is against hierarchy and coercive institutions, buuut what?  Secretly anarchism is for coercive force and state violence?  This is a stupid edit war.  Anarchism advocates what the article states in the beginning, if one is not an advocate of that then they are not an anarchist and they're clearly looking at the wrong article!  --Fatal 01:43, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Anarchists must proseletyze?  Doesn't that imply some "hope" that the states and nations be dissolved in our lifetime?  The best we can hope for is to unite with libertarians and limited government conservatives, to shrink the sizes of governments and reduce the tax burdens, conscriptions, and drug dictorships they impose upon the peoples.--Silverback 02:35, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:   Sure would be convienent for the caps if we focused purely on the state and neglected to even try to restrict the domination of capitalist business in our lives.  Sorry, as anarchists we fight on both fronts.  If that means it lose, then at least we didn't "win" by handing the world over on a silver platter to one of our enemies by pretending they are one of our allies.  Kev 08:48, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Advocate, advocate........advocate!

message: Anarchism advocates a liberal democratic govt?  I don't think you'll even find something that rediculous in a "libertarian" party speech.  --Fatal 23:56, 22 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The commas?  Well I didn't put in the "at its core" thing, personally I don't care much for it.  The commas might not look good, but they're much better grammar than the sentence was without commas.  I see what you mean that it's kinda unreadable but that's due mostly to what used to be there being replaced with the "at its core" thing.  --Fatal 02:18, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: I prefer how it was before, how do you think it should be worded?  --Fatal 22:05, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Liberal govt?

message: Sources cited by the Britannica website:
from 
The best general accounts of anarchism are Peter Marshall, Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism (1992); James Joll, The Anarchists, 2nd ed. (1980); Paul Avrich, Anarchist Portraits (1988); George Woodcock, Anarchism, new ed. (1986); Harold Barclay, People Without Government, completely rev. ed. (1990); Daniel Guérin, Anarchism: From Theory to Practice (1970; originally published in French, 1965); Paul Eltzbacher, Anarchism (1960, reprinted 1972; originally published in German, 1900); and Richard D. Sonn, Anarchism (1992).
Good anthologies of anarchist theory include Irving Louis Horowitz (ed.), The Anarchists (1964); Leonard I. Krimerman and Lewis Perry(eds.), Patterns of Anarchy (1966); and David E. Apter and James Joll (eds.), Anarchism Today (1971).
For a comprehensive bibliography of anarchist literature from different countries over the last two centuries, see Denise Fauvel-Rouif (ed.), Anarchism (1982); and Helene Strub (ed.), Anarchism, vol. 2 (1993). There are also useful selected bibliographies in all the books listed above.''
Enjoy. --albamuth 06:33, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Non-anarchist source material

message: Is that from Stirner? I was thinking about removing it from the related concepts, because its obscure and I doubt we'll have a page on it anytime soon. Unless someone is more informed than myself and wants to create the page. --Tothebarricades.tk 04:05, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That is from Stirner. Please don't delete it because the concept is still relevant even though the phrasing itself has been rendered obsolete by Freud.  Post leftists and individualists draw heavily on some of Stirner's ideas. Thanks! - Nihila 22:44, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: On second thought, it doesnt need to be on this page. It is taking up enough space at List of anarchist concepts. :) - Nihila 22:47, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Union of egos 

message: Okay, I'm going to try this again, this time with actual examples.  Perhaps that will reduce some of these strange misunderstandings.
Example definitions of "Anarchism" from dictionary.com:
* The theory or doctrine that all forms of government are oppressive and undesirable and should be abolished. (Emphasis mine)
* Active resistance and terrorism against the state, as used by some anarchists.
* Rejection of all forms of coercive control and authority: “He was inclined to anarchism; he hated system and organization and uniformity” (Bertrand Russell).  (Emphasis mine)
Okay, so let's assume for a moment that only the first definition is "truly anarchism", and ignore the other two.  This is the definition with which the arguments have thus far been concerned.
Example definitions of "government" from dictionary.com:
* The act or process of governing, especially the control and administration of public policy in a political unit. (Emphasis mine)
* The office, function, or authority of a governing individual or body. (Emphasis mine)
* Exercise of authority in a political unit; rule.
* The agency or apparatus through which a governing individual or body functions and exercises authority.  (Emphasis mine)
* A governing body or organization, as:  (Emphasis mine)
** The ruling political party or coalition of political parties in a parliamentary system. 
** The cabinet in a parliamentary system.
** The persons who make up a governing body.  (Emphasis mine)
* A system or policy by which a political unit is governed.
* Administration or management of an organization, business, or institution.  (Emphasis mine)
True, there is a very strong political sense to the word "government", as is reflected in a couple of these definitions.  However, the majority of these definitions do not specify anything having to do with politics, particularly that last one, which would clearly place capitalism as a form of government.
I'll remind everyone that the definition of Anarchism over which this argument is taking place clearly states: all forms of government -- not just those one or two definitions that have to do with politics.  Most of the definitions simply have to do with governing.
Clearly, Anarchism is opposed to much more than just political government.  Anarcho-Capitalists, for example, must (1) reject the 3rd definition of Anarchism listed above, and (2) contradict the first definition of Anarchism anyway by excluding most definitions of "government".  All forms of government does not mean one form of government.
The only reason I'm arguing not to use the first definition, is that most people, like the Anarcho-Capitalists, will probably assume "government" is being used in the political sense alone, when in fact this is not the case.  I believe in order to give people an accurate and unambiguous definition of Anarchism, we should either use the definition proposed (similar to the 1st def. I listed above) in combination with the 9th def. of "government" listed above (since it pretty much encompasses all of the first 8 definitions), or simply use the 3rd def. of Anarchism above.  --Corvun 23:30, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
:What does it matter what they "assume"? Governing is governing. Is it our fault if they don't know what that means? You could elaborate on this, but in providing a definition of capitalism "government" should be the word .."all forms of government." That is the consensus definition. You yourself said you agree that what you mean by "hierarchy" falls under that. I will say that "hierarchy" is more vague than "government." Does having an acting coach constitute "hiearchy"? It sure does, but does it constitue a form of "government"? Not in the sense of anarchist opposition to government --of course not, it's obviously voluntary ..one can come and go as they please, obey or not obey with no repercussions other than being a bad actor. "Government" is the much more precise word. It doesn't have the confusion of "hierarchy." If you want to say "hierarchy" I think you would have to qualify it as "coercive hiearchy" or something like that. But, why not just used the standard consensus definition? It covers the "all forms of coercive control or authority." "Hierarchy" is a vauge word, and as you would expect, it's why it's not in any definitions that are considered to be consensus ones. And, again, the consensus definition is what we're supposed to be supplying here. RJII 18:02, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you use "government" in the most inclusive sense permitted by its various definitions, and regard anarchism as being entirely opposed to all forms of it, then you've basically defined anarchism as being incapable of existing in the real world, as it's impossible to rid the world of all instances of anybody or anything being "governed" in some sense unless you want "anarchy" by its other definition, that is, complete chaos and disorder.  Even a private, nonprofit organization, such as an anarchist workers' collective or commune, has some sort of "government" to decide its actions and principles; if it's instead run on the basis of "anything goes", then it's not really an organization at all, and has no way of upholding any sort of principles, even anarchist ones.  For instance, when any of you uphold Wikipedia's policies against vandalism or revert wars, you're involving yourself in the government of this site and upholding its principles and integrity, something that presumably ought not be permitted in a truly anarchist society (Wikipedia explicitly states that it is not an experiment in anarchy).  On the other hand, enforcing a rule against enforcing rules of this sort is itself an act of government, so you can't win. (Even Anarchopedia, which is intended to be run on anarchist principles, enforces policies and principles on its contributors.) Dtobias 19:12, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Anarchist opposition to government is complimented by the belief that people can govern themselves, that they don't need representatives, or state officials to do it for them. Collective decision making, with all affected involved in the decisions, is practiced with that goal in mind. This extends to the workplace as well, where anarchists believe that management is not needed to govern the workplace, and people can govern themselves there too. It is that hierarchal relationship that is opposed. The reality is, you really can't define this away, no matter how hard you try.--Che y Marijuana 23:49, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
On th AC issue neither the Oxford  and Cambridge  philosophy reference works mention Anarcho-capitalism and certainly not part of the anarchism entry  . - max rspct 13:48, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  More definitions 

message: My understanding is that English and US anarchists have not made a big contribution to global anarchism. I copied a lot of information from the main anarchism article to Anarchism in the English tradition and we may want to remove some of that from the main article. I think that information about English anarchism should only be maintained to the extent that it has influenced non-English anarchism. Anything that has been contained to Anglophones should probably be contained to Anarchism in the English tradition. That being said, it is hard to say that someone/something did not influence someone else. For example, Thoreau is influential in the US, and I think many US anarchists reference his ideas. However, did he have much influence elsewhere? I heard that Ghandi was influenced by him.
Anyway, let it be known that Anglophone information has been copied to Anarchism in the English tradition and can be deleted from this article if it is not relevant. AdamRetchless 23:04, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  ==English and US contributions to anarchism== 

message: This is a solicitation for contributions to the recently created article on Bill White, the third-positionist who has, in the past, described himself as an anarchist. I know that some of you have probably interacted with or, at least, been aware of White and his (by his own admission) nutty politics. Clarifying White's relation to anarchism might help reduce confusion about so called "anarcho-nationalism" - Nihila 00:13, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: He has no relation to anarchism. He has no serious relation to any political school of thought. He seems to be affiliated to...everything, though. --Tothebarricades.tk 06:05, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bill White