Talk:Anarchism/Archive 52

message: At present, the article is structured broadly as follows: Intro, Origins, Schools of thought, Social movement, Issues, Criticism. Is this ideal? Should more weight be given to some areas and less to others? Given that anarchism has historically been much more prevalent in previous centuries, should the article, as User:Bacchiad suggests, take a predominantly historical approach? We could for instance, incorporate the Social movement and Schools of thought into a main History section, followed by an expanded "Anarchism today"/"Contemporary movements" section, Issues and Criticism.
The article at present practically ignores anarchist acitivism since anti-fascism in Spain, when I would that argue anarchist activism (Battle of Seattle, Black Bloc, Genoa protests etc.) is the primary association most uninitiated readers would have of anarchism.
How are scholarly overviews of anarchism structured? What would an ideal Wikipedia article on Anarchism look like? Thoughts, opinions, comments welcome. Skomorokh incite 13:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We'd want, I think, to avoid a purely chronological approach.  That's for History of Anarchism.  The breakdown here should indeed be more thematic, but yeah, I think we could take a less abstract/theoretical approach in general.  Let's take some time to look over other broad overview articles and see if we come up with anything good.  Bacchiad 14:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Structure of the article 

message: For the new contemporary anarchism article/section, I think we need to proceed very carefully with our sources, otherwise nobody will be satisfied and it'll be a waste of time. My suggestion is that we itemize the criteria found in wikipolicy and whenever new source is used, we come to a consensus about which criteria that source satisfies. We should probably decide ahead of time how many of the criteria a source should meet before it is considered reliable for the purposes of the article. This way, all sources are judged by the same standards. Aelffin 21:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent idea. Skomorokh incite 18:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliable sources 

message: Anybody oppose changing the header Contemporary schools of thought to something like Recent schools of thought? The way it is implies that older schools of thought are not held by contemporary anarchists. Aelffin 23:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't sound like a professionally-written encyclopedia exactly. Skomorokh incite 23:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with Aelffin's reasoning here, but I think the "Contemporary schools of thought" title should be changed to something like "Other schools of thought." I don't see any good reasong to partition off the other schools of thought above that section as if some of them aren't contemporary. Operation Spooner 06:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Current title implies that all other schools are now extinct. -- Vision  Thing -- 18:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue here, I think is that the monstrosity of a Schools of thought section isn't quite sure whether it is a historical or theoretical section. If historical, anarcho-capitalism and green anarchism at least should be relocated to the contemporary/20th century section. Anarcho-syndicalism has, it seems, died off as a potent force, while the outcome of the discussion above seems to indicate that mutualism and individualist anarchism only live on significantly in Carson and the anarcho-capitalists respectively. If theoretical, I'm not sure what right anarchism without adjectives or collectivist anarchism have in terms of notability to be included, or what the point is in dividing by school rather than by distinctions such as individualism vs. collectivism, tactics, economic theories, etc. Thoughts? Skomorokh incite 18:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The most significant issue is OR informing editorial direction. It may seem to you that individualism is no longer significant, but I spend my days corresponding with a very large network of individualists and mutualists. Some of our an-caps think social anarchism is in its death throes, but I'm not convinced. My IWW friends probably don't think anarcho-syndicalism is irrelevant. Aelffin seems to think the historical record of anarchism is so inconclusive that no solid conclusions can be drawn. As a movement historian, I have a different sense. But Wikipedia has set us guidelines that make all of this fairly straightforward: we can only include the most oft-repeated material from the secondary sources, or correct them with the most uncontroversial of primary material. A developmental, quasi-historical approach at least gives us a narrative spine--movement history--that's relatively uncontroversial. Any topical arrangement is going to be subject to ultimately intractable debates about the meanings of terms, the validity of dichotomies, etc. Take "individualism vs. collectivism," for example. Both terms have contested meanings in the literature. "Collectivism" refers to a specific school, as well as a tendency identified by some observers. All we can really hope to do with this page is to create a link-rich summary. Readers can then decide themselves whether they're more interested in pantarchism or peace punk. Libertatia 20:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

text:  Do I need to remind people that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a popularity contest nor a forum for original research on which strains of anarchism are alive or dead. Given Wikipedia's thousands of articles on trivial topics, a section on "anarchist schools of thought" should certainly be as comprehensive as possible. There may not be many anarcho-syndicalists out there, but they probably outnumber the "anarcho-capitalists" out there. Our polling at Infoshop (a widely respected primary source in the anarchist movement) indicates that there aren't as many anarcho-syndicalists as there used to be. But a section on anarchist schools of thought would be a flagrant joke if it didn't include a section on anarcho-syndicalism. One of the more prominent anarchist journals in North America is Anarcho-Syndicalist Review, so you can dismiss a school of thought that has at least one regularly publishing magazine. Chuck0 04:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Realistically, there are probably still more anarcho-syndicalists around than most of the other branches combined. They just tend to be quite a bit older and therefore have less of a web presence than some of the more ahem marginal schools. Aelffin 05:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problems are (1) anarchosyndicalism doesn't have one defining post-revolutionary model, like the other schools, it has one common revolutionary strategy, and several different post-revolutionary models, (2) many authors who are considered anarchosyndicalist contrast their positions with narrower definitions of anarchosyndicalism; many anarchist or anti-state Wobs did so, (3) many authors who are not considered syndicalist in any sense called their positions syndicalism, e.g. Sorel, the Falange, etc. (4) "Anarchism in the labor movement" and anarchosyndicalism almost completely overlap. - M.U. 72.66.34.151 04:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ...which is to say that anarcho-syndicalism is a broad concept with fuzzy borders, like most other trends in anarchism. Weeee! Always keeping things interesting. :D Aelffin 20:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see, however, that the fuzziness is really a problem when it comes to what we include on this page. It can be addressed on the appropriate subpage. Here, we just need to get readers to that page. Chuck0's comments on inclusion seem about right on in terms of inclusion. Libertatia 21:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a thematic unity to mutualism, individualism, communism, and collectivism, as well as anarchism-without-adjectives; they describe various modes of economic organization in anarchism. And when green anarchism discusses economics, it often does the same. But syndicalism describes certain modes of economic organization to get out of capitalism. After that, different syndicalist writers propose different solutions. 72.66.34.151 06:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be easy to contest, to take one example, the characterization of mutualism as primarily economic, or its focus on organization "in anarchism." But even allowing the "thematic unity," the question is about including anarcho-syndicalism, not syndicalism in general. Libertatia 17:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newer schools of thought 

message: I don't think that the section on green anarchism is fair. It presents green anarchism as a current wich is more or less primitivist and/or anti-civlizationist. As there are a number of green anarchist currents and some, perhaps most notably, social ecology and inclusive democracy, are neither anti-technology nor anti-civilization I think this section needs to be updated. I might not be the person for the job though since my English isn't the best. Joje86 10:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, the article seems to use "Green anarchism" as though it is synonymous with "anarcho-primitivism". This is a little tricky, because a lot of anarchists do use the two terms interchangeablly. For the sake of clarity, I think the article needs to explain that there is a huge spectrum of green anarchists from pro-tech environmentalists all the way over to anti-civilization/anti-culture/anti-language (and even anti-thought) extreme primitivists. But in the loosest sense, almost all anarchists are "green anarchists" in that most throw in with the mainstream of the environmentalist movement. Aelffin 20:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The section is marked as in need of a rewrite; perhaps if one of you were prepared to summarized the referenced elements of the Green anarchism, the issue might be resolved? Skomorokh incite 00:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll try and make it down to the local infoshop to pick up some materials. Just a little busy for that lately. Aelffin 11:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Have made a start. BobFromBrockley 13:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If at all possible, can we try to avoid weasel words? "Some green anarchists are x, while some are y" is an uninformative formulation. Better to say "Anarcho-primitivists are green anarchists which X, while eco-anarchists..." etc. Skomorokh incite 13:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the more specific the better, but I think you misunderstand the term weasel word. A weasel word is "a word that is intended to, or has the effect of, softening the force of a potentially loaded or otherwise controversial statement." The statement "Some green anarchists are anarcho-primitivists while some are eco-anarchists" is indeed informative, though not as informative as giving actual percentages or precise definitions. But in neither case is there a weasel word. (Notice that the word "some" does not appear on the list of weasel words.)-- Aelffin (talk) 19:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're inference is flawed. Regards, Skomorokh incite 18:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How so? Aelffin (talk) 02:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe he meant the request regarding weasel words and the request for clarity to be taken as seperate ideas. But this is only my assumption, and it does read rather as if the sentences are related. ~ Switch (✉✍☺☒) 04:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I see. Well, if that's what he meant, then we're in total agreement. Aelffin (talk) 17:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Splendid. Is the latest version of the Green anarchism section any better? Without sources, it's rather futile changing things around, but i tried to remove some of the pseudo-authoritative statements. I hope I haven't mischaracterized anything the original authors intended. Skomorokh incite 17:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Green Anarchism

message: In response to the edit war, I've created this discussion. Let's try to make a compromise shall we? Zazaban 19:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Aryan anarchism - There was a page/essay on it.. if u search u will find it all over the forum. Google isn't the 'be and end all' of notablity and certainly should not be used for notability unless you are sourcing something on google results. -- maxrspct ping me  19:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's not racist. I did the search, and I found one topic supporting it, and it was posting by a non-notable member and got an overwhelmingly negative response.  Zazaban 20:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

text: That's because it was posted by Anna Quist, hated by pretty much everybody else on the forums. It's a place where anybody can post, not a closed article space. You could show up and post if you wished. Zazaban 20:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not a moderator there. I'm just a regular user and I'm not sure I know what . By the way, I'm not sure you equate Anarcho-capitalism with Aryan Anarchism. I'm not masquerading as anything. Zazaban 20:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You quote a page that is clearly out of date.  It was part of a incarnation of a previous Anarchism.net that was solely an Anarcho-Capitalist forum.  If you researched your claims at all you would know this.  The same applies to your other claims against Anarchism.net, they are all based off out of date information.  Either research your position and provide evidence or do not make such claims. It is also worth mentioning that there are no moderators or administrators on that forum. - Royce Christian
To me there are 2 problems that may be conjoined. RJII banned user i have mentioned seemed to be a far-rightist with an interest in A/C. He made claims that he was a multiple sockpuppet paid and carrying out the wishes of a 'jewish interest' office (see false flag operation). The anarchism.net he added back then too. The second problem is that anarchism.net gives undue weight to pro-capitalist 'anarchism'.
From: Wikipedia:Verifiability#Questionable sources
Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as:
* it is relevant to their notability;
* it is not contentious;
* it is not unduly self-serving;
* it does not involve claims about third parties;
* it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
* there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it;
* the article is not based primarily on such sources.
From: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view -
Jimbo Wales, paraphrased from this post from September 2003 on the mailing list:
* If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
* If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
* If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.
--maxrspct ping me  20:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The site is not just anarcho-capitalist. But you have a point. I don't really care if it's listed anyway, I simply wanted to know where the racist claim came from. Zazaban 20:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I had no idea that Anarcho-capitalism was so small. Especially since it seems to be brought up so much everywhere. Zazaban 20:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Finally, I would love to know who this sockpuppet is. I don't see anybody involved in this dispute who has been accused of being a sockpuppet. Zazaban 20:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Let's be civil, please? Your arguments seem to be based on Original research and your own POV. Zazaban 21:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

text: It's idiotic to criticize an open forum for being anarcho-capitalist or pro-capitalist or pro-communist or pro-socialist or pro-agorist or pro-mutualist or anti-any of these. The forum is OPEN. Maxrspct is expressing simply sour grapes and his own biases and ignorance, worrying about the site address or the supposed dollar sign (which it is not.)Solomon41 21:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been posting on Anarchism.net for awhile now. I have not seen the least intimation of racism or any sort of bigotry. I hasten to add it is one of the few fora I've participated in in which my being Israeli was not thrown in my face or reason to question my veracity as an Anarchist. If there was bigotry on Anarchism.net, I'd be well aware of it.
I did not see the Aryan Anarchism article referred to here. Had I seen it, I would have welcomed it as a proof of the free expression that I have come to enjoy on Anarchism. net. I would also have welcomed the opportunity to consider the points and either agree with them or refute them as I saw fit.
The beauty of Anarchism. net is that it is a free plenum for discussion of all aspects of Anarchism. I say that as one of the small minority of Anarcho-Communists on the list. I have neve been made to feel stifled or censored on that forum. The contributors to that list would not have it any other way.
It seems to me that this is an attempt to bring Anarchism.net in line with the emerging and ever more oppressive "Anarchy PC".
Doreen Ellen Bell-Dotan, Tzfat, Israel  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.166.222.249 (talk) 07:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

text: A forum is a forum. The site is a personal project by a political philosophy student/graduate. Infoshop is long established and much more credible resource. The point i was making is that anarchism.net is not much more than a forum. The dollar signs which were on every page and the handful of essays..probably written by the site owner show that this is a dubious link to put in this article. Interesting to see the right-wing libertarian Robert LeFevre has an essay on there.
From the wikipedia article:
"LeFevre did not consider himself an anarchist, and in his "LeFevre Commentaries" bluntly stated that he was not an anarchist.".
I rest my case. --maxrspct ping me  19:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  A site having a forum does not mean the site is just a forum.  If it does then infoshop needs to be removed since it also has a forum.  You've shown yourself not be objective already, thus your subject judgment that is not much more than a forum carries no weight.  You keep going on about dollar signs on the pages, but there aren't any.  LeFevre didn't like being called an anarchist, but that doesn't mean his views weren't actually anarchist. JoshHeitzman 19:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

text: That's simply libel.  I have only ever registered here using my real name. JoshHeitzman 19:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wikipedia policies (unfortunately) dictate that long lists of links shouldn't be appended to articles. The standard practice is to place links to important and popular websites, as well as to websites that provide breadth to the topics covered in the Wikipedia article. Anarchism.net may have plenty of valid content and users, but it is not notable enough to be listed at the bottom of the Anarchism page. Chuck0 (talk) 07:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

text: By claiming the author of that message was banned user RJII without stating any proof to backup your claim you've libeled them if it isn't actually true.  You have not merely stated the facts.  You've stated subjective judgments about it after already showing you that you are not objective regarding this issue. JoshHeitzman 17:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That quote from the mission statement of the site is out of date.  As I have been saying, there were previous incarnations of Anarchism.net.  These have been replaced with the current set-up.  Citing one, single, out-dated page as evidence to demonise the site carries no weight.  The Aryan Anarchism essay was removed years ago - when the owner researched Aryan Anarchism and removed the material because it was racist.  As for the dollar signs, they are no longer used and have not been used for years as the site is no longer focussed solely around a 'market Anarchist' theme.  The articles on the site are not penned by the author, his articles are published separately on another, separate website after they have been published by Strike-the-Root, or Lewrockwell.com. But you would already know all this if you have researched the site. --124.182.101.31 13:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

text: You are in no position to demand a stop to personal attacks considering you keep attacking me personally.  What goes around comes around bub. JoshHeitzman 23:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Personal attacks are not acceptable on Wikipedia, regardless of circumstances.  A person attacking you is not a reason to attack them.  In addition, several of the current externale links also seem to fail the external links guideline.  Also, remember that external links should only be used when necessary, and that forums generally contain original research and unverifiable content, which is not consistent with Wikipedia. SmileToday☺(talk to me , My edits) 22:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  And why is your comment only directed only at me rather then both of us?  Perhaps because you want to see anarchism.net removed as well, as evidenced by your previous removals of it. JoshHeitzman (talk) 08:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Let's calm down and assume good faith now, shall we? Zazaban (talk) 16:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is Smiletoday, Anarchism.net is not solely a forum.  The forum is merely a feature of the site, it is intended to be a Network for Anarchists containing Anarchist material, both famous and little known.  As it stands, yes, Anarchism.net is slow growing because Per Bylund (who is starting to become well known among Anarchists and even has a page on this site) is the sole team member working on the site.  He does this in conjunction with his regular work and his writing.  This does not invalidate the site or any of its content.  Maxrspct slandered the site, it's creator and the participants on the forum located there as racist - without proof of such a claim.  He then insinuated that it was some kind of racist conspiracy.  I think the contrary has been proven.--58.166.238.6 (talk) 12:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I believe you made a claim that Anarchism.net was distributing racist material.  This has been shown to be invalid.  You can either substantiate this claim with real evidence or retract your statement.  In regards to Bylund, I believe the statement, 'beginning to become well known was used'.  I suggest looking him up. For the record, I didn't realise personal attacks were allowed around here, nor did I realise dismissing an argument on the grounds that the author is anonymous was acceptable practice for wikipedia editors. --58.170.109.158 (talk) 04:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's not. Zazaban (talk) 16:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anarchism.net 

message: In the section on anarchism.net it is being argued that anarchism.net isn't notable enough to be included in the General resources section of the external links of the article.  At the moment anarchismtoday.org is included in that section, but looking at the site I don't see what so notable about it and I'd never heard of it before seeing it linked to on this article.  What make anarchismtoday.org sufficiently notable to be included in the General resources section of the external links for he article? JoshHeitzman (talk) 02:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Notability of external links is irrelevant. It does not matter how widely cited, or google-indexed a link is; what matters is its value as a resource, the extent to which its content expands on this article to give the reader a more comprehensive understanding of the subject. Check out WP:EL. Skomorokh incite 12:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability of anarchismtoday.org 

message: Can anyone resurrect this? http://recollectionbooks.com/bleed/gallery/galleryindex.htm Daily Bleed's Anarchist Encyclopedia] - 1,700+ entries, with short bios, links & dedicated pages. Skomorokh incite 19:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The link appears to be fine. Libertatia 19:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Must be a Skomorokh-specific problem; feel free to re-integrate it as appropriate. Skomorokh incite 19:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead ex link:Daily Bleed 

message: The Schools of thought section has been problematic for a while now; firstly because although it is a very long section, it has only one hierarchy of subsections, making it somewhat daunting for the uninitiated reader to figure out at first glance what relation, if any, exists between the eight or so top-level schools of thought here. Furthermore, including eight or so schools and excluding all else except a comparatively tiny contemporary section seems arbitrary and pov (no mention whatsoever of anarcha-feminism, anarcho-pacifism, philosophical anarchism?). On the plus side, the section does offer a quasi-historical overview of anarchism that tries to describe both ideological variance and intellectual influence between schools.
Experimenting in the main Anarchist schools of thought article, of which this is a summary, I have moved any school that really originated post-WWII to a Contemporary subsection, and following An Anarchist FAQ subsumed Communist, Collectivist, and Syndicalist anarchism under Social anarchism, with the other top-level hierarchy sections being Individualist anarchism (as the main contrast to Social), Mutualism (for its historical influence on the other two), Without adjectives (couldn't think of what to do with it) and the Contemporary section, which encompasses everything from Ancap to feminism to Green and all the recent offshoots.
I think the approach, viewable at Anarchist schools of thought, is superior to the schema here, because it makes much clearer the relation between schools, gives a better idea of the chronological development of the schools, and is much more complete and inclusive. I propose implementing it here, unless there is consensus to oppose. Thoughts? Skomorokh incite 16:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've gone ahead and implemented the proposed changes. Please leave a comment here before reverting. Regards, Skomorokh incite 19:16, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think that it was a necessary change, but I don't think you capture the whole thing completely.  I would suggest leaving the "Socialist" subsection alone.  Instead, I would propose separating "Contemporary Anarchisms" and "Market Anarchisms" into two separate sections.  Under the market Anarchist section we could have "Anarcho-Capitalism", "Agorism", "Free Market Anarchist" and any others that fit this description.  Anarcho-Capitalism and Agorism are pretty self explanatory, but there are some who are market anarchists, and don't identify with Anarcho-Capitalism or Agorism and thus could be simply considered 'free market Anarchists'. There also needs to be some statement that there is conflict among each school of thought, particularly between the market anarchists and social anarchist.--121.220.149.129 (talk) 01:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Towards a quasi-historical Schools of thought section