Talk:Anarchism

Merge

I'm curious..why has someone suggested that this should be merged with anarchism? This is going to eventually be a long listing. It's very specific, whereas the anarchism article is very general. 66.32.118.176 03:44, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

When it is a long listing, split it back. Right now, it'd be more useful inside anarchism ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 05:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

It's been nearly two-and-a-half years, and no one has attempted to move on this? I'll finish it then.--Cast 05:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

adding too much information

I"'ve cut down some, but why do you think that Bakunin, Guerin, Chomsky or Kropotkin or even Encyclopedia Britannia definitions are wrong? because they add something more than primitive antistatism?"

I don't think the definitions are "wrong." What I'm saying is that the the encyclopedia articles go beyond defining and into specific anarchist theories (by the way Encyclopedia Britannica totally ignores American anarchism). Also, keep in mind that when you start quoting too much from the Encyclopedias you start getting into copyright problems. A definition is fine for "fair use."

It is dishonest to present a quote that skips text as a continuous :quote. Please use ellipsis (...) so the reader knows you've omitted something. In the 1910 Britannica quote, someone skips from Kropotkin's definition of anarchism down three paragraphs to a description of particular anarchists to make it look like part of Kropotkin's definition, without using ellipsis. Very bad form. 70.178.26.242 19:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

It was in my first version, but it disapeared in the heat of battle. Other quotations are ok. --XaViER 21:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Exactly. Very shady. This article should confine itself to "definitions of anarchism," not particular applications of anarchism as defined. It's all coming from "Xavier." Also, he's bolding certain words and phrases. You're not supposed to do that if the author didn't do that. The author decides what to emphasize. Very POV of Xavier. RJII 19:52, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Kropotkin's article is about anarchism as such, not "particular applications of anarchism". You can't cut off this only because you dislike it. --XaViER 21:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

While there is some fuzziness involved, I don't think it's that hard to distinguish between a definition and extrapolation. A definition is usually at the beginning of an encyclopedia article, and starts with "anarchism is..." or words to that effect. Something later in the article that says "anarchists believe..." is not part of the definition, but simply telling the reader what some anarchists believe. 70.178.26.242 18:47, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

WHO told you that "definition is usually at the beginning of an encyclopedia article". And where "usually" definition ends? After first sentence? Second? Third? Sometimes word has two and three meanings. Which is true? First? Second? Third? (see for example American Heritage College Dictionary defintion). And what about Columbia Encyclopedia definition? Is it wrong? Why? And why "article that says "anarchists believe" is not part of the definition"? This is very strange. Ask editors of dictionaries and encyclopaedias what they are thinking about this. They will be undoubtedly surprised. You clearly use manipulation and cesporship here. And if you won't stop, there will be endless war. I have a lot of time. --XaViER 19:11, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

The most NPOV way to do it is stick to the EXPLICIT definitions. Look, I could do what you're doing and add to the texts from some of the anarchists saying that they support private property, etc, etc. For example, if you look further in the text by Voltairine De Cleyre, she says she asserts the "right of property" and "I hold that competition in one form or another will always exist, and that it is highly desirable it should." Why am I not doing this? Because I'm NPOV. So, you're the one pushing your POV by extending the texts beyond the definitional aspects while the texts that don't match your POV are not extended. And, the article suffers from a lack of balance as a result. I couldn't care less if an explicit definition matches or doesn't match my POV, whatever that may be. All I'm interested in is the truth. Lighten up with your paranoia. This article isn't going to change the world. The most NPOV thing to do is to do the same thing for all definitions --that's most easily done by sticking to the sentences that explicitly define the term --every anarchist has his own conception of what follows from the definition --a practical application. But, that's going beyond the intent of this article. RJII 19:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

My intention is to show you that there is no one true definition of anarchism. And in many definitions of anarchism it isn't limited to pure antistatism. So I put in main article sentence that there is no agreement on this. And this is the truth - there is no agreement. --XaViER 20:15, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I created this article for the same reason that you say you're editing it --to show that there is little agreement. But, for the further reason of assisting defining anarchism in the Wikipedia Anarchism article. Apparently, the only thing that all anarchists have in common is that they oppose the State and favor voluntary interaction. My intent is to show that once you start getting into further details than that, the definition starts getting POV. So, the best a definition heading the Anarchism article can do is to keep it simple and basic. Anarchism is opposition to the State and in favor of voluntary interaction. RJII 23:39, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

You cannot cut off something from definition because it doesn't fit in your definition. I think that statement: "There is no agreement" is more honest and true. Our battle is fucking not a confirmation of this statement. I think that pure antistatism castrates anarchism (even anarchocapitalism is something more than pure antistatism I think). --XaViER 07:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree that anarchism isn't simply anti-statism. It's more fundamental than that. It's opposition to initiatory coercion (in other words "all forms of government"). Opposition to the state just follows from that. Anarchists are for voluntary relations. This is the only thing all the philosophies have in common. The differences come in with their interpretations of what is or isn't voluntary. RJII 16:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

But have to be honest and we sholudn't hide differences. --XaViER 17:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Irrelevant stuff about def of Socialism

I can see the relevance of what Tucker has to say about dictionary definitions of anarchism, but the paragraph about the context of his essay comparing/contrasting anarchism and socialism is totally irrelevant. Better to display Tucker's own definition of anarchism after his comments on definitions of anarchism. 70.178.26.242 01:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

His discussion of socialism is in relation to the definition of anarchism. Please stop removing it. --AaronS 03:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Division

The division of this article is silly. For instance, we have Voltairine de Cleyre in the individualists (although she refused that label) and her good friend Emma Goldman in the other section. What's the point of dividing them this way? It also leaves other anarchists, who prefer hybrid forms (i.e. postanarchists and the post-left) without a location. Additionally, L. Susan Brown (marked as an individualist) sees anarchist communism as a form of individualist anarchism. It's just not a very efficient categorization scheme, nor do I see it as necessary. Sarge Baldy 01:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

De Cleyre did indeed call herself an individualist, and she distinguishes her philosophy from Goldman's: "Miss Goldman is a communist; I am an individualist. She wishes to destroy the right of property, I wish to assert it. I make my war upon privilege and authority, whereby the right of property, the true right in that which is proper to the individual, is annihilated. She believes that co-operation would entirely supplant competition; I hold that competition in one form or another will always exist, and that it is highly desirable it should." (Speech in defense of Goldman) Sure, they were good friends, but good friends can still have opposing philosophies. RJII 04:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

She might have called herself individualist at one time, but later declared herself "without adjectives", meaning she really doesn't fit anywhere here nor would want to. My point in listing they were friends was just to suggest that this division is silly, as if there's two simple groups in hostility to one another. Another especially problematic case is L. Susan Brown, who (as it happens) is a communist individualist (and for that matter argues that Berkman and Goldman were too). Sarge Baldy 04:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree it's problematic. Like you said, De Cleyre moved away from individualist anarchism later. So where do you put her? It seems like it would be good to have some kind of categorization but I guess it might be too awkward. RJII 04:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Is there something wrong with my suggestion below (chronological order)? Sarge Baldy 04:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes that might be pretty good actually. One could always note beside the name what kind of anarchist they are if they really want to. RJII 05:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

My suggestions for this page:

• Source all quotes (providing author, page number, and year).
• Sort all quotes chronologically, to give a sense of how definitions have changed and help maintain NPOV.

Sarge Baldy 20:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to sort it according to name, but I agree that the division is artificial and highly POV. // Liftarn

That might be more feasible (i.e. if two pieces are published in the same year, we'd have to locate exact dates), although I like the idea of seeing how the definition of term involved. I'll organize it that way now, and we can restructure it later if we need to. Sarge Baldy 22:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that the division is "artificial." There are definitely dinstinctive individualists and communists. There's a complication when an anarchist changes her philosophy, like Cleyre dropped individualist anarchism. Another problem, is somebody like Bakunin --he's not an individualist or a communist (I don't think he knew what he was, really --his economic philosophy is not very coherent). RJII 22:56, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Vote for deletion notice

This article was preserved after a vote for its deletion. See its archived VfD entry for details. . It will be moved to Anarchism per the vote. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 14:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Section breakouts

Why are there both pro- and anti- libertarianism quotes and yet generally pro- with the neutral quotes about anarchism? 206.130.173.53 16:32, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Some people have created such sections or page breakouts on these pages for various reasons, but personally I discourage such practices, as they make it far more convenient for people to confine themselves to presentations of very narrow one-sided opinions and dismiss examining or even encountering any of the validity or worth of other people's perspectives — very conducive to very authoritarian and anti-anarchic practices. I just checked in briefly now, and must be leaving, so I don't have time to extend upon my arguments so fully as I might wish to, but that sums up some of them. I might work on cleaning up the formatting and structure of this page sometime within a few weeks — I expect to have some more time available to work here in the months ahead than I have had in many months of the last couple of years. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 18:46, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Restorations with devotion to anarchistic diversity

I restored recent removals of material with assertions that "there's no such thing as anarcho-capitalis[ts]" and "anonymous is not an inherently anarchist group". I regect the authoritarian assumptions that there are no such things as "anarcho-capitalists" no matter how much I or others might reject many of the assumptions of those who are called that, either by themselves or others, and I assert that Anonymous (group) is INHERENTLY anarchistic in MANY ways, though certainly members can display elements of authoritarian or foully fascist assumptions and policies of UNJUST oppressions — as MOST people can and often do, in both obvious and oblivious ways.

I also am inclined to restore this quote which was removed with assertion "remove person found non-notable" as a quote worthy of note as a succinct expression of the dispositions of some factions of those who embrace some aspects of anarchist attitutudes or philosophies, despite the fact that a previously existing article on the person quoted has been removed from Wikipedia, but am willing to at least pause for further discussion of matters.

• In broad terms, anarchism is the rejection of coercion and domination in all forms, including that of the priests and the plutocrats.... The anarchist...abominates all forms of authoritarianism, and he is the enemy of parasitism, exploitation, and oppression. The anarchist frees himself from all that is sacred and carries out a vast program of desecration.
  • Mark Mirabello, in Handbook for Rebels and Outlaws (2009), p. 13

This is just a brief note, as I am only briefly checking in, and must be leaving soon — though I might eventually do a bit more on the project within the next day or so. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 14:41, 14 February 2013 (UTC) + tweaks

Pov issues

The balance of this article is not so much off as it is entirely nonexistent 2601:405:4A80:B950:66:C274:904E:1875 02:28, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

You can help to balance the article by adding quotes from another POV. Robin Loup (talk) 02:48, 4 October 2023 (UTC)