![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
The article has just undergone another rewrite, so I thought this was a good time to archive the talk again. -- Sam 10:39, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)
To User:Quercusrobur: I've cut out the bolded parts of the following paragraph on anarcho-punk in order to keep the 'brief history' brief! I think these parts should be mentioned later or in the anarcho-punk article.
-- Sam
What happaned to the paragraph distinguishing anarchism from anomie? I think you people that keep rewriting this whole page, are being awfully reckless. Could you make an effort to preserve the good parts of previous versions? Lirath Q. Pynnor
And what about the paragraph noting how anarchists assassinated 4 heads of state, around the turn of the century? Surely that should get noted? Goddamn it, stop overrewriting this article with your personal pet version -- try editing the page instead. Lirath Q. Pynnor
[nation-state]- I don't know what the [ ] on either side mean either- perhaps it could be explained rather rather than simply put back? quercus robur
The [ ] means the quote has been modified. Particularly in the US, but elsewhere as well, the term "state" has come to increasingly mean something somewhat different from that intended by the quote at the top of the page. I have slightly modified the quote to refer to [nation-state]; so that it is clear that he isn't adovcating some sort of Federalist policy. Lirath Q. Pynnor
User:Lir, please, which anarchists don't oppose government? -- Sam
Most anarchists do not oppose government. As the article states, anarchism is not anomie -- anarchists believe in rules, and rules are laws, and where there are laws...there is government. Many anarchists believe capital punishment should be illegal, many believe in corporate regulation, many support laws prohibiting capital interest and the possession of nuclear weapons.
If you can't grasp the idea of rules without laws, then you are not grasping the ideas of anarchists. Yes, many anarchists believe that if the state exists it should not have the right to kill its prisoners, but that does not mean they believe in law. And in fact, historically, anarchists have opposed even this kind of law-making, seeing any reform as strengthening the state and against anarchist interests.
Secondly, 'self-government' is not a parallel concept to 'government'. To say someone who supports 'self-government' supports 'government' is misleading at best. -- Sam
Self-government and democracy, community assemblies, these are all forms of government. It is your personal POV that these aren't "true government". Kropotkin liked to say that anarchists didn't use laws, they used "social contracts". Thats just semantics. Lirath Q. Pynnor
I will put words in your mouth. The most important part of discussion is to attempt to state what the other's beliefs are, without quoting them verbatim.
The only way it would be correct to state that anarchism opposes government, is if one defines government as having a hierachy. Lirath Q. Pynnor
Its only dishonest if Im being dishonest; but, since Im talking to you (and not writing a paper about you) -- it can hardly be in the least bit dishonest. If you want to define government as hierachy, I don't agree but Ill play along. Lirath Q. Pynnor
I'd love to hear what anybody (particularly any self-avowed "anarchists") think about it, but as best as I can understand philosophical Anarchism is a prime example of doublethink. While advocating communal communism (arguably an unachievable goal) a relative amount of lawlessness is advocated. But "true" anarchy (what the word is literally defined as) is apparently frowned apon by the more philosophical anarchists, and I see above some mention of laws. Laws and anarchy don't mix, if we are going to use these terms in the traditional sense. If you arn't using terms in the traditional sense, this only adds to my argument for all anarchist philosophy being doublethink, designed to lead into fascism or other totalitarian states. The only proof you need of this is all of world history up to today, and the fact that Many people, myself included, will never be happy with anything resembling equality, nor with anything other than a heirarchy, even if this is the simplist hierarchy of ability found both in true anarchy, as well as any mericratic (arguably every) system. Jack 10:15, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I believe that it is current society which is "lawless". Corporations are free to pollute, to pay whatever they want, to fire and hire at will. Governments are free to fight wars, to seize and occupy, etc. All within some so-called "limits". Lirath Q. Pynnor
No, right now we are not in a state of anarchy. Anarchy is not anomie, anarchy advocates rules of conduct. Right now these basic moral precepts are not followed by a number of powerful people. Lirath Q. Pynnor
Of course, perhaps Nature is just being lenient upon the right. Inevitably, if the right doesn't recognize the moral superiority of the left; well, then the world will go to hell in a handbasket... If you want to talk about historical records, the other thing to note is that tyrants and their empires always collapse into chaos. Lirath Q. Pynnor
Someone changed my mention of Anarchist philosophy being communist to a statement describing it as socialist. Thats simply not accurate. From what I have learned, here and elsewhere, there is little if any difference between anarchist and communist activism, politics and philosophy, except perhaps a difference of opinion over the temporary utility of a dictator (clearly heirarchical in nature!). However, as I know full well from the communism page, a communist state has never existed with a dictator (a communist state has never existed at all, and never will, God willing!) whereas many a socialist state has had one. Being that there are so many similarities betwixt theoretical anarchism and theoretical communism, I think it deserves mention. Can anyone here show me what differences there are? Both oppose heirarchy, clearly. Jack 21:40, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Your recent edits are ill-informed and biased. I only agree with one of them (the removal of the word "anarchocrat"). When I have more time, I will discuss these in depth with you. For now, I just want to ask why you removed external links that were put there as references. In fact, I'd like you to explain all the changes you made since my last edit, if you have the time. Thanks -- Sam 15:51, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
External links within the article are against wiki policy. As far as the other edits, I made ALOT of them, the vast majority of which were to removing an overwhelming pro-anarchist POV. This article is not ment to shine glowing praise opon you and your particular form of anarchism. You cannot explain the term ONLY according to your own interpretations, but rather by the inherent meaning, and its common usages, as well as whatever philosophies you may have developed. I am not trying to remove mention of your POV, just making sure that a casual reader is going to be served with useful, non-biased information. IMO more edits are needed, and editers of a variety of politics would also be helpful, as its clear from the sort of things I removed that those who have been editing this article are comfortable with allowing dubious information and strong pro-philosophical anarchist bias. BTW, I have known many anarchists, and none of them had much of any similarity to the sort of pseudo communism you appear to advocate. rather they were of the hardcore punk rock version, and enjoyed taking drugs and behaving in a disorderly manner, spray painting an A within a circle on the wall, etc... These folks have not recieved their due mention. Philosophical communist-anarchism is not what the state of anarchy is based opon in any situation I have studied, but rather the aggressive hierarchical chaotic anarchy of warlords and gunmen found in somalia at the moment, and temporarilly in many places and times, recently in albania for example. Jack 21:51, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I think I was pretty clear above that I don't agree with your interpretation of anarchy, anarchism, etc... I go by the standard definitions of every word I use (outside of occasional accidental errors). I find this to be a more successful and moral method than reinterpreting existing words to fit my own preferences, such as doublespeak. I have also made it clear above that I think that is what is being done with the concept of anarchism. I do accept that a number of people feel similarly to yourself, and while I haven’t the time, interest, or intestinal fortitude to read the books you suggest, I already agree that your interpretation deserves mention. I do however insist that the traditional meaning of the concept remain in this article. My hooligan punk rock friends were anarchists, just as those who riot after a football game, or those who engaged in combat with US forces in Somalia were anarchists. Quite simply, anyone who opposes, rejects, struggles against etc... order, is an anarchist. Order is always hierarchical, and always requires at least the presumption of potential force. I think perhaps the clearest way to explain it is that anarchism is the opposite of fascism, in fact I think it is this very extreme dissimilarity which causes the one to lead to the other. I will mention, for the sake of amusement, that I am in favor of anarchy, as a means to an end. I have seen time and time again that lawlessness and rebellion against the state, when successful, inevitably leads to the imposition of a strict and unforgivingly orderly circumstance. Jack 01:51, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Anarchists refuse to participate in party politics, firmly believing that power corrupts and that some kind of revolution (often sparked by terrorism or assassination} is necessary to overthrow the state completely. Anarchist philosophy is predominantly Communist in nature, similar in theory to Karl Marx's Dictatorship of the proletariat. While the term anarchy clearly implies chaos and a complete lack of order or cohesion, this is not generally the state desired by the more philosophical anarchists. There is however a large, popular youth movement among anarchists which does advocate a state of disorder and mayhem, similar to the current circumstance in Somalia, or periods of lawlessness throughout history.
I hold that this passage is misrepresentative of any kind of anarchist thought/praxis as I understand it. Some parts may be salvagable and indeed valid as part of a 'critisisms of anarchist thought' section, but should certainly not be placed above the table of contents. quercus robur 01:32, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
What does everyone think of my original version of the paragraph above:
My own problems with the current version, quoted at the top of this section by QR, are these:
Wow, thanks sam for lining these up for me.
Jack, I don't mind that you haven't got the time to read the books QR recommended above, but can I ask you to at least read other encyclopedia's entries on anarchism? I have read around ten to fifteen different encyclopedic entries on anarchism and they have influenced my most recent edits in particular. -- Sam 09:57, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Take a look at, for instance, these google search results: search for "anarchism encyclopedia". Note that a couple are taken from past versions of this wikipedia article (notice the same Ben Tucker quote), but others are very interesting. -- Sam 11:36, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Note for future: concise Britannica article has useful info, particularly mention of 'reemergance' of anarchism:
I've read a great number of encyclopedia entries on this subject, dating back over a decade or more. Reading encyclopedias has always been a hobby of mine. I am glad that you are doing likewise. I think this one is great
[2]
Jack 11:46, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
jack said; There is however a large, popular youth movement among anarchists which does advocate a state of disorder and mayhem, similar to the current circumstance in Somalia, or periods of lawlessness throughout history.
Sam said; #I'd like to see some specific references talking about this "large popular youth movement" because I see little of no evidence of it. There might be many people who call themselves anarchists, but I wouldn't call it popular, or a large movement. -- Sam
Jack said; :# Two words, Punk rock.
I appreciate your most recent edit to the article. While you did in some ways minimize the intensity of the allegations of violence, I think your edit was modest, and respectful of the truth. Despite the chaotic image of this page, I think we will be able to get it into good working order within time. Do you in anyway think of the wiki as an example of successful anarchism? I think of it as more of a benevolent dictatorship ;) Jack 09:32, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
On another note, I would like to see the (in my eyes fairly obvious) connection between hierarchy and violence discussed. The contradiction between the pascifism expoused by some anarchists, and the overwhelmingly violent image the concept suggests to the mind of the general public (due to both historical and current events) needs a great deal more time spent dwelling on. IMO any act of violence is necessarilly hierarchical; even if it ends inconclusively it was still an attempt at gaining dominance (violently demanding freedom is still an attempt to enforce ones dominance, even if only momentarilly). It has been generally held thruout history that the power of a given state is best judged in its ability to defend itself from threats abroad, and to enforce its will opon its own citizens. In truth, I do not know of any society which ever has had as its basis voluntary association for any length of time after its foundation, certainly not Communism!. ;) Jack 11:45, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Seperately, the difference between meeting and gathering is fairly slight, and while the impression that I got was that it was in no way a regular, official meeting, but rather a demonstration or gathering (or maybe festival of sorts?) I'm not going to make any particularly strong fight over that wording at this time, being that I don't think it creates much of a misunderstanding of the event. Jack 00:25, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
The incredibly biased statements currently passing themselves off as part of wikipedia on this page have no justification. First, there was an unjustified rewrite of the entire article on the 27th of Dec. The article wasn't bad, but I didn't see any marked improvement over the previous version. I don't know why such a drastic measure was called for, especially given its degeneration since, nor do I think it is appropriate given the number of people who contributed over a long period of time to the previous version. Much worse than this rewrite, whoever is tacking on these interpretive statements to the text clearly has very little understanding of anarchism and has arrived here only to speculate about their own ignorance publicly on a page meant to educate. The following statements are prime examples. I'm going to leave all of this up for discussion for a bit, but unless some serious reworking is done here I think it is quite justifiable to revert back to the pre-Dec 27 version which demonstrated itself to be far more stable and far less biased.
Anyone who opposes the concept of the state is considered an anarchist.
There are many who oppose the concept of the state but are not considered anarchists. Anti-state liberals are one such group. Mere anti-statism is not the only defining quality of anarchism, nor is it necessarily a sufficient condition.
Rather the word is redifined by philosophical anarchists, with the new meaning subject to debate.
This is just plain false. Philosophical anarchists often use several different definitions of the word to describe their position, but none of them are new meanings or redefinitions of some previous association with "chaos." There is no redefinition here, they are using the word according to its literal translation, "no rulers," and its association with the radicals of the French revolution. The fact that many have taken this to imply chaos is an interpretation of the position, not the basis of it.
Throughout their troubled history, various acts of
terrorism and
assassination have been associated with anarchists and their gatherings.
"Troubled" being plainly POV. The reader can decide for themselves how to interpret the history of anarchists without this bias.
Much of contemporary anarchist philosophy is
Communist in nature, similar in many ways to
Karl Marx's
Dictatorship of the proletariat.
This is worse than misrepresentation, it is outright slander. Anarcho-communists, the anarchists being described here, specifically rejected the "dictatorship of the proletariat." To compare them on these terms is dishonest. There are points on which communists agree with anarcho-communists, but this is not one of them.
While the term
anarchy clearly implies chaos and a complete lack of order or cohesion,
I could point to literally a dozen dictionary definitions which do not imply any such thing. The fact that this conception of anarchism exists is a valid fact to bring up in the article, to endorse these positions as what anarchism "clearly implies" is POV to the extreme.
William Godwin's vision of a free society published in 1793 alongside a critique of government in An Enquiry Concerning Political Justice is considered the first anarchist treatise and Godwin is credited with founding philosophical anarchism.
Some interpret Godwin as such, and there are good reasons for doing so, but this is not universal. Given that Proudhon introduced the word as a self-descriptive, and given that his position departed from Godwin's on many accounts, I'm confused as to why Godwin is being portrayed as the founder of anarchism. If we are going to go back and interpret individuals who didn't call themselves anarchists as being anarchists retroactively, why not just introduce Lao Tzu or Zeno as the originators of anarchism? But in this article they are not, and for good reason, it is speculation and interpretation. Calling Godwin an anarchist is speculation as well, as close as his ideology may have been in so many ways, it was not anarchism because anarchism as an ideology of that name did not exist at the time. The folks at Stanford can claim whatever they like, and there have been a few books which have asserted this as well, but the fact that they said it should not in itself be evidence that it is the case. Regardless, considering Godwin an anarchist requires a rereading of his own works and those of the original anarchists with the assumption that what he described set the standard of what was to follow, in other words, that a person who did not call himself an anarchist defined what anarchism was before it even existed. It is exactly this kind of twisted logic that posits anarchism as nothing more than mere anti-statism, ignoring huge parts of the works of Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin, and Tucker (who DID consider themselves anarchists), in order to do so. To call Godwin the father of anti-statism might be appropriate, to call him the father of anarchism is open to debate.
This new strand has become known as anarcho-capitalism, and owed more to classical liberalism than to previous anarchist traditions, only being politically related via individualism.
This is just odd beyond all compare. Above, Bakunin is presented as having departed from Proudhon to some extreme degree in advocating violence (there were several forms of violence Proudhon supported, and many non-anarchistic actions he engaged in himself), while here NO mention is made whatsoever of the fact that all traditions of anarchism up to this point had been explicitly anti-capitalist. Is this article going to pretend that a HUGE departure from previous anarchist theory did not take place in the attempt to consider a previously antagonistic philosophy are part of anarchism?
Traditionally however anarchists have engaged in a wide variety of techniques including terrorism and assasination in order to achieve their ends.
Not only is this the second time this is mentioned, not only is the grammar of this sentence atrocious, but this is by no means even remotely accurate. The anarchist tradition includes short periods of time during which small subsets of particular anarchist ideologies engaged in acts of assassination. This does not mean that the tradition as a whole is filled with terrorism, and the vast majority of anarchists in the past and today reject assassination politics.
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon's mutualism was to be reached by a similarly peaceful evolution of society. Later in the nineteenth century, though, revolutionaries like Mikhail Bakunin saw a need for violence to overthrow the existing society to reach anarchism; this view encouraged acts of political violence such as the assassinations of heads of state at the end of the nineteenth century, though these actions were regarded by many anarchists as counter-productive or ineffective (see "Violence and non-violence", below).
To contrast the mutualism of Proudhon and the anarcho-communism of Bakunin first and foremost based on violence is specious. There are far more qualitative and important contrasts, and Proudhon did not reject violence so far as to make this distinction totally relevant in the first place. Further, to introduce anarcho-communism as violence, and then repeat this association throughout the article as though violence is the essential part of anarcho-communism is simply biased to the extreme. Violence has a place in anarcho-communism, just as it has a place in almost all political ideologies (mutualism, anarcho-capitalism, democracy, and monarchy to name a few), it is certainly not the center piece of its philosophy.
However, their actions generaly lead to increasingly authoritarian rule and political repression across Russia and southern Europe in the first half of the twentieth century.
Do I even need to comment on this trash? Since when are anarchists to be blamed for having been killed by the communists they tried to resist?
At the beginning of the 21st century, anarchism has incorporated strong influences from the feminist and animal rights movements.
That must be news to feminists like Voltairine de Cleyre who back in the 19th century wrote on the essential role of feminism in anarchism. Feminism is not new to anarchism by any means, though arguably animal rights is.
Currently there is a reprisal of the arise of primitivism and anarcho-capitalism in the article that is not necessary. One history is plently, repetition is not needed. Similarly, there is repeat of the same points concerning pacifism, and terrorism is repeated so often as to make one think anarchists have never done anything but. And again, mention of the same protests and "sticking to non-violence" is repeated more than once, as if our goal is to bore all wikipedia readers with repetition of the same thing rather than to elucidate the subject matter. The parts on Godwin are also repeated several times.
First, let me point out that the page as it was was terrible. There was little information on it and almost no discussion. Splitting it down into "thematic articles" was a mistake, it has led to those articles being ignored and this one remaining undeveloped. The rewrite that I did was based on the previous revisions (before it was split down into subpages) and did not wipe out anything at all.
Some of your points above I agree with: there are flaws in the article as it stands and these need to be addressed. You seem most concerned about these, and rightly -- so let us amend the article. But please, consider the previous skeletal version you would be reverting to before you do anything of the kind! -- Sam 13:02, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
And am I right in thinking that you're quoting parts of the article that have already been edited out? -- Sam
Be Bold kev. I promise to be likewise. If your editing quality matches your fervor in talk, we'll all be the better for it. Jack 02:14, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Although anarcho-primitivists assert that for the longest period of human history, human society was organised on anarchist principles, there is no evidence to support this.
Kev said; NO EVIDENCE? Cripes, is anyone going to pretend that this is not the most overtly biased statement one could make? If there was NO EVIDENCE according to ANYONE why the hell would primitivists assert it? I disagree with primitivists myself on this, that does not mean there is no evidence for the position. - Kev 01/13/04
Jack replied; Where is there any evidence whatsoever for any of the foolishness which is the basis of Primivism? Honestly, what society is MORE heirarchical than that of indigenous people. Anybody ever heard of a cheif? Witch doctor? Big angry guy with a stick? All of these fellows have an awful lot more immediate say in the lives of folks in a primitive society than a president or even dictator in ours. Has anybody else ever seen national geographic? geez... Jack 04:39, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I'm sorry to say that I have alot on my plate insofar as reading goes, and those books are rather obscure. Thsi, coupled with my extreme confidence that primitavism is bunk, makes it inordinately unlikely that I will review said forgotten tomes ;) If you have something on the web I can click on, that would be cool. Otherwise I am busy with "more guns, less crime" by john lott ;D Jack 04:19, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Also, if you expect me to give any credit to sources on controvercial matters, it might be best to cite unbiased sources. I'm gonna look into other encyclopedias and so forth about primitavism, just for $#!^'s and giggles ;) Jack 04:23, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Jack, what he's saying is that there is a valid position to present, with some evidence, which means we should report it in the standard neutral way. It doesn't matter what we think of it. -- Sam
The more I read on it the less compatable it is with what you have here. For one I read about "social anarchists" being the opposite of individualist anarchists. And primitavism is alot more than anarchism, and rather than focusing on hierarchy, it simply appears to be anti-state, society, civilization, and pollution. They discuss it in relation to "green anarchism", another not mentioned here. "Many" may find anarchists to be a bunch of nutters ;), but I'd still like to catagorize them as they see fit... Jack 12:47, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Regarding the above: "Where is there any evidence whatsoever for any of the foolishness which is the basis of Primivism? Honestly, what society is MORE heirarchical than that of indigenous people. Anybody ever heard of a cheif? Witch doctor? Big angry guy with a stick?" There is a great deal of evidence, particularly concerning north american and european pre-agricultural revolution societies. They tended to be matriarchial, communalistic, and democratic. It is an incorrect POV to assume that pre-industrial society was barbarian, materialistic, and totalitarian. Lirath Q. Pynnor
What does matriarchal have to do with anarchism? And what tribe was matriarchal? I've heard of interesting checks and balances between the elder women and the cheif, but I don't know of any tribes ruled by women. Every group of humans below a certain size is communalistic. My family is "communalistic" too. Does that make us anarchists, primitive or otherwise? ;) And democracy... isn't forcing the will of the majority on an individual contrary to the principles of anarchism? Food for thought. Jack 00:25, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
The article has just undergone another rewrite, so I thought this was a good time to archive the talk again. -- Sam 10:39, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)
To User:Quercusrobur: I've cut out the bolded parts of the following paragraph on anarcho-punk in order to keep the 'brief history' brief! I think these parts should be mentioned later or in the anarcho-punk article.
-- Sam
What happaned to the paragraph distinguishing anarchism from anomie? I think you people that keep rewriting this whole page, are being awfully reckless. Could you make an effort to preserve the good parts of previous versions? Lirath Q. Pynnor
And what about the paragraph noting how anarchists assassinated 4 heads of state, around the turn of the century? Surely that should get noted? Goddamn it, stop overrewriting this article with your personal pet version -- try editing the page instead. Lirath Q. Pynnor
[nation-state]- I don't know what the [ ] on either side mean either- perhaps it could be explained rather rather than simply put back? quercus robur
The [ ] means the quote has been modified. Particularly in the US, but elsewhere as well, the term "state" has come to increasingly mean something somewhat different from that intended by the quote at the top of the page. I have slightly modified the quote to refer to [nation-state]; so that it is clear that he isn't adovcating some sort of Federalist policy. Lirath Q. Pynnor
User:Lir, please, which anarchists don't oppose government? -- Sam
Most anarchists do not oppose government. As the article states, anarchism is not anomie -- anarchists believe in rules, and rules are laws, and where there are laws...there is government. Many anarchists believe capital punishment should be illegal, many believe in corporate regulation, many support laws prohibiting capital interest and the possession of nuclear weapons.
If you can't grasp the idea of rules without laws, then you are not grasping the ideas of anarchists. Yes, many anarchists believe that if the state exists it should not have the right to kill its prisoners, but that does not mean they believe in law. And in fact, historically, anarchists have opposed even this kind of law-making, seeing any reform as strengthening the state and against anarchist interests.
Secondly, 'self-government' is not a parallel concept to 'government'. To say someone who supports 'self-government' supports 'government' is misleading at best. -- Sam
Self-government and democracy, community assemblies, these are all forms of government. It is your personal POV that these aren't "true government". Kropotkin liked to say that anarchists didn't use laws, they used "social contracts". Thats just semantics. Lirath Q. Pynnor
I will put words in your mouth. The most important part of discussion is to attempt to state what the other's beliefs are, without quoting them verbatim.
The only way it would be correct to state that anarchism opposes government, is if one defines government as having a hierachy. Lirath Q. Pynnor
Its only dishonest if Im being dishonest; but, since Im talking to you (and not writing a paper about you) -- it can hardly be in the least bit dishonest. If you want to define government as hierachy, I don't agree but Ill play along. Lirath Q. Pynnor
I'd love to hear what anybody (particularly any self-avowed "anarchists") think about it, but as best as I can understand philosophical Anarchism is a prime example of doublethink. While advocating communal communism (arguably an unachievable goal) a relative amount of lawlessness is advocated. But "true" anarchy (what the word is literally defined as) is apparently frowned apon by the more philosophical anarchists, and I see above some mention of laws. Laws and anarchy don't mix, if we are going to use these terms in the traditional sense. If you arn't using terms in the traditional sense, this only adds to my argument for all anarchist philosophy being doublethink, designed to lead into fascism or other totalitarian states. The only proof you need of this is all of world history up to today, and the fact that Many people, myself included, will never be happy with anything resembling equality, nor with anything other than a heirarchy, even if this is the simplist hierarchy of ability found both in true anarchy, as well as any mericratic (arguably every) system. Jack 10:15, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I believe that it is current society which is "lawless". Corporations are free to pollute, to pay whatever they want, to fire and hire at will. Governments are free to fight wars, to seize and occupy, etc. All within some so-called "limits". Lirath Q. Pynnor
No, right now we are not in a state of anarchy. Anarchy is not anomie, anarchy advocates rules of conduct. Right now these basic moral precepts are not followed by a number of powerful people. Lirath Q. Pynnor
Of course, perhaps Nature is just being lenient upon the right. Inevitably, if the right doesn't recognize the moral superiority of the left; well, then the world will go to hell in a handbasket... If you want to talk about historical records, the other thing to note is that tyrants and their empires always collapse into chaos. Lirath Q. Pynnor
Someone changed my mention of Anarchist philosophy being communist to a statement describing it as socialist. Thats simply not accurate. From what I have learned, here and elsewhere, there is little if any difference between anarchist and communist activism, politics and philosophy, except perhaps a difference of opinion over the temporary utility of a dictator (clearly heirarchical in nature!). However, as I know full well from the communism page, a communist state has never existed with a dictator (a communist state has never existed at all, and never will, God willing!) whereas many a socialist state has had one. Being that there are so many similarities betwixt theoretical anarchism and theoretical communism, I think it deserves mention. Can anyone here show me what differences there are? Both oppose heirarchy, clearly. Jack 21:40, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Your recent edits are ill-informed and biased. I only agree with one of them (the removal of the word "anarchocrat"). When I have more time, I will discuss these in depth with you. For now, I just want to ask why you removed external links that were put there as references. In fact, I'd like you to explain all the changes you made since my last edit, if you have the time. Thanks -- Sam 15:51, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
External links within the article are against wiki policy. As far as the other edits, I made ALOT of them, the vast majority of which were to removing an overwhelming pro-anarchist POV. This article is not ment to shine glowing praise opon you and your particular form of anarchism. You cannot explain the term ONLY according to your own interpretations, but rather by the inherent meaning, and its common usages, as well as whatever philosophies you may have developed. I am not trying to remove mention of your POV, just making sure that a casual reader is going to be served with useful, non-biased information. IMO more edits are needed, and editers of a variety of politics would also be helpful, as its clear from the sort of things I removed that those who have been editing this article are comfortable with allowing dubious information and strong pro-philosophical anarchist bias. BTW, I have known many anarchists, and none of them had much of any similarity to the sort of pseudo communism you appear to advocate. rather they were of the hardcore punk rock version, and enjoyed taking drugs and behaving in a disorderly manner, spray painting an A within a circle on the wall, etc... These folks have not recieved their due mention. Philosophical communist-anarchism is not what the state of anarchy is based opon in any situation I have studied, but rather the aggressive hierarchical chaotic anarchy of warlords and gunmen found in somalia at the moment, and temporarilly in many places and times, recently in albania for example. Jack 21:51, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I think I was pretty clear above that I don't agree with your interpretation of anarchy, anarchism, etc... I go by the standard definitions of every word I use (outside of occasional accidental errors). I find this to be a more successful and moral method than reinterpreting existing words to fit my own preferences, such as doublespeak. I have also made it clear above that I think that is what is being done with the concept of anarchism. I do accept that a number of people feel similarly to yourself, and while I haven’t the time, interest, or intestinal fortitude to read the books you suggest, I already agree that your interpretation deserves mention. I do however insist that the traditional meaning of the concept remain in this article. My hooligan punk rock friends were anarchists, just as those who riot after a football game, or those who engaged in combat with US forces in Somalia were anarchists. Quite simply, anyone who opposes, rejects, struggles against etc... order, is an anarchist. Order is always hierarchical, and always requires at least the presumption of potential force. I think perhaps the clearest way to explain it is that anarchism is the opposite of fascism, in fact I think it is this very extreme dissimilarity which causes the one to lead to the other. I will mention, for the sake of amusement, that I am in favor of anarchy, as a means to an end. I have seen time and time again that lawlessness and rebellion against the state, when successful, inevitably leads to the imposition of a strict and unforgivingly orderly circumstance. Jack 01:51, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Anarchists refuse to participate in party politics, firmly believing that power corrupts and that some kind of revolution (often sparked by terrorism or assassination} is necessary to overthrow the state completely. Anarchist philosophy is predominantly Communist in nature, similar in theory to Karl Marx's Dictatorship of the proletariat. While the term anarchy clearly implies chaos and a complete lack of order or cohesion, this is not generally the state desired by the more philosophical anarchists. There is however a large, popular youth movement among anarchists which does advocate a state of disorder and mayhem, similar to the current circumstance in Somalia, or periods of lawlessness throughout history.
I hold that this passage is misrepresentative of any kind of anarchist thought/praxis as I understand it. Some parts may be salvagable and indeed valid as part of a 'critisisms of anarchist thought' section, but should certainly not be placed above the table of contents. quercus robur 01:32, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
What does everyone think of my original version of the paragraph above:
My own problems with the current version, quoted at the top of this section by QR, are these:
Wow, thanks sam for lining these up for me.
Jack, I don't mind that you haven't got the time to read the books QR recommended above, but can I ask you to at least read other encyclopedia's entries on anarchism? I have read around ten to fifteen different encyclopedic entries on anarchism and they have influenced my most recent edits in particular. -- Sam 09:57, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Take a look at, for instance, these google search results: search for "anarchism encyclopedia". Note that a couple are taken from past versions of this wikipedia article (notice the same Ben Tucker quote), but others are very interesting. -- Sam 11:36, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Note for future: concise Britannica article has useful info, particularly mention of 'reemergance' of anarchism:
I've read a great number of encyclopedia entries on this subject, dating back over a decade or more. Reading encyclopedias has always been a hobby of mine. I am glad that you are doing likewise. I think this one is great
[2]
Jack 11:46, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
jack said; There is however a large, popular youth movement among anarchists which does advocate a state of disorder and mayhem, similar to the current circumstance in Somalia, or periods of lawlessness throughout history.
Sam said; #I'd like to see some specific references talking about this "large popular youth movement" because I see little of no evidence of it. There might be many people who call themselves anarchists, but I wouldn't call it popular, or a large movement. -- Sam
Jack said; :# Two words, Punk rock.
I appreciate your most recent edit to the article. While you did in some ways minimize the intensity of the allegations of violence, I think your edit was modest, and respectful of the truth. Despite the chaotic image of this page, I think we will be able to get it into good working order within time. Do you in anyway think of the wiki as an example of successful anarchism? I think of it as more of a benevolent dictatorship ;) Jack 09:32, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
On another note, I would like to see the (in my eyes fairly obvious) connection between hierarchy and violence discussed. The contradiction between the pascifism expoused by some anarchists, and the overwhelmingly violent image the concept suggests to the mind of the general public (due to both historical and current events) needs a great deal more time spent dwelling on. IMO any act of violence is necessarilly hierarchical; even if it ends inconclusively it was still an attempt at gaining dominance (violently demanding freedom is still an attempt to enforce ones dominance, even if only momentarilly). It has been generally held thruout history that the power of a given state is best judged in its ability to defend itself from threats abroad, and to enforce its will opon its own citizens. In truth, I do not know of any society which ever has had as its basis voluntary association for any length of time after its foundation, certainly not Communism!. ;) Jack 11:45, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Seperately, the difference between meeting and gathering is fairly slight, and while the impression that I got was that it was in no way a regular, official meeting, but rather a demonstration or gathering (or maybe festival of sorts?) I'm not going to make any particularly strong fight over that wording at this time, being that I don't think it creates much of a misunderstanding of the event. Jack 00:25, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
The incredibly biased statements currently passing themselves off as part of wikipedia on this page have no justification. First, there was an unjustified rewrite of the entire article on the 27th of Dec. The article wasn't bad, but I didn't see any marked improvement over the previous version. I don't know why such a drastic measure was called for, especially given its degeneration since, nor do I think it is appropriate given the number of people who contributed over a long period of time to the previous version. Much worse than this rewrite, whoever is tacking on these interpretive statements to the text clearly has very little understanding of anarchism and has arrived here only to speculate about their own ignorance publicly on a page meant to educate. The following statements are prime examples. I'm going to leave all of this up for discussion for a bit, but unless some serious reworking is done here I think it is quite justifiable to revert back to the pre-Dec 27 version which demonstrated itself to be far more stable and far less biased.
Anyone who opposes the concept of the state is considered an anarchist.
There are many who oppose the concept of the state but are not considered anarchists. Anti-state liberals are one such group. Mere anti-statism is not the only defining quality of anarchism, nor is it necessarily a sufficient condition.
Rather the word is redifined by philosophical anarchists, with the new meaning subject to debate.
This is just plain false. Philosophical anarchists often use several different definitions of the word to describe their position, but none of them are new meanings or redefinitions of some previous association with "chaos." There is no redefinition here, they are using the word according to its literal translation, "no rulers," and its association with the radicals of the French revolution. The fact that many have taken this to imply chaos is an interpretation of the position, not the basis of it.
Throughout their troubled history, various acts of
terrorism and
assassination have been associated with anarchists and their gatherings.
"Troubled" being plainly POV. The reader can decide for themselves how to interpret the history of anarchists without this bias.
Much of contemporary anarchist philosophy is
Communist in nature, similar in many ways to
Karl Marx's
Dictatorship of the proletariat.
This is worse than misrepresentation, it is outright slander. Anarcho-communists, the anarchists being described here, specifically rejected the "dictatorship of the proletariat." To compare them on these terms is dishonest. There are points on which communists agree with anarcho-communists, but this is not one of them.
While the term
anarchy clearly implies chaos and a complete lack of order or cohesion,
I could point to literally a dozen dictionary definitions which do not imply any such thing. The fact that this conception of anarchism exists is a valid fact to bring up in the article, to endorse these positions as what anarchism "clearly implies" is POV to the extreme.
William Godwin's vision of a free society published in 1793 alongside a critique of government in An Enquiry Concerning Political Justice is considered the first anarchist treatise and Godwin is credited with founding philosophical anarchism.
Some interpret Godwin as such, and there are good reasons for doing so, but this is not universal. Given that Proudhon introduced the word as a self-descriptive, and given that his position departed from Godwin's on many accounts, I'm confused as to why Godwin is being portrayed as the founder of anarchism. If we are going to go back and interpret individuals who didn't call themselves anarchists as being anarchists retroactively, why not just introduce Lao Tzu or Zeno as the originators of anarchism? But in this article they are not, and for good reason, it is speculation and interpretation. Calling Godwin an anarchist is speculation as well, as close as his ideology may have been in so many ways, it was not anarchism because anarchism as an ideology of that name did not exist at the time. The folks at Stanford can claim whatever they like, and there have been a few books which have asserted this as well, but the fact that they said it should not in itself be evidence that it is the case. Regardless, considering Godwin an anarchist requires a rereading of his own works and those of the original anarchists with the assumption that what he described set the standard of what was to follow, in other words, that a person who did not call himself an anarchist defined what anarchism was before it even existed. It is exactly this kind of twisted logic that posits anarchism as nothing more than mere anti-statism, ignoring huge parts of the works of Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin, and Tucker (who DID consider themselves anarchists), in order to do so. To call Godwin the father of anti-statism might be appropriate, to call him the father of anarchism is open to debate.
This new strand has become known as anarcho-capitalism, and owed more to classical liberalism than to previous anarchist traditions, only being politically related via individualism.
This is just odd beyond all compare. Above, Bakunin is presented as having departed from Proudhon to some extreme degree in advocating violence (there were several forms of violence Proudhon supported, and many non-anarchistic actions he engaged in himself), while here NO mention is made whatsoever of the fact that all traditions of anarchism up to this point had been explicitly anti-capitalist. Is this article going to pretend that a HUGE departure from previous anarchist theory did not take place in the attempt to consider a previously antagonistic philosophy are part of anarchism?
Traditionally however anarchists have engaged in a wide variety of techniques including terrorism and assasination in order to achieve their ends.
Not only is this the second time this is mentioned, not only is the grammar of this sentence atrocious, but this is by no means even remotely accurate. The anarchist tradition includes short periods of time during which small subsets of particular anarchist ideologies engaged in acts of assassination. This does not mean that the tradition as a whole is filled with terrorism, and the vast majority of anarchists in the past and today reject assassination politics.
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon's mutualism was to be reached by a similarly peaceful evolution of society. Later in the nineteenth century, though, revolutionaries like Mikhail Bakunin saw a need for violence to overthrow the existing society to reach anarchism; this view encouraged acts of political violence such as the assassinations of heads of state at the end of the nineteenth century, though these actions were regarded by many anarchists as counter-productive or ineffective (see "Violence and non-violence", below).
To contrast the mutualism of Proudhon and the anarcho-communism of Bakunin first and foremost based on violence is specious. There are far more qualitative and important contrasts, and Proudhon did not reject violence so far as to make this distinction totally relevant in the first place. Further, to introduce anarcho-communism as violence, and then repeat this association throughout the article as though violence is the essential part of anarcho-communism is simply biased to the extreme. Violence has a place in anarcho-communism, just as it has a place in almost all political ideologies (mutualism, anarcho-capitalism, democracy, and monarchy to name a few), it is certainly not the center piece of its philosophy.
However, their actions generaly lead to increasingly authoritarian rule and political repression across Russia and southern Europe in the first half of the twentieth century.
Do I even need to comment on this trash? Since when are anarchists to be blamed for having been killed by the communists they tried to resist?
At the beginning of the 21st century, anarchism has incorporated strong influences from the feminist and animal rights movements.
That must be news to feminists like Voltairine de Cleyre who back in the 19th century wrote on the essential role of feminism in anarchism. Feminism is not new to anarchism by any means, though arguably animal rights is.
Currently there is a reprisal of the arise of primitivism and anarcho-capitalism in the article that is not necessary. One history is plently, repetition is not needed. Similarly, there is repeat of the same points concerning pacifism, and terrorism is repeated so often as to make one think anarchists have never done anything but. And again, mention of the same protests and "sticking to non-violence" is repeated more than once, as if our goal is to bore all wikipedia readers with repetition of the same thing rather than to elucidate the subject matter. The parts on Godwin are also repeated several times.
First, let me point out that the page as it was was terrible. There was little information on it and almost no discussion. Splitting it down into "thematic articles" was a mistake, it has led to those articles being ignored and this one remaining undeveloped. The rewrite that I did was based on the previous revisions (before it was split down into subpages) and did not wipe out anything at all.
Some of your points above I agree with: there are flaws in the article as it stands and these need to be addressed. You seem most concerned about these, and rightly -- so let us amend the article. But please, consider the previous skeletal version you would be reverting to before you do anything of the kind! -- Sam 13:02, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
And am I right in thinking that you're quoting parts of the article that have already been edited out? -- Sam
Be Bold kev. I promise to be likewise. If your editing quality matches your fervor in talk, we'll all be the better for it. Jack 02:14, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Although anarcho-primitivists assert that for the longest period of human history, human society was organised on anarchist principles, there is no evidence to support this.
Kev said; NO EVIDENCE? Cripes, is anyone going to pretend that this is not the most overtly biased statement one could make? If there was NO EVIDENCE according to ANYONE why the hell would primitivists assert it? I disagree with primitivists myself on this, that does not mean there is no evidence for the position. - Kev 01/13/04
Jack replied; Where is there any evidence whatsoever for any of the foolishness which is the basis of Primivism? Honestly, what society is MORE heirarchical than that of indigenous people. Anybody ever heard of a cheif? Witch doctor? Big angry guy with a stick? All of these fellows have an awful lot more immediate say in the lives of folks in a primitive society than a president or even dictator in ours. Has anybody else ever seen national geographic? geez... Jack 04:39, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I'm sorry to say that I have alot on my plate insofar as reading goes, and those books are rather obscure. Thsi, coupled with my extreme confidence that primitavism is bunk, makes it inordinately unlikely that I will review said forgotten tomes ;) If you have something on the web I can click on, that would be cool. Otherwise I am busy with "more guns, less crime" by john lott ;D Jack 04:19, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Also, if you expect me to give any credit to sources on controvercial matters, it might be best to cite unbiased sources. I'm gonna look into other encyclopedias and so forth about primitavism, just for $#!^'s and giggles ;) Jack 04:23, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Jack, what he's saying is that there is a valid position to present, with some evidence, which means we should report it in the standard neutral way. It doesn't matter what we think of it. -- Sam
The more I read on it the less compatable it is with what you have here. For one I read about "social anarchists" being the opposite of individualist anarchists. And primitavism is alot more than anarchism, and rather than focusing on hierarchy, it simply appears to be anti-state, society, civilization, and pollution. They discuss it in relation to "green anarchism", another not mentioned here. "Many" may find anarchists to be a bunch of nutters ;), but I'd still like to catagorize them as they see fit... Jack 12:47, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Regarding the above: "Where is there any evidence whatsoever for any of the foolishness which is the basis of Primivism? Honestly, what society is MORE heirarchical than that of indigenous people. Anybody ever heard of a cheif? Witch doctor? Big angry guy with a stick?" There is a great deal of evidence, particularly concerning north american and european pre-agricultural revolution societies. They tended to be matriarchial, communalistic, and democratic. It is an incorrect POV to assume that pre-industrial society was barbarian, materialistic, and totalitarian. Lirath Q. Pynnor
What does matriarchal have to do with anarchism? And what tribe was matriarchal? I've heard of interesting checks and balances between the elder women and the cheif, but I don't know of any tribes ruled by women. Every group of humans below a certain size is communalistic. My family is "communalistic" too. Does that make us anarchists, primitive or otherwise? ;) And democracy... isn't forcing the will of the majority on an individual contrary to the principles of anarchism? Food for thought. Jack 00:25, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)