Category talk:Anarcho-communists

Communism category
I don't want to break the 3RR here so I'll bring the issue up here. Certain editors have removed this page from category: Communists. I think this should stay in there because the title says Anarchist communists and they are communist too. Kotiwalo (talk) 14:21, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

In never see an scientist, who explained that anarchists are communists.--Ingowart (talk) 14:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Just for the record this issue is mainly being settled at User talk:Ingowart. Kotiwalo (talk) 14:55, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Not any more. Moved it here after the third opinion. Kotiwalo (talk) 05:55, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Discussion to category
Hello. Anarchists aren't necessarily communists, but this is Category:Anarchist communists we're talking about here. Anarchist communists are communists by definition. Kotiwalo (talk) 14:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Give me one scientific source, please.--Ingowart (talk) 14:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * So I need to prove that anarchist communists are communists? Kotiwalo (talk) 14:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, please. In never see an scientist, who explained that anarchists are communists.--Ingowart (talk) 14:26, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Me neither, and I'm not claiming that, since that would be ridiculous (in my opinion at least). However, this is about a category or Anarchist communists, not just anarchists. Anarchist-communism is a branch of communism. I think this was just a misunderstandment? Kotiwalo (talk) 14:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Anarchist-communism is a school of anarchism, they are anarchists. Give me one scientific source, who called them communists(only).--Ingowart (talk) 14:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * They aren't mutually exclusive, so anarchist communists can be both. You changed the article - can you source why anarchist communists aren't communists? Kotiwalo (talk) 14:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I never heard the term "communists" used for anarchists. In my science-books is a strictly seperation about that and the terms. For example in "Politik-Lexikon", Hrsg. Universitätsprofessor Dr. Everhard Holtmann (see his name for example in Liste von Politikwissenschaftlern), 3. Auflage, Oldenbourg Wissenschaftsverlag GmbH, 2000--Ingowart (talk) 14:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And here's your source : dictionary definition matches anarchist communism as well. Kotiwalo (talk) 14:42, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you sure? There isn´t one word about anarchist-communism.--Ingowart (talk) 14:49, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The number one matches anarchist communism too. They seek to abolish private propery in favour of common property. And as I said before, anarchist and communist aren't mutually exclusive - a person can be both anarchist and communist. Anarchist communists are. Kotiwalo (talk) 14:53, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That´s your original research. The "chistliche Soziallehre" (f.ex. early Christianity) matches thats too. But no scientist called them communists.--Ingowart (talk) 15:01, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That is not original research. Anarchist communists seek abolition of private property and creating a communist society. The dictionary definition calls people who seek abolition of private property and creating a communist society communists. Therefore, anarcho communists are communists. Nevertheless, I'm asking for a third opinion to get this settled. Meanwhile, you could tell me why exactly they wouldn't be communists. Kotiwalo (talk) 15:06, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Because they´re anarchists. dictionary definition And i never seen a scientist who called them "communists".--Ingowart (talk) 15:08, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Why do you think that anarchist and communist are mutually exclusive? Kotiwalo (talk) 15:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Anarchists are using the term communism. But they´re no "communists", they re anarchists.--Ingowart (talk) 15:14, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You didn't answer my question - why aren't they communist? And why an anarchist couldn't be a communist too? Kotiwalo (talk) 15:16, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * In your opinion we have to say to everybody "communist", then to the early christians too. But all this persons do not called as communists, in science.--Ingowart (talk) 15:19, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "In science"? A communist is a person who is a follower of communist philosophy, like a Christian is someone who is a follower of Christian faith. Anarchist communists want to establish a communist state where everything is shared and there is no class hierarchy - what makes them not communist? Kotiwalo (talk) 15:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Anarchists never ever want to establish any "state". We have to wait to third opinion.--Ingowart (talk) 15:25, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * They can call it state, work unit, commune, society or whatever, but that isn't the point. Sure, they oppose the massive state control measures that Soviet Union or communist China and every other large-scale socialist entity had, but those measures aren't really an integral part of communist philosophy. Kotiwalo (talk) 15:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That i haven´t said.--Ingowart (talk) 15:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Give me only one scientific source, who called them "communists".--Ingowart (talk) 15:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * They match the definition of communism by seeking to create an egalitarian society that is is free of class struggle, inequality and private ownership. Isn't that enough for you? Kotiwalo (talk) 15:43, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Early Christians want thats too. But in science the anarchists and the early christians are not called as "communists", you know.--Ingowart (talk) 15:47, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Why aren't they called communist? What is the separating factor that makes early Christians and anarcho communists not communists? Kotiwalo (talk) 15:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That you have to ask the science. In wikipedia we only look up to knowledge. We couldnt say to everybody who say the word communism, thats a communist. We are only wikipedians.--Ingowart (talk) 15:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Too bad. Science says only things that can be confirmed by observation and testing. But what do you think? What is communism? What is anarcho communism? And why is anarcho communism not communism? Kotiwalo (talk) 16:00, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don´t want to make your mistake (pov and original research) too.--Ingowart (talk) 16:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

No point of view, no original research. I only say what I know and think, and that's the whole point, we are negotiating and trying to reach consensus (at least I am). Even the Wikipedia article on Anarchist communism acknowledges the fact that anarcho communism is a form of libertarian communism. They are a form of communism, like State communism and Christian communism. Not all communist systems derive from Karl Marx. If you can't explain why they wouldn't be one, you can't remove the category. Kotiwalo (talk) 16:14, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia isnt a good source. Again: We have to wait for the third opinion. Again too: Show me only one scientific! source, who called anarchist-communism a school of "communism". Do you havent found anyone?--Ingowart (talk) 16:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * They are communists because they try to establish a communist society. Kotiwalo (talk) 16:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If you are not wrong, it have to be very easy to found only one scientist, who tells something like you.--Ingowart (talk) 16:24, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think you're the one who needs sources here. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Isn't it an exceptional claim that a movement that seeks to establish a communist society isn't actually communist at all? And here's another source: an anarchist collaborative page that states that anarchist communism is communism. That isn't State communism, like Soviet Union was, and aims to offer freedom instead of slavery, but it's communism nonetheless, as it tries to create a communist society. Kotiwalo (talk) 16:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Anarkismo.net (political propaganda) yeah thats a great scientific site. Do you haven´t any books at home? Very poor.--Ingowart (talk) 16:34, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a great source, it's a group describing their agenda! So, the group states that they respect the original communism (without the Cold War slavery and State control deal), they seek to establish a communist society, and you claim they aren't communist. Talking about poor, you haven't explained why. Kotiwalo (talk) 16:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, my opinion is not a theme here. But in science, i never read thet they´re "communists" and so on. Do you have any scientific source? No?--Ingowart (talk) 16:44, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't have a source for 3013 + 602 = 3615 either but it's true anyway. A group calls itself communist, and explicitly states on their website that they respect the Marxist utopian communism. That's a source, and although it's not written by a scientist, it's valid. A group decides what message it sends to the outside world. Also, as they seek to establish communist society, they qualify under the definition of communism. It is true that they are more commonly associated with anarchism than communism, but their agenda includes all the fundamental ideas of communism. Your claim that anarchist communism is not communism needs to be sourced too, by the way. Kotiwalo (talk) 16:55, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have already said all. In my books and in the science, i never read that communist-anarchists are communists. In my book that i mentioned, see above, the schools of communism and the schools of anarchism (anarcho-syndikalism, communist-anarchism...) are strictly seperated. I never seen and heared another Way of that, in science. In wikipedia we have to discripe what in science going on. Nothing more or less.--Ingowart (talk) 17:10, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Since it's very feasible that anarchist communism is a form of communism, you would need a source that explicitly claimed that there is a fundamental difference between communism and anarchist communism. By the way, it is possible is that your books describe State communism that is commonly referred as communism since it's the best known form of communism. Anarchist communism is far from that. In any case, unless you can give a clear reason why anarchist communism is not communism, the category should stay. Kotiwalo (talk) 17:19, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, in my scientific book isn´t a confused about "states communism" and communism. But Communists are communists and anarchists are anarchists.
 * You want my opinion. Ok, you get my opinion. My personally opinion/ my pov is: Anarchists are chaots. Communists never can be chaots. Anarchists want to abolish every states-institution, immediately. (In communism no state exists, but we need a transitional society like Karl Marx/Friedrich Engels wanted). The result of that what anarchists want and do never can be communism. They´re confused that with chaos. Thats why anarchists never can be communists, in my opinion. But the science don´t take care about my or your opinions. Science is science. In science Anarchists are not called "communists". And now hould your mouth. We have wait to third opinion.--Ingowart (talk) 17:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way, lets speak Friedrich Engels: Von der Autorität, 1873: "Also von zwei Dingen eins: Entweder wissen die Antiautoritarier nicht, was sie sagen, und in diesem Fall säen sie nur Konfusion; oder sie wissen es, und in diesem Fall üben sie Verrat an der Bewegung des Proletariats. In dem einen wie in dem anderen Fall dienen sie der Reaktion."
 * =Anarchists are in service for the reactionears.--Ingowart (talk) 17:44, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't find chaotic communism hard to picture - everyone works, everyone gets fed, and disputes are solved by negotiation or violence instead of lawsuits or state intervention. No governmental or administrative jobs, just let the people do what they want. This, I have understood, is the way that an anarchist communist society works. Kotiwalo (talk) 17:58, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I am a marxist and my opinion is that anarchism is chaos. In Anachie there can not be communism. Because Communism is not chaos. The anarchist ("communist-anarchists", anarchosyndkalists...) uses only the word communism, but they´re political objective is chaos. Are you an anarchist?--Ingowart (talk) 18:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

First, what article is being considered? and what changes one side wants that the other objects? But from the discussion above, I'd like to point a few things out. political science describes human institutions that implement policy, etc. It is a descriptive art, not a science. So scientific proof in impossible. So if a group self describes as such, that should be a enough for addition to the article, regardless if the description makes sense or not. Second, there is so much hypocrisy in people's political positions that the question here is trivial it doesn't matter if, in the opinion of opponents, in practice the position would be unworkable. Objections to the motivations, or agenda of the group is irrelevant, Every political position is motivated by the desires of the group. From what I understood, Communists, in the Marxist school, want to establish a proletariat state which would abolish social classes, and after that was done, the state would become optional or minimal. Whether this minimal state is anarchy, that is a matter of opinion, and so if that's what the article informs, then it should mention that this one of the many interpretations groups hold, not necessarily what each term on its own must mean from a dictionary definition. So the term Anarchic communism is not a mutually exclusive term, any more than anarchic capitalism would be. Presenting the term as both side understand is the best solution. One editor describes the term as he understands, the other below points out whatever inconsistencies he sees on the term. Deletion altogether is unwarranted, objection to the position is irrelevant, scientific proof is impossible, the term is only a description and that what wikipedia does: describes. gorillasapiens sapiens (talk) 18:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Category:Anarchist communists. The disputed removal of content was the removing of the Anarchist Communists category from Cat:Communism, which I reverted, because I believe that Anarchist communism is a branch or a form of communism, characterized by the lack of state control over individuals. Ingowart claims that anarchist communism isn't communism at all. Could you provide a neutral opinion? Kotiwalo (talk) 18:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Anarch Communism is certainly a branch of communism by definition. The category is relevant and must not be removed. gorillasapiens sapiens (talk) 18:47, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Miscarriage. I never heard (in science) the term "communists" (only) used for anarchists, not for "anarchist-communists", not for anarcho-syndikalists, not for any other branch of anarchism! In science there is a strictly seperation between Anarchists on the one side and communists on the other side. And the anarchists don´t call themselves as "communists" in lonely term.--Ingowart (talk) 19:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * We are not using the term communists for only anarchist communists. If someone browses the category about communists, he'll see anarchist communists as a subcategory, next to other forms of communists. And you should not express your point of view in the article, you can't remove the category until we have reached a consensus to do so, which we probably won't in a while. If you remove the category before there is a consensus to do so, I'll report you to the administrators. Kotiwalo (talk) 07:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, you should respect the third opinion instead of discarding it without any productive arguments. Unless you have a clear reason why the category should be removed, it will stay. Kotiwalo (talk) 08:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Finally, Category:Communists mentions the criteria for the category. A group that identifies themselves as communists are eligible. Kotiwalo (talk) 10:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Your cheekier writing style bothers me.
 * And your original research will not be shared by some scientists. Or why you don´t found any scientist or scientific source? I have never seen such a source, which allegedly anarchist-communism/communist-anarchism would describe as a branch of communism. And there is no source like “we are "communists"“.
 * At last, by the way. Do you know libertarian Nationalsocialism (Libertarian National Socialist Green Party)? It´s a ("libertarian" =) anarchist branch of Nationalsocialism. Adios.--Ingowart (talk) 15:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, scientific source is not even needed, as Category:Communists clearly mentions that any group that identifies themselves as communists is eligible. I also have sources that support their actual communist agenda - anarchist communists meet the dictionary definition posted earlier. Also, general consensus is that anarchist communists are communists too. If you have no arguments supporting their exclusion from the category apart from your point of view which you have expresses several times, you should stop trying to argue your case here as you're just wasting my time, and yours too. Kotiwalo (talk) 15:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no source like “we are "communists"“.--Ingowart (talk) 16:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * On the website I provided, they state that they have been inspired by Marx and communism in general (although they do also state that communism went awry with the ascension of the USSR). Kotiwalo (talk) 17:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Offcourse Anarchist-communism is not a branch of marxism!--Ingowart (talk) 19:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Depends on definition of Marxism. They at least have been inspired heavily by Marxism and communism in general. But "Of course is [not] " is not a valid argument, except with mathematical subjects, where everything can be proven by calculations and there is a clear right/wrong distinction. Kotiwalo (talk) 08:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You seem not much to knowledge about Marxism. The original Marxism (Marx and Engels) differs greatly from anarchism. Marxists are for a transitional socialist society (the dictatorship of the proletariat, state) to communism. The only way communism could ever arise. The theories of Marx and Engels and the anarchists (Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin) differ decisively. Marx and Engels never wanted just an "anarchy". This term was also a negative connotation for them. Marxists are responsible for the formation of workers' parties, anarchists are against and make spontaneous actions (Direct Action). The Marxist theory "Senescence of the state" ("Absterben des Staates") is opposed to the abolition of any public institution by anarchists. In The Poverty of Philosophy Marx criticized Proudhon. Marx, Bakunin had from the international cast, because the conflict between Marxism and Anarchism revealed. So Marx would handled so with later live anarchists. In "Von der Autorität" Engels criticized the anarchists sharp..--Ingowart (talk) 18:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * So by the way Marxism is defined, no anarchist can be inspired by it? Kotiwalo (talk) 19:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, and Mussolini was inspired by Syndikalism.--Ingowart (talk) 13:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I asked for help from a Wikiproject, maybe they'll get this settled. Kotiwalo (talk) 15:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I must admit that this is one of the most ridiculous debates on wikipedia I have ever come across. The set of anarchist communists is a subset of both the set of anarchists and the set of communists. This is implicit in the term.Harrypotter (talk) 16:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, then you should consider adding this into WP:LAME, although this is not as much an edit war as a surprisingly swollen debate over a simple (in my opinion at least) matter. Kotiwalo (talk) 17:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * ...and National-Socialism was and is a branch of Socialism. This is implicit in the term!--Ingowart (talk) 19:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As the name suggests, features of nationalism and socialism are combined and interrelated to form an overall National Socialist ideology, although the combination process is neither obvious nor straightforward. Just saying. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 21:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The name doesn't matter. Consensus is that anarchist communists are communists. You are allowed to argue against consensus, provided that you do it productively, being civil and using proper arguments. I see evident signs of tendentious editing here. Kotiwalo (talk) 05:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, from what I learned in the school, the nazi party's goal was to achieve as widespread popularity as possible. That's why the chose the name - it didn't conflict significantly with any significant group. The name was more of a marketing scheme than an actual attempt to describe their agenda. I'm not sure whether this is true (I doubt any of the founders of the party/ideology are alive anymore, so we can't ask them) but at least that's what we were taught. Kotiwalo (talk) 06:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There was the political wing Strasserism in the national-socialist movement. They descripe themselves as Socialists: The Socialists left the NSDAP. So they would be Socialists, on your category-system. And for the rest-nazis, don´t forget the "25-Punkte-Programm" (25 points program) de.wikipedia Nationalsozialismus#25-Punkte-Programm. Also see the good-sourced "Szialismus"-Article part de.wikipedia Sozialismus#Nationalsozialismus in german wikipedia.--Ingowart (talk) 13:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And I also found a source that clearly states that anarchist communists are communists (in fact, just what you wanted "We are communists"). See it here. Kotiwalo (talk) 07:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You have to accurate quote, what you exactly mean from this garbled text.--Ingowart (talk) 18:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Use your browser's search function, use parameter "We are communists". The source is perfectly valid. Kotiwalo (talk) 19:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You still have to qoute from that. That´s easier. You can make copy and paste. Or do you not know about what is in the text? The text you have submitted. --Ingowart (talk) 13:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok. I'll quote the entire paragraph of text: Taking all this into account, and still more the practical aspects of the question as to how private property might become common property, most of the anarchists maintain that the very next step to be made by society, as soon as the present regime of property undergoes a modification, will be in a communist sense. We are communists. But our communism is not that of the authoritarian school: it is anarchist communism, communism without government, free communism. It is a synthesis of the two chief aims pursued by humanity since the dawn of its history--economic freedom and political freedom.
 * It summarizes the subject anarchist communism pretty well in my opinion. Kotiwalo (talk) 13:25, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That´s the cofused pov of them. But in science they don´t were called "communists", i think. My opinion is that they are not communists. Anarchist-communists are not communists, as well as national-socialists are not socialists.
 * Me as a Marxist, would like repeat the Sentence of Friedrich Engels:
 * "Also von zwei Dingen eins: Entweder wissen die Antiautoritarier nicht, was sie sagen, und in diesem Fall säen sie nur Konfusion; oder sie wissen es, und in diesem Fall üben sie Verrat an der Bewegung des Proletariats. In dem einen wie in dem anderen Fall dienen sie der Reaktion."
 * In english:
 * Therefore, either one of two things: either the anti-authoritarians don’t know what they are talking about, in which case they are creating nothing but confusion; or they do know, and in that case they are betraying the movement of the proletariat. In either case they serve the reaction.
 * (Friedrich Engels, Von der Autorität [engl:"On Authority"] in english in german, 1873) --Ingowart (talk) 15:44, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Engels might have thought so, yes. But neither Engels or Marx is the absolute truth in communism. Also note that today's anarchist movements may be radically different from those of Engels' time. Kotiwalo (talk) 15:58, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * But one thing is clear - the source supports the fact that anarchist communists are a group that identifies themselves as communists meeting the inclusion criteria for the category. Kotiwalo (talk) 16:00, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Anarchists are anarchists by definition, yesterday, today and tomorrow.
 * The Kropotkin text is also not the truth.
 * There was also no scientific source, such as these Anarchists were called as Communists.--Ingowart (talk) 16:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If you can't provide a constructive argument why the category should be removed it will stay. I'm tired of providing sources after sources and asking for external comments because you just dismiss them without any productive arguments. I have provided several sources, and you have dismissed them all because "science doesn't say so". It's the time you prove yourself right - Wikipedia works on sources, arguments and consensus - not by contradicting everything that doesn't sound right to you. Kotiwalo (talk) 16:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That´s my last comment in a discussion with a pov-warrior: There is not a scintific source for that. In science these anarchists were not classified as communists, my knowledge. You have no scientific source placed.--Ingowart (talk) 16:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That is only your opinion. I have several sources to support mine. Anarchist communists do fulfill the criteria for the category because of the latest source I provided. Kotiwalo (talk) 16:28, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Also scientific source isn't needed - see WP:SELFPUB. Of course, they will make everything sound a bit friendlier (more utopian) when writing about themselves, but they are a good source - who else could describe their political agenda better? Kotiwalo (talk) 16:31, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way, if you feel that I have been a POV-pusher or otherwise violated user conduct, use WP:RFC. Kotiwalo (talk) 16:54, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, that s stupiddpedia at it s best.--82.83.104.200 (talk) 09:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You are free to take part in the discussion but please be civil, don't call people's opinions, guidelines or policies anything stupid. Use constructive arguments instead. Kotiwalo (talk) 13:04, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Since almost a month has passed since the last message, I think the argument is over. I'll change the invisible comment to reflect this and make this entire load of text collapsible. Kotiwalo (talk) 18:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC)